New Paragraph

Police Group Support of Donald Trump
September 8, 2024

Cover Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images Newsweek

Just last week, the U.S. Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the self-proclaimed “largest and oldest law enforcement labor organization in the United States”, publicly announced their support for Donald J. Trump in the 2024 election. As a retired law enforcement officer, this sickens me.


The FOP is not a bargaining group but is a voice for police officers and given that they represent police – with over 370,000 members, the FOP is very politically influential. The general public doesn’t necessarily understand their “fraternal” role. They just see them more broadly as being “police”. Their influence should be about ensuring police agencies are well funded, sustained and that legislation supports their efforts to protect U.S. citizens.


In part, the FOP Mission Statement says: “to promote and foster the enforcement of law and order”. Is that what Donald Trump is about in any way shape or form? In my opinion, he only supports police for political capital purposes and only when they aren’t searching his home for the national security documents he denied having, or his bank accounts when investigating him for fraud. He constantly criticizes the FBI (coincidentally also a law enforcement agency), who are under the leadership of the current Director (Wray) that he appointed.


During the infamous January 6th attack on the U.S. Capital buildings which at most Trump incited and at least sat and watched on television, 140 officers were assaulted, some very seriously. Four officers who fought against the attackers have since taken their own lives. Trump has called the attackers “patriots”, said “We love you” to them and vowed to pardon those since convicted if he becomes the 47th President of the United States. This is not a man who supports police, despite scads of photographs of him smiling with his thumb up, surrounded by them in numerous photo-ops. Many of those photos nauseate me as well. They are all staged for political purposes.


In Canada, provincial legislation prevents police officers from publicly endorsing or opposing candidates in an election. Thank God. Disciplinary action would result against officers who stand up at a microphone and publicly announce their support criticism of a candidate from any party. But not in the U.S. apparently. Some Sheriffs and Police Chiefs have openly supported or vowed not to endorse various political candidates, at media events or party conventions. And in the case of the FOP, they have publicly endorsed a candidate who has already been convicted of multiple crimes; is currently charged and awaiting trial for a litany of criminal offences in several jurisdictions; was found civilly responsible for rape; has made bizarre and demeaning public statements about women; and had a close friendship with deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Think about that!


I cannot imagine what impact the FOP statement has had on the perception of Kamala Harris supporters in terms of the ability of FOP members to provide policing services and enforce the law “without fear or favour”. It’s bad enough that having a bumper sticker or front lawn sign that indicates a voter’s support of an opposing candidate may result in damage to property or physical assault from cult-like supporters in the U.S., but do those that support Harris now have to fear the police too?


I know that may be a far-fetched assertion, and I know that the vast majority of FOP members are just honest cops that would always do their jobs in a fair and unbiased manner, but public trust in law enforcement is key, and this FOP announcement may well hurt trust in policing among half or more of the U.S. population. It is also important to note that although the FOP President speaks for the entire membership, I don’t believe for a second that all 370,000 of the members agree. The majority may not, but only a few have spoken up in disagreement.


Adolf Hitler liked to see police in photo-ops as well. Pictures of German civilian police officers patrolling the streets shoulder-to-shoulder with SS soldiers in WWII did nothing to enhance the trust of the fearful public that they had anywhere to turn for protection from the initial violations of civil and human rights and on to the horrific atrocities perpetrated. He also placed the civilian police agencies under the command of the same General that the SS soldiers reported to. Mind-boggling for sure, but that’s what dictators do. They also try to convince the public that any news organizations that criticize them are “fake media”, and those that laud them are to be trusted and believed. I’m glad Trump doesn’t do that. Oh wait…

By Chris Lewis January 4, 2025
Police know how to conduct major investigations and find bad guys. Although several specific factors change from case to case, their general investigative playbook remains the same. Once some ungodly multi-victim attack occurs, in very simplistic terms: the scene is protected, and the health of the living victims is looked after. Forensic experts begin processing the crime scene. Witnesses are located and interviewed. Physical evidence is gathered. Area and witness video recordings are collected and analyzed. Victims are identified. An off-site reunification centre is established where there are multiple victims. Next of kin notifications begin. At any point – if a suspect or suspects become known, their background is gathered, and the hunt begins. They need to be apprehended before anyone else is hurt. Area law enforcement officers need to know suspect details ASAP. “Motive” is at top of mind as investigators are synthesizing all this information, whether the suspect is identified or not. Of course, establishing motive often leads to identifying the suspect, but at other times identifying the suspect helps fill in the blanks on motive. What was the initial basis of what became a murder? Was it a robbery? Could it have been a street fight gone bad? Was it simply a want or need to kill someone specific or maybe anyone at all? That’s for investigators to sort out. There is an onus to warn the public or at least tell them something, i.e. “ongoing threat”, “stay indoors”, or “no threat to public safety”. There are reporting protocols to follow. Senior officers need to be advised up the food chain as do their political masters, so everyone knows what is happening. None of that should detract investigators from doing what they do best – catching killers. But that’s when the ravenous “thirst for knowledge” and political grandstanding often take over and completely interfere with police work. The only knowledge the investigators are thirsty for in those early hours is evidence and then identifying, locating and capturing bad people. They do not need politics monopolizing their time or efforts. The New Years Day massacre in New Orleans was big. Fourteen innocent party goers were killed and dozens injured. The world wanted to know what happened and the community wanted to know if they were in danger. I absolutely get that. However, what sometimes comes with such tragedies is everyone wanting to know everything. We see it in most mass murder cases, but this was an exceptional example of the insanity surrounding such a high-profile incident. Whatever blanks weren’t immediately filled in by police officials and verified mainstream media reports, were filled in by social media. In such cases police totally lose control of the narrative as rumours, theories, falsities, conspiracy theories and “hey look at me” games take over. The political party and individual positioning in this case was nauseating. In any multi-agency response, having the leaders of those agencies at press conferences in a united front makes sense. The public needs to have confidence that the situation is in the best of hands. But where did these massive press conferences where police officials are flanked by numerous politicians come from? I can see some elected leaders being present when a new program is launched or government funding is being announced, but it should never be in the early hours of a mass murder. Having a bunch of partisan wonks peacocking on stage and in follow-up interviews, helps no one at the operational level. As some of them were speaking, I was responding to their dumb questions in my mind: Was it a terror attack? Maybe, but let the experts figure that out. In the meantime, it’s a mass murder. Was the killer an illegal immigrant? Let’s worry about that when the dust settles. What political party is to blame for allowing him into the country? We don’t care. Maybe he was born here. Let’s sort that out if he turns out to be an illegal immigrant. Why wasn’t the area more secure? Good question for a future debrief. We need to get the FBI and HSI leaders before a government committee right away so we can find out who failed! Shut up. We have police work to do. There are always enough social media theories, private citizens’ investigations into suspects, outright lies and misinformation being spread to the public, without silly partisan games sidetracking investigators who are fighting to stay ahead of legitimate theories and tips. In the early hours of a mass murder case investigators are probably the busiest they have ever been, and don’t need any of this interference. Controlling the social media fever is next to impossible. It would take a sudden level of maturity across the populace that may be unattainable. But politicians at all levels need to get the message that they are not welcome on stage at operational press conferences and their comments to the media – if asked for them – aside from expressing sadness, thoughts, prayers and confidence in the police, should be “Our law enforcement agencies are investigating, and we need to let them do what they do.” Adding any theories, raising questions or passing blame is totally wrong. If elected officials truly care about their electorate and feel the need to say more, they should have some prior dialogue with the police leaders or their Public Information Officers to ensure that what they say is helpful as opposed to harmful. Otherwise, be quiet.
By Chris Lewis December 28, 2024
Violent Crime Remains High
By Chris Lewis December 20, 2024
$1.3 billion is a lot of money, but it’s nothing more than a good start.
Share by: