Bad and Good news for policing

Got some good news, and some bad news, on policing. Nothing is perfect. So, let’s take a look at the bad news first. 

 

First, from the former Windy City, now the Blowing Town, Chicago IL.  Previously one of the great metropolises in the world, The City of Big Shoulders, the Great Commercial Tree. It, like the formerly great state of Illinois, is having people run like hell out of it. Last ten years it’s lost almost three hundred thousand people. Within ten years is expected to be the fourth largest city in the US, after my adopted hometown of Houston, which has gained over two hundred thousand people since 2022. 

 

Despite the Democratic gains in the last few elections, Houston is a relatively pro-law enforcement community. The judges on our bench are a disaster (blue wave election in 2018), but we’re not as bad as New York, New Orleans or Los Angeles. So, again, would I want to be a cop in the Sucky City? Not looking at this (emphasis mine): 

 

Proposed Chicago Police Policy Does Not Prohibit Pretextual Stops

​

Chicago police officers would not be banned from making traffic stops based on minor registration or equipment violations that are designed to find evidence of “unrelated” crimes, under a new policy unveiled Thursday by Chicago Police Department leaders.

 

The proposed policy “acknowledges” that what the department calls “Pretextual Traffic Stops can be perceived by some members of the community as negative, biased or unlawful, WTTW reports. Therefore, any such use of lawful Pretextual Traffic Stops as a law enforcement or crime prevention strategy must strike a balance between identifying those engaged in criminal conduct and the community’s sense of fairness.”

 

…Advocates for police reform have long urged the department to ban pretextual stops, saying their use does not make Chicagoans safer and have been used by CPD officers to target Black and Latino Chicagoans.

No kidding. I’ve worked the streets most of the last 26 years and yes, pulling someone over is often used to look at what’s going on in a car. For example, if a car is swerving side to side but within the divided lines, has the driver committed a crime? No. However, it is suspicious they cannot drive straight and it may be indication of the driver being impaired (alcohol, drugs, etc.) and a hazard to the public. Or it  may be a sign the driver is trying to control the three kids in the back seat. Either way, it’s prudent for a cop to stop them (reasonable suspicion, not probable cause)  to insure the driver can safely operate a car. 

 

The ”advocates” for police reform want police not operating at all. They were the ones who screamed for police defunding, will make every effort to prosecute a cop who makes a split-second decision of the use of force, will threaten a cop’s family, and destroy police equipment and other faculties. All in the name of “making Chicagoans safer.” 

 

Yes, it works simply. I stop you for an expired registration, I run your driver’s license, it comes back with a traffic warrant, you’re booked. While I’m inventorying your car or searching you, I find the stolen pistol you have. Wait, you’re a convicted felon, you can’t possess a firearm, that’s another felony, so your parole is violated, the gun is recovered (either returned to the owner or destroyed), and you’re taken off the streets where you terrorize the law-abiding citizens. Oh, the fact you got stopped prevent you for conducting the aggravated robbery you were planning on at the cell phone store, and crime goes down.  

See how that works “advocates for police reform?” Yes, you understand, but don’t care. They live in gaged communities and employ private security yourself, or if you’re a city official, you may have taxpayer provided security. 

 

Something else. In the early 2000s, I went to roll call. Our shift commander had just come from police headquarters, where a “racial profiling” system was briefed. It had been created overnight, beginning immediately, in every self-initiated activity (e.g., traffic stops, street interviews) we must document the race, sex, why we stopped them, and the outcome (warning, ticket, arrest, etc.). If you stopped one-hundred white males and ticketed fifteen, then you should also ticket fifteen of the black males. If your numbers didn’t synch, I quote, “You can be investigated, suspended, terminated, criminally charged by the locals and the feds, even subject to civil liability…” 

 

Now go out there and do a good job. This was before automation, so we had to turn in a form with our daily work card. Self-initiated actions dropped immediately. Cops in roll call would fill out their racial profiling form (name, payroll number, unit) and then put a big “0” in the center. Traffic tickets dropped over 60% in a week. Within a month “clarifying guidance” was issues and the threats were removed. 

 

The point? You threaten cops, they will not go on a limb for anyone. Police work, to be effective, must be assertive. The cops have to go out, see the usual suspects they know are causing problems, notice they are “carrying heavy” on their right coat. You stop for an interview, pad them down, discover the outline of a pistol, arrest them for unlawful carry, and send them back to prison where they cannot commit crime on the general public. 

 

Well, onto the better news. President Donald Trump has started some actions to assist law enforcement. The war on the cops from Obama and O’Biden had a four-year cease fire from 2017 to 2021. Now we have some good news:

 

Trump signs executive orders to boost officer protections, target ‘sanctuary cities’

 

The first executive order, Strengthening and unleashing America’s law enforcement to pursue criminals and protect innocent citizens, directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to “Maximize the use of federal resources to improve officer training,  pay, benefits, legal protections, seek tougher sentences for crimes against police, enhance prison capacity, 

‘Improve uniformity in crime data reporting,’ review/reevaluate federal consent decrees and other out of court orders, expand the use of surplus military equipment.” 

 

The second order instructs Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to publish a list of sanctuary jurisdictions and withhold federal funding from those identified. The order also authorizes potential criminal investigations into alleged violations such as obstruction of justice and conspiracy to impede federal law enforcement... 

New York may have problems paying for the defense. They need to keep the illegal aliens in four/five-star hotels. 

 

Progress. Again, cops don’t trust politicians, and we know all this can change at the next election. But better to have someone actually supporting law enforcement, not attacking it at every chance. 

 

For the education bureaucracy, it's a matter of trust.

 A matter of discussion I’ve had many times, “Who does a bureaucracy work for?” In this case, who does the public school system work for? It’s  not who most people think. 

It’s not the students. They are the consumers of the efforts of the public school system, a (hopefully) good education. It’s not necessarily the parents. Not knocking them, an involved parent is a critical part of the education process. Mom and dad review their child’s efforts, insure they do their homework, support the educators in their works. Teamwork. 

The public school system, like every other public bureaucracy, works ultimately for the taxpayer. I say that because the taxpayer is the one paying the bills for the service, be it police, fire, roads, or education. I paid school taxes for over a decade before I became a step-father and had two girls enrolled, so I was supervisor of the school system. As such, the taxpayers have every right to see how that money is being used. 

I saw this article a few weeks back in the Houston Chronicle, and I’m not sure to find this an example of bureaucratic arrogance, or just incomprehension of the facts. 

Senate bill that cedes school library control is overkill

By Sara Stevenson

Sara Stevenson, a former middle school librarian, was Austin ISD’s first Librarian of the Year in 2013.

What is it that motivates school librarians? As a former middle school librarian, I can tell you it’s that moment of connection when you find the right book for the right child…

Unfortunately, Senate Bill 13, which aims to protect students from “harmful materials,” replaces the judgment of the school librarian with the authority of something called a local school library advisory council. This committee, appointed by the school board, must consist of at least five members, a majority of whom are volunteer parents who do not work for the district, but may also include non-voting educators, community members and even clergy. Its purpose is to approve all library books purchased or donated, classroom books, and even books weeded from the collections. The list must then be sent to the school board for approval. The council is required to meet only twice in a school year.

Yes Ms. Stevenson, volunteer parents, non-voting educators, community members and even clergy are all stakeholders in the education of the children. In case you missed it, they are your boss. I get that a lot on the street, but let’s go on. 

That means it’ll take ages to get new books on the shelves — and that’s a problem. When a new book in a popular series is coming out soon, kids check every day: “Is it here yet?” Because my district trusted my professionalism, I had the freedom to order that book so that it arrived on publication day…

You did, as did others. Bureaucrats abused that privilege by putting into schools’ books inappropriate for children, such as publications pushing LGBTABCDEFG etc. to six-year-olds. Senate Bill 13 is not a perfect solution, but it would be unnecessary if schools, libraries, etc. concentrated on reading, basic science, mathematics, etc., and not teaching about (not sure if this is the current number) 72 genders. 

…If the local school library advisory council and then the school board must approve every book on each school’s book orders, and the lists must be posted for thirty days before books can be purchased…

Senate Bill 13 throws a wrench in the library book acquisition system...

…The law requires little of these councils of parent volunteers, other than that they meet at least twice a year. In contrast, Texas requires school librarians in Texas to hold a master’s degree, have at least two years of teaching experience, and be trained in collection development. Librarians know intimately their school’s students, the community, the teachers and the curriculum. That allows them to make the best choices.

My grandmother was a public librarian for years and only a high school graduate. She also knew to segregate children to age appropriate reading material. As a first grader, you got Cat in the Hat, not mommy porn or other explicit material. Also you don’t know what’s best for students. It’s the parents, and you have no business saying you do. 

Ms. Stevenson, recently parents discovered school bureaucrats telling children they can change their “gender,” name, pronouns, and what restroom to use. School officials said they are under no requirement to tell the parent, much less ask. They seem to forget parents are responsible for child upbringing, not bureaucrats, elected or not. Yes, they are. Those are not their children, but the parents kids. Also, if a school has money to purchase a breast binder for an adolescent girl, they have too much money. 

Other problems, in the aftermath of the COVID epidemic, millions of parents actually saw what children were being taught in school and were horrified. Transgenderism is not something for a first grader, but many educators thought to. Basic mathematics have been around for thousands of years, but educators believe this is outdated and requires “New Math,” or “friendly numbers”:

Say you want to add two-digit numbers. The old-school way millennial parents were taught involved putting one on top of the other and carrying, if necessary. Now, students are encouraged to rethink how they arrange the numbers. Moldavan gives the example of 41 + 29. You could rewrite 29 as 30, which is a rounder, "friendly number." Then, you turn 41 into 40 (also "friendly"). You've subtracted 1 from 41, and added 1 to 29, so that cancels out. And now you have your product: 70.

No, we want elementary students to be taught basic mathematics, as well as English reading, comprehension, and grammar, as this is the building blocks of future learning. Whatever the subject (history, science) being able to read, write and comprehend the English language is critical. That is what the customers of the public school system require, the taxpayers, whether they have children enrolled or not. 

Though the requirements of an advisory council and waiting period may not be too onerous in a small Texas district, it will be nearly impossible for large districts to comply...

And it demands that we put a lot of trust on the handful of parents on the committee — but not on students’ parents in general. Since parents are overwhelmingly the most important influence in a child’s life, why don’t schools suggest that concerned parents talk with their children about what books they’re reading and checking out? Who knows your child better than you do?

You don’t say the parents need to be concerned with what their children are reading. Looks like a lot of them are, as well as other issues in public schools. Yes, it’s a matter of trust, to borrow the words from Billy Joel. The education bureaucracy, particularly in large city schools, has shown itself unworthy of the trust of the public, or parents. You and other bureaucrats needs to relearn that, which is not easy. I don’t know the author, but he said it well, “Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair.” That is your challenge. Good luck.

Fellow writer at The American Free News Network had a great piece here on how many who wear a badge suffer in silence. Cops (like firefighters and EMTs, as well as military veterans, often experience traumatic incidents during their service. What one person may consider a one a year to one a decade event (accidents with major injuries) are a day's work for a cop or EMT on the street. You put up a brave face, but it does build up. And not having an outlet is bad for the men and women in the uniform, and the people they serve. 

With that as an introduction, is Mr. Manney's piece. I think you'll find it insightful.  

The Weight Behind the Badge: When Our Guardians Suffer in Silence

April 8, 2025 by David Manney

“The best way out is always through.” — Robert Frost.

But what happens when there’s no way out or one to lead you through?

They do not die in shootouts, in car chases, or at the hands of violent criminals. They die alone, often in silence, by their own hand. And they do so at an alarming and increasing rate. These are not isolated incidents or statistical flukes. They are clear, grim warnings about a system that protects the public but too often neglects its protectors.

Between 2016 and 2022, over 1,200 law enforcement and corrections officers in the United States died by suicide. That’s more than 184 officers per year, with 2019 marking the highest count at 234. And those are only the reported numbers. The true toll is likely higher, obscured by stigma, silence, and a system that struggles to face its wounds.

The numbers are not confined to a single department or state. They are widespread, from New York to California, urban precincts, and rural sheriff’s departments. In Wisconsin, for instance, the suicide rate for the general population rose by 38% between 2000 and 2021, with nearly a thousand lives lost in a single year. While data specific to officers in the state remains scarce, there is every reason to believe they are far from immune.

So the question must be asked plainly: Why are the men and women behind the badge taking their own lives in such numbers? And perhaps more damning, why isn’t anyone talking about it?

A Culture of Stoicism at a Deadly Cost

The answer begins with a culture that both lionizes and isolates. Officers are trained to be strong, to handle trauma with composure, and to respond to domestic violence, overdoses, suicides, and murders without faltering. They are expected to witness the very worst of human behavior and return home as if it had never happened.

But trauma does not evaporate. It accumulates. Every cry of a battered child, every corpse found in a lonely field, every anguished mother screaming over a body, they stay. They weigh. And when there is no place to set that burden down, it begins to crush.

Studies show that police officers experience depression at nearly twice the rate of the general population. They are also at increased risk for PTSD, substance abuse, and anxiety. Yet, in too many departments, vulnerability is mistaken for weakness. Seeking help is quietly discouraged. Some fear losing their firearm access, their job, or the respect of their peers.

This cultural flaw is not a matter of political correctness; it is a matter of life and death.

A Deafening Silence from the Media

Equally troubling is the near-total absence of a national conversation. When an officer is killed in the line of duty, headlines mourn, vigils are held, and departments rally. But when an officer dies by suicide, there is often only a brief mention, if that. No public memorial. No flags at half-mast. No national outrage.

And why not?

Is it because suicide doesn’t serve a narrative? Because it challenges the simplistic portrayal of law enforcement as either heroes or villains, with no room for human suffering? Or is it simply because this topic is too uncomfortable, too complex, too unresolvable for a culture addicted to quick fixes and clickbait?

This silence serves no one. It certainly does not serve the officers still here, still carrying the load, still wondering if they, too, might one day become another hidden statistic.

We Owe Them More

There is no excuse for continuing down this path. We must act with real, institutional change, not with performative gestures.

We need consistent, national data collection. The 2020 Law Enforcement Suicide Data Collection Act was a good start, but data without accountability is just a spreadsheet. Departments must report, analyze, and act on these numbers.

Mental health resources must become as integral as weapons training. Peer support programs, anonymous counseling, and wellness checks must be standardized across all departments and not treated as optional luxuries.

We need a cultural shift. We must destigmatize emotional struggle. Officers should be praised, not punished, for seeking help. Leadership must model this from the top down.

The media must do its part. There should be no shame in these deaths, only tragedy. Let the public see the full cost of the badge. Let us mourn the fallen in action and the fallen in silence.

We say we back the blue. We put stickers on our cars and hang flags in our yards. But what do those gestures mean if we ignore the mental wounds they suffer in our name?

A nation that refuses to care for its guardians does not deserve their protection.

The men and women who wear the uniform deserve better. They deserve our respect not only when they stand tall but also when they need to lean on others. And they deserve to be remembered not just for how they died but for everything they endured while trying to live.

Behind every badge is a human being, a father, a daughter, a friend, who straps on armor each day, not just to face bullets but to shield us from the things we hope we never have to see. And sometimes, they pay a price far greater than any medal can acknowledge.

The truth is hard, but it must be spoken: Some of our bravest do not fall in battle. They fall alone, with no enemy in sight, only memories that won’t let go.

Their sacrifice is no less honorable. Their pain no less real.

And their silence, if we continue to ignore it, will one day become ours.

Much Adu About Nothing. The Signal Scandal.

The recent disclosure of a Signal thread by high level officials shows sloppiness, but not unauthorized disclosure of classified information. 

The usual suspects are screaming about a compromise of a classified war plan by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, among others. Now people who should know better are screaming about the compromise of “classified” information on an unsecure network (paging Mrs. Bill Clinton).  

 

In handling similar issues over the years, I’ve learned to calm down, investigate the matter, obtain the facts, then go forward. First, look at the source. Jeffrey Goldberg and The Atlantic are known Trump haters, facts be damned. More on that later. 

 

It is useful define what is classified information? It’s information or assets secured to protect the nation’s security. There are three basic levels, in order: 

 

CONFIDENTIAL: Unauthorized disclosure will cause damage to the nation’s security, such as unit radio call signs (they are changed at least regularly).

 

SECRET: Unauthorized disclosure will cause serious damage to the nation’s security, such as most national defense plans or intelligence agency budget plans.  

 

TOP SECRET: Unauthorized disclosure will cause exceptionally grave damage to the nation’s security, such as technical specifications of weapon systems or intelligence assets. 

 

Also, what makes something classified? An office holder must, by statue, have Original Classification Authority. They are authorized by the president to declare information or items classified. The National Security Advisor,  Secretaries of State, Defense, or the Attorney General can classify up to and including TOP SECRET. The Secretaries of Agriculture, HHS, or Transportation can classify up to and including SECRET.  

 

Now, let’s look at Mr. Goldberg’s claims. He states he knew about the March 15^th attack on the Houthi. Did he?

The world found out shortly before 2 p.m. eastern time on March 15 that the United States was bombing Houthi targets across Yemen.

I, however, knew two hours before the first bombs exploded that the attack might be coming. The reason I knew this is that Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had texted me the war plan at 11:44 a.m. The plan included precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing.

 

This was precise information about targets? No question it was the Houthi, who had been attacking our shipping for years from Yemen, are in Yemen. So is it a surprise we would be attacking the Houthi in…Yemen? But looking at these two screenshots I don’t see the work Yemen mentioned once. So what are the targets specifically. His article has two screen shots from the thread and I don’t see the word Yemen mentioned once. The word Yemen is mentioned twice in this article, once in the introduction. So how did Mr. Goldberg get specific insight into our targets? Sounds like a spy in 1943 England informing the 3^rdReich, “The Allies are planning an invasion of Europe.”

Weapons, ok, there is a list of weapons. The F/A-18 has been our primary Naval aircraft since 1999. We have been using drones such as the MQ-9 Reaper have been used for over 20 years, and the Reaper has been used in Middle East and Afghanistan for attack and intelligence collection for over a decade. Again, it’s like being shocked B-17s are flying out of England to bomb the NAZIs during World War II. 

Timing, yes, he did get advanced notice of about two hours. Was this operational information for our enemies? I doubt the attack time was set four months ago, or one year ago (attacking our enemies was not the priority of the O’Biden administration). Bit of an OPSEC violation, yea. Especially if the NSA put on a high level distro list a radical leftist propagandist. We got enough people leading sensitive/classified information to our nation’s enemies (e.g., The New York Times). We don’t need to give it to them directly. 

But the question still remains, can we take this as the full story? I say that because Mr. Goldberg has not released every screen shot, only two he chose to put out on his magazine website. Not that we don’t trust you sir, but…

You lied about the Russian Collusion Hoax. A discredited narrative that was based on opposition  research from the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign. 

You lied about President Trump calling fallen soldiers “suckers and losers,” relying only on “anonymous sources,” in spite of over 20 people who were present refuting it, including John Bolton. Mr. Bolton it’s safe to say is no friend of Donald Trump.

Under your “leadership” Mr. Goldberg, The Atlantic has pushed one piece of leftist propaganda after another, such as Jussie Smollett and the Charlottesville “very fine people” comment, which was taken out of context.

So no Mr. Goldberg you’re not give then benefit of the doubt. Or suspension of disbelief for that matter. My first boss in the Army was a great officer and man, and on day one he gave me his expectations for his new lieutenant. First, “You lie to me, you’re dead!” I take it you didn’t get kind of advise at journalism school.

 

If you want to read  the full article, it’s linked here.