I have been incredibly blessed with opportunities in my life. It started with where I was born and who my parents were. I didn’t control that, but the gift led to other opportunities and incredible blessings along the way.

When I started my law enforcement career, I never thought about doing anything other than being a police officer. Early in my career, I lived for EVOC training, and when I saw some success at my agency, I decided to set up a website to help others. Unknown to me, in the early days of the internet, that website was the first of its kind. That led to working on the same topic for Police1 for over 10 years and traveling the globe speaking on it.

Subscribe now

In 2010, I co-founded the Below 100 Program and watched as dozens of states mandated the training. As I progressed through the ranks at my agency, I became increasingly concerned about the state of leadership in the profession, and when Dallas Sergeant (ret.) Keith Wenzel told me to stop complaining and get to work. I launched Courageous Leadership.

I’ve been speaking on that topic for well over a decade, and, wild enough, the book I wrote in 2019 is still being discussed, and frankly, I believe that God would plant me on that single topic for years to come.

This Is Not A Shift…It’s An Expansion

That belief is why I avoided the topic I am about to discuss for many years. As a rookie officer, Sergeant Jim Clark exposed me to pre-attack indicators and the value of recognizing human behavior to increase officer safety. It was standard training in 1994, but Jim always made a point of reminding me of it, and it saved me many times over the course of my 30-year career.

A decade ago, I added a course called “Seconds For Survival” and traveled to 40+ states teaching it. I never saw it as a primary course, and I often paired it with a second day of Courageous Leadership to keep discussing leadership topics.

A few years ago, I started noticing a trend in the class. Many officers had never heard of the concepts, and a year ago, a student told me he wasn’t sure he could act on behavior cues because his chief would likely fire him. Shortly after that, I was contacted by a few lawyers defending cops who had used legal force, but administrators were ignoring the decisions being made based on the pre-attack behavior of the suspect. Apparently, force would only be authorized AFTER an officer got brutally attacked.

I wasn’t sure why I endured the pain of pursuing a doctorate a few years later, but with the words of Sgt. Wenzel in my ears, I decided to do something about it and use some of the skills I’d learned to document existing research in the area.

It didn’t exist.

Don’t misunderstand, there’s plenty of research on human behavior and pre-attack indicators of violence. Extensive research has been conducted to validate pre-attack behavior among clinicians, corrections, nurses, doctors, and even EMTs.

It just wasn’t there for law enforcement.

And you guessed it. Unlike what some in law enforcement are being told, those other professions are not being taught to turn into a Chick-fil-A employee when they observe them.

Safety Is Leadership

I fought doing what needed to be done for some time because, for me, every day is about pushing leadership. It’s the answer to everything I spent so many years telling others, but I wasn’t listening to my own advice.

I’ve spent the last several months doing the most exhaustive study on officer attacks that has ever been done, and I have discovered that there is a reason why officer assaults have increased every year since 2020 and are more than double what they were a decade ago.

It seems the profession is not following the advice I received from Sergeant Jim Clark many years ago and is often being trained to do the exact opposite.

Field Observable Cues for Unknown Situations (FOCUS)

I have developed a certification course that goes far beyond a typical pre-attack human behavior course. Stop and watch the video below as an example.

There’s no question, the officer recognized the danger (asked about weapons), but without a solid, research-based approach to pre-attack indicators, it feels like instinct, and in today’s environment, there will be hesitation to act solely on a feeling.

I found 8 cues (sentinel cues) in the research that have a high probability of violence, and many others that, when taken in context, must be considered. The video shows some obvious ones, but I had no idea that prior to the attack, 31% of the suspects “walked away.”

Since I didn’t know it after 30 years in the training industry, I doubt this officer knew it either.

That is going to change!

What Is FOCUS

It’s too detailed to include everything here, but the certification will provide officers with a validated method for documenting their observations and actions using the FOCUS Risk Index™. It is research-driven and will provide the confidence officers need to take action early rather than late.

This is just the beginning of what I believe God has handed me to provide the profession for years to come. We're conducting additional research, including peer-reviewed journal involvement, and we will provide agencies the opportunity to develop their own trainers so every officer can mitigate violence.

I Need Your Help

First, thank you for following my work over the years, and please understand that this isn’t a replacement for my work in Courageous Leadership…It’s just another aspect of it. It will take courage to challenge the status quo that has made the profession more dangerous than ever and to adopt a research-driven approach to safety. I will continue to speak and write about leadership and discuss this important topic along the way.

It’s time to get the training to as many as possible, so if you want to host it, please contact me at: https://focuscertified.com

Lastly, I did not get here alone. From Sgt. Clark to many in between and those I am speaking to today, this is moving forward because of them.

I’m not sure how I find myself in this position, but I will not take the responsibility lightly. I welcome your prayers and anything you can do to help push this to those who desperately need it.

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals worldwide. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.

“But they were urgent, demanding with loud cries that he should be crucified. And their voices prevailed. So Pilate decided that their demand should be granted. He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, for whom they asked, but he delivered Jesus over to their will.” — Luke 23:23-25 (ESV)

Pontius Pilate knew the truth. He said it out loud. Three times.

Standing before a hostile crowd with the power of Rome behind him, the governor of Judea looked at Jesus of Nazareth and declared him innocent. Not once as a passing remark, but three separate times as a matter of official record. In Luke 23:4, he told the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no guilt in this man.” When that did not satisfy them, he sent Jesus to Herod to get a second opinion, and came back with the same verdict in verse 14: “I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him. Neither did Herod.” When the crowd still would not relent, Pilate tried a third time in verse 22: “I have found in him no guilt deserving death. I will therefore punish and release him.”

Three declarations. Three opportunities to hold the line. And then, after all of it, he folded anyway.

Luke’s phrase is the most damning description of failed leadership in all of Scripture: “their voices prevailed.” Pilate did not run out of authority. He did not run out of facts. He did not run out of options. He ran out of will. And when his will ran out, he freed a murderer and condemned an innocent man because the crowd demanded it.

What Pilate did that morning was not a failure of information. It was not a failure of authority. It was a failure of courage. And two thousand years later, the same failure is playing out in organizations, agencies, and institutions all over the world. The names have changed. The stakes are lower. But the pattern is identical.

A leader knows what is right. The crowd pushes back. The leader folds.

Pilate had every tool he needed to do the right thing. He had legal authority. He had political standing. He had the truth on his side, confirmed by two separate evaluations. What he lacked was the will to act on it when doing so came at a cost. The moment the crowd applied sustained pressure, Pilate stopped leading and started managing the situation. He tried to split the difference. He offered to release a prisoner as a compromise. He stalled. He outsourced the decision to Herod, hoping someone else would solve the problem for him. He proposed a middle ground — flog the man and release him — as if half a concession would satisfy people who wanted blood.

It did not. The voices grew louder. And Pilate gave them what they wanted.

Leaders today do the same thing under different circumstances. A chief knows a complaint is unfounded but sustains it anyway because the political environment demands appeasement. A supervisor watches a good deputy get thrown under the bus and says nothing because silence is easier than confrontation. They are all handing someone over to the crowd's will. The mechanism looks different, but the surrender is the same.

We call it pragmatism. We call it picking battles. We call it reading the room. What it actually is is cowardice.

Pilate’s case is instructive because it removes every excuse. He was not uncertain about the facts. He was not confused about his authority. He did not lack information or options. Luke makes that unmistakably clear by recording three separate declarations of innocence before the final capitulation. Pilate was simply afraid of what doing the right thing would cost him. The crowd was loud. The religious leaders were threatening. The political consequences of standing firm looked worse than the moral consequences of backing down. So he made the calculation that most cowardly leaders make: he decided that his position was worth more than his integrity.

That calculation always costs more than it saves.

The leaders who bow to pressure do not just make a single wrong decision. They signal to every person watching that the organization does not operate on principle. They teach their people that truth is negotiable, that outcomes depend on who is loudest, and that the leader cannot be trusted to stand when it matters. Once that lesson is learned, it is nearly impossible to unlearn. Trust does not erode all at once. It drains slowly, through moments exactly like the one Pilate had that morning outside Jerusalem.

What would courageous leadership have looked like in that courtyard? It would have looked like Pilate saying what he already knew to be true after the first declaration and holding the line regardless of what came next. It would have looked uncomfortable. The crowd would not have cheered. The religious leaders would have been furious. There may have been consequences. But the decision would have been right, and everyone present would have known it.

That is what courage in leadership requires. Not the absence of pressure, but the decision to act rightly in the presence of it. The crowd will always have a preference. Political winds will always blow in some direction. There will always be a version of the easy path that lets a leader avoid short-term conflict at the cost of long-term credibility.

Pilate’s name has been repeated in churches around the world for two thousand years. Not as a hero but as the man who condemned an innocent person because he lacked the backbone to do otherwise. History does not remember what he preserved by making that choice. It remembers what he surrendered.

The leaders in your organization are watching how you handle pressure. They are watching what happens when the crowd gets loud, when the political environment gets difficult, when the right call is also the hard one. They are asking a question they may never say out loud.

When it matters most, will you hold the line?

Pontius Pilate had the same question in front of him. He answered it three times before he got it wrong. His final answer is still being recited two thousand years later.

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals worldwide. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.

Subscribe now

A Justified Shooting That Became a Felony Charge

On October 23, 2023, Deputy Anthony Gann of the Seward County Sheriff’s Office was involved in a deadly force incident following a high-speed pursuit that reached over 100 miles per hour. The suspect had blown through a stop sign, was fleeing law enforcement, and was later found to have been under the influence of methamphetamine. For a detailed account of the incident, read or listen to part 1 of this story.

The sheriff reviewed the incident and ruled it justified. It was within policy. It was within Deputy Gann’s training.

The district attorney sent it to a grand jury anyway.

Grand juries are not trials. There is no defense. The prosecutor controls the narrative. And in this case, according to those who reviewed the proceedings, the grand jury was never informed of Nebraska’s law-enforcement use-of-force policies. Deputy Gann was indicted on a manslaughter charge. The legal framework was the sudden quarrel statute, a heat-of-passion law applied to a uniformed deputy making a split-second use-of-force decision in self-defense and in defense of his partner and the public.

They Stripped the Defense Before the Trial Began

For two years, Deputy Gann and his legal team prepared a defense. Expert witnesses were retained, including Jeff Martin, one of the most respected use-of-force and video analysis experts in the country. With over 30 years of law enforcement experience, extensive experience as an expert witness, and as the developer of the first research-based safety system for law enforcement on pre-incident indicators of violence, I was also retained as an expert witness.

After close to a year of preparation, the defense was ready.

On the Friday before the Monday trial, the judge ruled that neither expert could testify. The policy and training that Deputy Gann was operating from were also prohibited from trial.

None of it was allowed.

The justification given in the order was that the jury did not need expert assistance to understand what they were seeing in the video. Research tells us otherwise. Approximately half of civilians presented with legal, in-policy use-of-force incidents will evaluate them as out-of-policy, not because they are dishonest, but because they lack a framework for understanding what law enforcement officers face in real time. That framework is exactly what expert testimony is designed to provide.

What the Prosecution Argued

Without the ability to present a defense built on policy, training, and expert analysis, Deputy Gann’s team faced a prosecution that argued, in open court, that a law enforcement officer has a duty to retreat.

No state imposes a legal duty to retreat on law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. These doctrines exist in some states for civilians in self-defense situations, but they have never been extended to officers whose legal obligation is to advance toward danger and protect the public.

The public would never permit sworn officers to simply run away from danger, and every cop in America has taken an oath to give up their life if that is required to protect the citizens they serve.

Anthony’s legal team attempted to submit that oath as evidence, and it was denied.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Connor established the framework for evaluating officer use of force and specifically gives deference to the split-second decisions officers must make under rapidly evolving, dangerous conditions. Without experts on the stand to expose this, the myth that law enforcement officers have a duty to retreat went largely unchallenged.

While Deputy Gann’s experts were barred from trial, the prosecution had its own expert to discuss the body camera footage. They stripped the audio from the footage so that what the jury heard, during that expert’s testimony, was not the officer’s commands, not the voice inflection that communicated genuine fear, not the context of a pursuit that had just ended in a violent confrontation. What the jury heard was gunshot after gunshot. The full audio was provided to the jury at other points in the trial, but the choice to present it that way during expert testimony was telling.

Anthony’s video expert was banned from testifying.

The prosecution also repeatedly paused, zoomed, and replayed the footage from multiple camera angles, a technique that forces a jury to evaluate a split-second decision with the benefit of unlimited review time, perfect clarity, and hindsight. I’ve seen prosecutors use still images in the same manner, and Graham v. Connor explicitly prohibits judging officer conduct through that lens.

Deputy Gann had milliseconds while the prosecution had two years and a pause button.

The Personal Cost Nobody Talks About

While the legal machinery grounded forward, Deputy Gann’s life stopped.

He resigned from the Seward County Sheriff’s Office when he was indicted. He posted bail. He paid for a defense attorney out of his own pocket. He took a job an hour and a half away because he could no longer work in the community where he had served.

His support system was gone, and he faced 20 years in prison as a newlywed.

Tiffany Yant, founder of Give Blue Hope and a personal friend of the Gann family, described sitting behind Deputy Gann’s wife throughout the trial. She watched two people carry a weight that no one around them was fully allowed to share. She watched them remain composed through a proceeding that would have broken most people. And she was there when the not guilty verdict came back, and the screams and tears finally came out.

Two years of fear and isolation could finally be released.

Deputy Gann is not in prison, but he will never be entirely free. The life he and his wife planned before October 23, 2023, no longer exists.

The Chilling Effect Is Already Happening

The not guilty verdict took two hours. Jurors hugged Deputy Gann afterward and told him they were sorry for what he had been put through. That speaks to what twelve civilians without any law enforcement training or expert guidance were able to see clearly in that courtroom.

The verdict doesn’t undo the arguments made by the prosecution or the playbook that could be used against others behind the badge. The duty-to-retreat claim, the sudden-quarrel framing applied to a uniformed officer, and the exclusion of policy and training as relevant evidence are now part of a record that can be seen by other prosecutors.

Indeed, what occurred in this Nebraska courtroom was not new. It’s happened before and will continue if courageous leaders don’t start standing up.

Every law enforcement professional who hears this story could carry it into the next decision they must make in milliseconds. They will wonder and possibly hesitate if what happened to Deputy Anthony Gann could happen to them.

What Has to Change

The public needs to understand that this is not an isolated case. This is a troubling pattern playing out in jurisdictions across the country. Officers are being charged for doing their jobs. Their defenses are being gutted. Their lives are being destroyed. And the organizations that should be screaming about it are largely silent.

Tiffany Yant is not silent. She is a civilian and the daughter of Officer Ross Bartlett, who was killed in the line of duty. She built Give Blue Hope to provide financial assistance to the families of first responders killed in the line of duty. She sat behind Deputy Gann’s wife every day of that trial because she understood that what was happening in that courtroom was an injustice and that someone needed to witness it and refuse to accept it.

The only way we fix what is broken is to talk about it, and I’m thankful that Tiffany had the courage to do just that.

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals worldwide. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.

It’s no secret that the criminal justice system is flawed, but it’s not exactly a “system.” Rather, the real danger lies in how individual decisions within the system can profoundly impact lives

The story of former Seward County Deputy Gann is not isolated, but it may surprise you to learn that law enforcement professionals can follow their policies and training and still face decades in prison. The only thing unique about this story is that it happened in Omaha, Nebraska.

Subscribe now

If this can happen there, it can happen to you, and you need to understand how prosecutorial and judicial discretion can alter the course of a career overnight.

Background

On September 18, 2023, Seward County Deputy Anthony Gann stopped Jorge Luis-Ramirez, and during the encounter, he observed paraphernalia that appeared to be from the use of methamphetamine. When Deputy Gann asked him to get out of the car, he fled the scene. The vehicle pursuit was called off, and Anthony didn’t see him again until October 23, 2023. When Anthony attempted to stop him, Luis-Ramirez fled, driving at reckless and high speeds for several minutes, including driving the wrong way on the interstate. The vehicle eventually broke down and stopped on the interstate as traffic continued around it.

Deputy Gann repeatedly ordered Luis-Ramirez to show his hands as he remained in the car, continuing to reach under the seat and in the back, and at one point partially stepping outside the car with one arm concealed. During much of the interaction, Luis-Ramirez hunched over and began manipulating something in his hand. Deputy Gann advised dispatch that he believed he had a gun and that he was loading it. His commands continued, and when his backing officer arrived, he also began giving commands and told Deputy Gann that Luis-Ramirez had a gun.

With that confirmation, Deputy Gann fired into the vehicle until Luis-Ramirez stopped moving. When they approached the car, Luis-Ramirez did not have a gun but had buried a butcher knife into his chest.

Courage

While tragic, the courts have supported a “totality of circumstances” approach to law enforcement use of force, and, in my opinion (and that of many others), the circumstances Deputy Gann faced here certainly made the use of force lawful. Seward County Sheriff Mike Nance agreed and found the use of force in policy. This case should have stopped there.

Abuse

Rather than make a prosecutorial (leadership) decision, the case was sent to the grand jury. Grand juries can operate in ways that disadvantage potential defendants, and in officer-involved cases, that dynamic can be devastating. Sol Wachtler, the former Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, explained how that is done.

In most grand jury proceedings, the defense cannot present a full adversarial case, and the prosecutor controls what evidence and framing the jurors hear. On April 25, 2024, Deputy Gann was indicted, and he soon became a former deputy with an indictment for manslaughter.

Expertise

I don’t have to explain what Anthony was going through, and I don’t have to tell you what the cost is for defending yourself on a manslaughter charge. With his family's support, a defense was mounted, and I was contacted as an expert witness. My expertise lies in the behavior (pre-attack indicators) displayed by Luis-Ramirez prior to the use of force, and Jeff Martin was retained as the general-use-of-force, human-factors, and video expert.

Training & Policy

Deputy Gann followed his policy and training as a law enforcement officer. Despite the sheriff’s policy determination and the available video evidence, the prosecution moved forward with the indictment of the ham sandwich.

But it doesn’t stop there.

Rather than present this case as it was…A police officer performing his duties, the manslaughter charge was brought under a “sudden quarrel” statute. In Nebraska, a sudden quarrel is considered a provocation that would cause a reasonable person to lose normal self-control and kill someone “in the heat of passion.”

The issue is obvious. This wasn't a bar fight or a domestic, but a law enforcement officer acting under the color of law.

Let The Games Begin

I was deposed prior to trial, and was surprised by questions that, in my view, did not reflect the controlling use-of-force standards. They also seemed uninterested in my expertise in human behavior threat detection and the significance of the suspect’s behavior in Deputy Gann's decision-making. They played the same deposition tactics I’ve seen in other cases, but at one point, an attorney appeared to agree with me when I said it would be ridiculous for a police officer to follow policy and training and then face prison time. It became clear to me that the strategy in this case may not be aligned with the realities of law enforcement.

Destruction At All Costs

On Friday afternoon, before the Monday trial, the court said that Jeff Martin and I were prohibited from testifying. The investigation by the Seward County Sheriff’s Department, Deputy Gann’s training, and policy were also limited in what could be discussed in the trial.

After all, this is just like a bar fight…a crime of passion…

I don’t need to explain to you how wrong that is and how it has nothing to do with holding law enforcement accountable. Consider the mental leaps that had to be taken to limit the ability of Deputy Gann to defend himself. Jeff and I are not experts; our testimony would not be relevant, and we would not assist the jury in understanding the evidence in the case.

Anyone who knows Jeff Martin would lose their mind right about now. First, he is a forensic video expert, and the main evidence in this case was the video. But the court simply said, “The jury can view the video for themselves and draw their own conclusions…”

Sure, no need to have any expertise to help the jury with a rapidly evolving law enforcement decision? After all, this is simply a “sudden quarrel”?

The Trial

I can’t imagine what the last few years have been like for Anthony, but far too many in the profession have had to go through it. He was facing 20 years in prison for following his policy and training.

The jury deliberated for a little over 2 hours, and Anthony was acquitted. Some of the jurors waited in the hallway for Anthony to express their apology for what he had to go through.

Next Steps

Anthony will have to rebuild his life, and it will never look the way it should. His story is a stark reminder of what lies behind fancy titles in our profession.

It’s easy to talk about leadership with fancy memes and John Maxwell talking points, but this is where it needs to be, and I’m not seeing enough of it. Sure, it will hurt your proverbial “teaching” business, and some will get upset, but look at the cost it’s causing those in the profession, like Anthony Gann.

He lost the profession because of cowardly leadership, and if we want to save it, we'd better wake up and demand courage from more than civilian jurors.

Subscribe now

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals worldwide. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.

Subscribe now

While I’m familiar with Pima County's leadership history, I was somewhat surprised when I heard Lt. (ret) Randy Sutton openly discuss it on the air. Randy has been a huge promoter of our work here, and since he had already let the proverbial cat out of the bag, I brought him on the podcast to discuss the failed leadership in detail.

Of course, cowardly leadership is not unique to Pima County, but in times of chaos, it becomes exposed.

It’s a fascinating interview and one, unfortunately, you don’t hear very often. Very few in our profession discuss failures openly, and I’m not exactly the most popular speaker for doing so, but I maintain that we will never fix the profession if we don’t discuss the actual problems.

I applaud Randy for doing so and encourage you to watch the interview.

Also, please consider subscribing to our podcast on your favorite platform (Courageous Leadership with Travis Yates).

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals worldwide. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.

A few weeks ago, I started noticing a dangerous trend online.

Subscribe now

Border Patrol Agents or I.C.E. were not law enforcement.

Just days after the trend began, the partner of Renee Good was heard on video saying that she couldn’t believe ICE had real bullets.

After the second ICE shooting in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Governor Tim Walz repeated the claim that ICE was not law enforcement.

First, the obvious. ICE is law enforcement. They are federal law enforcement officers, and they can not only enforce federal law but also do so throughout the United States.

Until 2025, this was never in question.

During the Obama Administration, the United States deported 3 million illegal immigrants. ICE was law enforcement at the time that occurred.

So What Changed?

Obviously, it’s politics, but what may not be so obvious is the danger those politicians are creating by telling their followers that ICE has no authority.

What would possess a man to allegedly attend a protest with a weapon and no identification and then get into an altercation with federal law enforcement officers attempting to perform their job?

Could it be his belief that he isn’t protesting or fighting law enforcement, but masked men kidnapping Americans off the street?

Tragically, we may never know.

Mental Illness or Misinformation

One thing is clear. Governor Walz and others know that ICE is law enforcement, so why are they telling the world they aren’t?

We’ve seen this before.

A seldom discussed fact in the riots of 2020 was the idea that law enforcement was killing thousands of unarmed black men per year.

A study by the Skeptic Research Center showed that liberals believed that police had killed 10,000 unarmed blacks in 2019.

It was 12.

As I’ve said many times, if I had believed that, I probably would have been on the streets as well, and this is the problem with the propaganda that is being spewed by Walz and his gang of liars.

If you believe that ICE isn’t cops and they are criminals and they are kidnappers and they have invaded an American City without bullets, some will do more than post online or protest.

They will fight and resist, and when people do, tragedy often follows.

The chaos we are seeing can end today, but it will take our leaders not only to tell the truth but also to give sound advice: protest is a right, but fighting, resisting, and obstructing law enforcement are serious crimes with serious consequences.

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals worldwide. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.

The State of Washington is often overlooked in national discussions, but it has become one of the most dangerous and cowardly states for those behind the badge. Their latest attack is in the form of Senate Bill 5974, a proposal that politicians are masking as a “modernization” to law enforcment that will “build trust” with citizens.

Politicians love to deceive with words, and the word TRUST should always be a sign. The Illinois SAFE-T Act was a 2021 criminal justice reform law that promised to make citizens safer and turned Illinois into one of the most dangerous states in the country. BLM made the world believe it was about Black Lives, but we all know now it was about Building Large Mansions.

Subscribe now

What is happening in Washington is nothing new, but, unlike the lies from the past, some courageous leaders are standing up.

The liars are trying to make everyone think that SB 5974 upholds better training and background checks for law enforcement, and while no one would argue against those common-sense provisions, that isn’t the issue.

The bill permits an unelected board to “deny, suspend, or revoke certification of peace officers,” and will soon include sheriffs, if they violate provisions in an updated statute, RCW 43.101.105.

Here are just a few 2021 revisions in that “trust-building” law that apply to all peace officers, including sheriffs:

• Officers have always been required to uphold the United States Constitution, but that has been expanded to include the opinions of judges and legislative laws as interpreted and applied by the state supreme court.

• Officers that engage “in conduct including, but not limited to, verbal statements, writings, online posts, recordings, and gestures, involving prejudice or discrimination against a person on the basis of race, religion, creed, color, national origin, immigration status, disability, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status;” can be decertified and removed from office.

• This also applies to those affiliated with one or more extremist organizations.

• Decertification will also occur if a police officer “engaged in a use of force that could reasonably be expected to cause physical injury, and the use of force violated the law or policy of the officer’s employer.”

And this is a favorite among those who wish to destroy Washington law enforcement:

• “Engaged in any conduct or pattern of conduct that: Fails to meet the ethical and professional standards required of a peace officer or corrections officer; disrupts, diminishes, or otherwise jeopardizes public trust or confidence in the law enforcement profession and correctional system.”

The Problem

Unless you have no working brain cells, you see the problem, and those weren’t the only issues. Politicians love to trick you, so let me briefly explain the issues:

• Judges and legislators routinely get it wrong, and it takes years for the United States Supreme Court to rule on it. The state's COVID-era policies are just one example. Under this provision, if a Sheriff or a police officer decided it wasn’t a good idea to arrest a soccer mom letting her kids play in the park or arresting a pastor for not closing the church, they could be swiftly removed from their job.

• How about verbal or online posts involving “discrimination.” It sounds like a good idea until you consider who gets to make that decision. You guessed it, an unelected board put in place by the Governor.

• Everyone would agree that we don’t want law enforcement involved with “extremist groups,” but who decides? Is it possible that it includes groups like “Moms for Liberty,” “Turning Point USA,” “Dr. James Kennedy Ministries,” or the “Family Research Council”? It’s not only possible, but that’s exactly what the Southern Poverty Law Center has done, and that was enough for the Biden DOJ to open investigations on some of these groups.

Predictably, decertification can also occur over the use of force. Accountability is important for this issue, but it doesn’t just apply to violations of the law. Officers can be decertified for violating their policy, and if you don’t think that can be abused, you’ve never worn a uniform.

What Does This Mean

There should be no confusion about what this is. It’s about politicians controlling any police officer or duly elected sheriff.

Cowards aren’t stupid.

They applied this decertification scam to police officers in 2021 when the world was made to believe that every cop was racist and fentanyl wasn’t deadly. Law enforcement leaders in Washington said very little then, but now they are coming for the leaders, and every police chief and sheriff in the state has a choice to make.

They can step up with Sheriff Swank or bow down to the cowards.

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals worldwide. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.

If you are like me, you are likely very fatigued from all the keyboard lawyers this week regarding the use of deadly force by an ICE Officer in Minneapolis. There’s no stopping the unhinged citizens and the political hacks from doing what they do, but it has been particularly disturbing to see law enforcement leaders weigh in with an absolute opinion based on internet videos.

Subscribe now

They have been burned so much in the past, you’d think they would wait for additional information, but the attention is all too seeking for that.

Any expert in the use of force will not have an opinion until they have all the facts in this case, and that is frustrating because it leaves us with a bunch of talking heads who don’t know much.

In general terms, keep this in mind.

The constitutional standard for the use of force is clear (Graham v. Connor, 1989).

• The officer must be judged on what they knew at the time.

• Hindsight bias is rejected. Facts that become known after the fact play no role in deciding the reasonableness of the force (everyone is judging based on this).

• Courts must account for the reality that officers often make split-second decisions in tense, uncertain, rapidly evolving situations.

• The objective reasonableness analysis is based on the totality of the circumstances, including the severity of the crime, the immediacy of the threat, and whether the suspect was actively resisting or attempting to flee, among other factors.

• The intent of the officer or the suspect does not play a role in reasonableness.

It’s appropriate to discuss these general facts when asked about this case, but oddly, few want to hear this, and almost no one is saying it.

Facts May Not Matter

I’d like to think that facts will matter here, but when politicians call it murder after watching a video, we know what typically happens next. This brings me to a more pressing issue, and one that has been ignored for a long time.

Minnesota has the most dangerous use-of-force standard for officers in the country, and I’ve been speaking about it since it was adopted post-2020. The rewrite of Minnesota Statute. § 609.066 added a three-part “threat” test for deadly force, and buried in that test is a sentence fragment that sounds harmless in a committee room but becomes the method for throwing cops in prison for following the constitutional standard for force.

You may ask yourself what that means, and that is exactly what Minnesota cops did when it was passed without an answer. That was enough for leaders in North Dakota to announce that they will no longer permit their officers to cross the border to help Minnesota officers in need.

This language, added to what was a Graham-based law, changes the legal question from “Was this force objectively reasonable?” to “Would the danger still have been likely if the officer had done something different or nothing at all?”

It can be taken to the extreme, which is what Minnesota leaders have been doing for years:

Remember, as the law is written, the deadly force was likely to occur “absent action” by the officer…Meaning the suspect would have risked the lives of those around him/her even if officers were not present.

It sounds crazy, but this is Minnesota, and this is why I called on every Minneapolis officer to flee their agency a few years ago. The writing wasn’t on the wall…it was in their policy manual.

Imagine working under the Hennepin County Prosecutor as a police officer with that language in the statute?

• “You could have waited.”

• “You could have backed up.”

• “You could have de-escalated.”

• “You could have ignored it.”

Being accused of that and more isn’t just a policy violation…it’s Minnesota State Law.

What’s Next

It’s obvious what the politicians in Minnesota have planned. They will indict a federal officer based on this statute, which was always designed for a time such as this. Granted, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution would likely remand the case to a federal judge, who will, in all likelihood, compare the “gotcha” state law to the actual constitutional standard and laugh it out of court, but it will give Minnesota politicians and misinformed citizens exactly what they want.

Another reason to scream and yell.

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals worldwide. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.

Law enforcement finished 2025 with a reduction in line-of-duty deaths not seen since 1897. I’ve seen several discussions of the 97 line-of-duty deaths, and it’s essential to examine what this means and how leaders may have or have not played a role.

Subscribe now

Police One

I spent the first decade of my career focused on EVOC-related issues and had the blessing to take that knowledge to Police One. From 2005 to 2015, I wrote an article on the topic every month. While the issues are commonly known today, they weren’t when I started. P-1 placed a lot of emphasis on the issue when few others would. During that decade, I discovered some crazy things.

• I discovered years when trees killed cops more than bullets (single car crashes).

• More than half of cops killed in their cars weren’t wearing seatbelts.

• Over a 20-year period, cars killed cops more than felonious attacks.

Doug Wylie was my editor for most of that time, and he had the courage to publish this information when no one else seemed to care. Doug’s leadership, with the support of P-1, brought this issue to the forefront for millions, and I found myself representing that message at countless conferences. While we are still seeing some of the problems discovered decades ago, there is no question that it has been reduced, and in the last decade, vehicles have no longer been the leading cause of death among the profession.

Below 100

If you are in law enforcement, it’s hard to think about 97 line-of-duty deaths without considering the Below 100 Training program, designed to reduce line-of-duty deaths to below 100 a year. Admittedly, I’m closer to this than most, and it’s a story of courageous and cowardly leadership.

I knew from my work at P-1 that line-of-duty deaths could be below 100 if we corrected what we controlled, and much of that was behind the wheel. I called it “low hanging fruit” and my agency implemented a course designed to do just that. We saw a dramatic reduction in injuries and collisions, so when the National Law Enforcement Memorial contacted me to help reduce line-of-duty deaths, I jumped at the opportunity. In 2009, I met several members of their Board of Directors in Chicago and shared my idea with them.

I told them it wouldn’t cost them anything, and all I would need is the power of their reach to spread the message. I had trainers lined up and ready to go. They told me they were busy with upcoming events and hoped I would participate in an “annual report” that would discuss the issue.

I can’t repeat here what I told them, but clearly, a PDF wasn’t going to stop the senseless tragedies occurring weekly in the profession. I do want to point out that the then Executive Director, Craig Floyd, was not present at the meeting and, to my knowledge, has no idea what occurred. I have known Craig for years, and he has been nothing but superb for the profession; that one meeting is in no way meant to diminish the overall work of the NLEOMF.

One year later, I found myself in Chicago again at the ILEETA Conference and was invited to a dinner hosted by Law Officer Magazine. Dale Stockton was the editor and was a legend in the law enforcement publishing industry, and at some point in our discussions, I mentioned the idea of Below 100. The table of accomplished trainers and writers was nice to hear me out, and that’s where I thought it stopped. A few weeks later, Dale called me and asked if I wanted to move forward on the Below 100 Training program. After I stopped him in mid-sentence and said yes, he asked where we should do the first class. I had just taught in Charlotte, so I told him Let’s do it there.

Dale Stockton and Crawford Coates were the driving force behind Law Officer, and they spent the next several weeks promoting the class in the magazine, including this multi-page insert that Dale ran without any advertising support (a bold decision). Honestly, I wasn’t sure it would work. Would cops actually come to a class telling them that the majority of line-of-duty deaths were their own fault?

I would find myself in a classroom with Dale Stockton and Brian Willis countless times over the next few years, and we would provide thousands of trainers with the Below 100 materials and tell them to make change happen.

Below 100 began 15 years ago, but to this day, I still get asked about it. It’s mandated training in over a dozen states, and it’s rare that I walk into a classroom around America and don’t see a poster or a mention of it.

• This is because Dale Stockton and Crawford Coates defied any business sense and did it anyway.

• Brian Willis already had a tremendous training company, but he volunteered countless hours to join Dale and me for those critical “first-year” classes.

• Gordon Graham always has plenty to talk about, but he made it a point to discuss Below 100 in every room he was in.

• California Highway Patrol Chief Brent Newman and California POST Executive Director Paul Cappitelli were among the high-profile leaders who not only brought Below 100 into their agencies but also endorsed it nationwide.

• Tommy Loftis was one of many trainers who not only took the class but also presented it to thousands.

I was a full-time shift commander at the time, and there was no way I could travel more than a few days a month. Major Julie Harris was my boss at the time, and when she found out about Below 100, she told me to do it. Official agency travel had to come from the top, but Julie knew it wouldn’t work, so she told me to go anyway, make sure I didn’t get paid anything, and if the heat came, she would shield it. It never came until the following year, when my new boss noticed I had been on a “special assignment” for three months. He told me to enjoy the Hilton Points, and that would never happen again. It never would, but the deed was done. We had over 3,000 trainers armed with the message that Below 100 was possible.

2025…A Cautionary Tale

I’ve seen several Below 100 trainers posting about the 2025 milestone, but I am also pleased that they are not taking a victory lap. I do not doubt that law enforcement has changed for the better on these issues, but I continue to have serious concerns.

The reduction is primarily because of two factors: driving and disease. Vehicle-related deaths were reduced from 20 (2024) to 11 (2025), while fatalities from COVID-19 and 9/11 went from 28 (2024) to 2 (2025). Felonious deaths by firearm were only slightly reduced (49-43), while 342 officers were shot in the line of duty, along with 61 ambush attacks.

Below 100 has not been just about a class, but also the advances in medical technology, the advent of medically trained personnel behind the badge, and the use of tourniquets to name a few.

A Not So Hidden Enemy

I’ve discussed it here, but the profession is being dealt with policy and training that is opening the door to violence against the profession as we have never seen. From 2020 to 2024, law enforcement saw an increase in assaults each year, with 2024 being a record year for officer assaults. We have never seen a period in time where so many cops were being attacked.

It may not be showing up in the LODD data, but it’s in the background, waiting to pounce. In the coming months, I will be announcing a program that will significantly reduce assaults and injuries against law enforcement. Like Below 100, 15 years ago, it won’t be adopted by the masses, but some will, and they will train others, and they will keep training others, and they will believe and it will happen.

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals worldwide. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.

“You would fit on our security team,” the pastor told him. Graves tells me that “one sentence changed everything.” He expected a few basic rules and some volunteer shifts, but instead found a gap between intention and execution.

Graves was already traveling the globe as an expert in narcotics investigations, so he did what he always did with a new assignment. He sought out training on church security, and he didn’t find much.

According to Graves, “Folks want to do the right thing. They want to protect their people. But they need training, structure, and a system that actually works.”

Graves’ website, Christian Warrior Training, is a one-stop shop for all things church security, including free training, but it has become so much more.

Graves shares weekly reports on crimes occurring at church, and he routinely warns his followers of the dangers he gleaned from intelligence across the globe.

The training gap and the simple fixes

Graves praised his security team, but he kept seeing the same problems: people eager to help without a clear pathway to competency. So his training pedigree kicked in, and he started recording short lessons—how to spot someone carrying, pre-attack indicators, surveillance signs, contact cover, and use-of-force basics.

Graves describes the training as “simple and basic,” but he would soon become the foremost expert in the field.

Graves started a newsletter and began sharing training videos. Within a month, his reach grew far beyond his church, and he had over 40,000 subscribers.

According to Graves, “The response blew past anything I expected because it was free, actionable training. When a church security team understands practical tactics and threat recognition, you remove panic and replace it with prepared action.”

Attacked For Truth

While you would think that federal law enforcement would be on the cutting edge of advising the church community of danger or the media would have an interest in letting the public know that terrorists are openly discussing attacks on Americans, you’d be wrong.

Graves stepped in, and he is often attacked for doing what no one else seems to care about.

As a Christian and 30-year law enforcement veteran, I could talk to Keith for hours, and I recently interviewed him on my podcast. Here are some of his thoughts on church security and leadership:

Security is a Ministry

Security at a church is not just tactics and tools. It is a ministry. Nehemiah rebuilt walls while holding a weapon in one hand and a trowel in the other. Ezra fed souls while caring for the community. You do both. You shepherd souls, and you protect them.

That means:

• Training people to serve with compassion and competence.

• Maintaining situational awareness while offering hospitality.

• Balancing spiritual care with practical readiness.

The threat is real and rising

Active shooter incidents at houses of worship are trending up. This is not conjecture. It is observable across decades. From small rural churches to megachurches, violence has struck everywhere. Sulphur Springs, Uvalde, incidents at universities, and overseas attacks that target Christians all point to a broad and growing threat.

Extremist propaganda from groups that encourage attacks, social media influencers who normalize targeting religious gatherings, and lone wolf actors radicalized online combine to create a dangerous environment, especially around holidays when attendance spikes.

Why holidays matter

Christmas and Easter bring the people who only show up for the big services. Those crowds become soft targets. If you want to make a splash, attackers know precisely when to go for maximum victims and maximum publicity.

Intelligence matters. Someone must watch and analyze

Security teams cannot operate only on instinct. You need a simple intelligence function—a person who gathers reports, dials into local suspicious activity, reviews images, and digs into social media when someone looks off. Pre-attack surveillance is a real thing. It shows up in patterns of questions and behaviors. Treat those patterns like the red flags they are.

When a team in California discovered a man photographing a children’s area, digging a layer deeper into social media revealed connections to places and people that scream concern. Those are the moments intelligence pays for itself.

Do not outsource responsibility

Nobody is coming to save you. That is not disrespect for law enforcement. Keith describes himself as “blue to my bones,” but he says that you cannot wait for a perfect response. If the police do everything right, you will be grateful. If they are delayed or overwhelmed, who will stand? The security team will. Be ready.

That means equipping teams with how to:

• Recognize pre-attack indicators and surveillance behavior.

• Occupy and deny critical spaces if an attack begins.

• Coordinate quickly with dispatched officers and provide clear, accurate information.

• Use lawful force appropriately when necessary.

Recruit the right people and keep skills sharp

Former and current law enforcement bring experience, discipline, and a trained eye. They are not the only people who can protect a church, but they are uniquely qualified.

Get them involved.

Train constantly. I run through shoot houses, practice weapon handling, and drill scenarios, not because I want conflict, but because I refuse to lose a skill the Lord gave me. If you are legally authorized to carry, carry. If you are on a team, practice daily habits of awareness and weekly tactical drills.

Practical steps every church should take

1. Form a security ministry that pairs warrior readiness with pastoral care.

2. Create an intelligence slot—someone who tracks suspicious activity and analyzes threat indicators.

3. Standardize training on pre-attack indicators, evacuation, contact cover, and use of force basics.

4. Coordinate with law enforcement but do not depend on them exclusively.

5. Enforce legal carry rules where authorized and ensure members understand the law and policies.

6. Maintain situational awareness even during prayer and worship. Prayer with heads up does not mean lack of faith.

7. Drill holiday scenarios because Christmas and Easter drastically change risk profiles.

On leadership and accountability

Church leaders must stop treating security like an afterthought. Security ministries are extensions of pastoral care. Pastors who dismiss the need for trained teams misunderstand both the mission and the threat. Bad policies and inaction kill people. Good leadership prepares them.

Police leaders, too, must do what is right. Protect the public. Act selflessly. The system will not work if those responsible for public safety are distracted by politics or platitudes. The church does not ask for armed conflict. It asks for stewardship of the flock and practical steps to keep people safe.

A final word

We cannot let platitudes stand in for preparedness. Saying, “God will protect us,” while doing nothing is not faith. Noah did not stand on the shore and pray for the flood to go away. He built the ark. If God calls you to protect, use the gifts and training He has given you. Keep your skills sharp. Train your teams. Build intelligence. Love your congregation enough to prepare.

“You have a weapon in one hand and a trowel in the other.” Hold both.

If you serve on a church security team or want to start one, start today. Recruit the right people, build a simple intelligence process, and train as if lives depend on it.

Because they do.

You can follow Keith here, and you can watch my full interview with him below.

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals worldwide. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.

Law enforcement has a problem, and if leaders don’t start leading, those problems will manifest into more officer injuries and deaths. The latest drama comes from the Chicago Tribune, where everyone seems confused as to why the use of force within the Chicago PD has risen every year since 2021 despite reform after reform.

The Reforms

To say that no leader should emulate CPD is an understatement. Here are just a few of their policy requirements that are code for harming police officers if attempted against violent suspects.

• De-escalation is a “core” principle that includes slowing down, using time, continual communication, persuasion, and warnings.

• Trauma-informed communication must be used along with a respectful tone.

• Voluntary compliance must be sought before force.

• Deadly force can only be used as a last resort.

• Verbal warnings shall be given before force is used.

• Caratoid restraints are deadly force (even though it’s not).

• Foot chases are prohibited if the risk outweighs the apprehension of benefit and when in doubt, officers are encouraged to “contain” the suspect.

Subscribe now

On paper or in the mind of an activist, all this sounds like Disneyland. But Chicago is not Disneyland, and if you believe officers are more scared of their policy than violent criminals with a gun, you’d be right.

Below is a portion from my seminar, Seconds For Survival. In the video below, officers know the suspect has a gun, and he was shooting it just before the officers’ arrival.

If you could stomach watching it, the officers followed policy to the letter. They refrained from a foot pursuit and contained the shooting suspect while being very nice to a guy who moments earlier was shooting a gun in a neighborhood.

Just two cops were shot, so I guess it’s a win?

Now that you see the result of insane reforms that have never been proven to work, let’s get back to the utter shock at the increase in use of force.

The reason the reforms aren’t reducing force is simple.

The reforms don’t reduce the use of force… they increase it.

Reforms also don’t decrease officer injury; they increase it, and Chicago saw an 18% increase in officers assaulted last year alone.

I previously discussed this here with real examples, but I want to explain why it’s happening.

The Why

De-escalation, trauma-informed communication, and voluntary compliance may be sound practices for non-violent suspects, but they officially never work on violent suspects. Thus, when these “feel good” ideas are used on violent suspects, violent suspects do what they do…they commit violence.

You can deny that, but no one can point to any studies or evidence that any of this works against violence. If “Trauma Informed Communication” was reducing use of force and officer injury, I’d name my next kid after it and tell every cop in America about it.

I have reviewed every single use-of-force incident in the public domain over the last several years, and I saw a lot of “attempts” to make them work, but they never did.

What these reforms did do was give suspects time to plan and execute their violence, and that violence created a situation where officers often had to use a higher level of force than they would have much earlier in the encounter.

This is the truth, and leaders know it.

The question is, why are they continuing down this path?

The Answer

The response to all of this is a complete U-turn for law enforcement, and it lies in the data from all those videos I reviewed.

91% of violent encounters began with a call or information the officer knew before contact, which requires higher tactical awareness. 100% of the non-ambush violent attacks came from suspects who did not comply with officers.

We could start with this: When those two characteristics aren’t present, try any reform you want. But if they are, officers need to be encouraged to make rapid decisions about lower-level use of force because if that’s not done, higher levels of force will have to be used.

The issue isn’t the police reforms but our decision to implement them, regardless of the suspect's crime, action, or behavior.

Maybe you don’t believe me because your PERF representative told you so?

Then explain what’s happening in Chicago and across the country?

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals across the world. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.

I hate rabbit holes because when I find them, I have a tough time pulling myself out of them, and that’s what happened a few months ago when I discovered that no one in law enforcement leadership seemed to be talking about record-high levels of officer assaults.

Subscribe now

The silence was even more deafening when I seemingly discovered the cause had become the sacred cow of so many leaders.

It didn’t take long to find a direct correlation with those assaults when agencies implemented restrictive use-of-force policies and mandatory de-escalation. The insane part is that not only did more officers get assaulted and injured, but the use of force also increased dramatically in those agencies.

Could this be true?

Could an entire profession, led by organizations like PERF and their sheep followers, actually endorse a practice that not only harms more cops but also citizens? It’s so outrageous that I didn’t want to believe it, which is likely why no one has ever bothered to evaluate what has become a standard practice in law enforcement.

Think about it. De-escalation and law enforcement have become like bread and butter. You can’t have one without the other, and police chiefs are doing mental backflips to make sure they are doing their part.

But no one has actually asked whether it works? A few have tried with no avail.

To save you some time, here is the money quote in this research:

“Researchers have not been able to address these concerns adequately because, similar to most other police training curricula, de-escalation training has not been subjected to rigorous scientific testing.”

Where Is The Evidence?

Think about it. If de-escalation were so significant for our profession and for reducing the use of force and officer injury, wouldn’t we want to promote its study and research?

To be clear, some excellent researchers have done some work on it, and I’m not saying that de-escalation should be thrown out of the profession, but there is no doubt that something is seriously wrong with the current deployment of this practice.

If any new policy or training increased the use of force and led to more officer/civilian injuries, we would immediately re-evaluate our efforts unless the topic is de-escalation. The science is settled, which is the opposite of what science is.

I was so troubled by this nonsense that I decided to dig a little further and discovered things like the internet and police body cameras.

Since turning 50, I’ve been on a quest to preserve as many brain cells as possible, so I don’t know anyone at PERF, but if you do, please pass along the news that our de-escalation efforts can be easily evaluated using this newfound discovery.

De-Escalation Good…Practice Bad

If de-escalation was the key to success, wouldn’t it be easy to see? Wouldn’t law enforcement leaders be promoting how cool they were by releasing successful de-escalation on video?

Maybe it’s out there, but after viewing over 500 body camera videos of officers being shot from across the country, I’ll tell you what isn’t out there.

De-escalation working to de-escalate violence.

I’m early into this research, but I have found three common denominators with law enforcement being shot at, shot, and killed.

Call Type: 91% involved calls where a high level of tactics were required (shots fired, wanted subject, domestic violence, etc.).

Non-Compliance: 100% involved some sort of non-compliance by the suspect.

Within these top two denominators, a significant portion involved police officers knowing the situation was dangerous, receiving non-compliance, and then attempting to address both by de-escalation.

I haven’t found successful de-escalation yet.

To give you some context, in the video below and before the encounter, the officers knew that this subject had just committed a robbery at a grocery store with a gun.

This is not the fault of the officers, and they are alive today despite the policy they work under.

This “significant step forward” occurred in 2019. Considering the agency encountered 10,700 armed suspects that year with just four deadly force incidents, no doubt the outrage and policy changes were needed.

Here are some highlights of the policy:

• The old “use of force” policy was rewritten into a 14-page “Response to Resistance” with de-escalation, verbal warning, dialogue, and commands having a dedicated section within that policy.

• The policy stresses that force may be reasonable under the legal standard of Graham v. Connor, but still be deemed out of policy.

• De-escalation should be “the goal in every incident,” and not just an optional tactic while “sanctity of life” is always the starting point.

I could discuss more, but I’ll end with some of the training the officers receive. The family members of violent criminals shot by police are embedded in recruit training to “humanize” the stakes of using deadly force.

With all of that in mind, it’s no wonder those officers treated this felony suspect with a gun like an ole friend from high school?

What Are We Doing?

Law enforcement leaders have lost their way. What you see above is not an anomaly; it’s the norm.

I’ve been training in the leadership space for years, and all I hear is accountability, character, integrity, and a host of other clichés we cling to after listening to far too many John Maxwell talks.

But who are we?

Are we really leaders who will continue to cling to feel-good words and dangerous policies that are getting our officers killed?

I’ve reached out to several well-respected leaders in recent weeks because I want to be told something different. I don’t believe what my own eyes are showing me, and I’m not being told what I want to hear.

These leaders were among the highest-ranking in our profession. They were in the committee meetings and behind the scenes of the organizations, pulling us into this chaos, and they all told me the same thing:

Of course they do. They are reviewing the same videos that I am, on a micro level, within their agency.

They see what I see and what you know.

They just don’t care enough to do anything about it.

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals across the world. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.

I’ve previously discussed the danger that leaders pose when they are more concerned about their reputation than their character. To summarize, we think we control our reputation, but we don’t, and if we make decisions to protect this falsehood, we are likely to compromise those decisions.

Subscribe now

Whenever a leader thinks, “What will others think?” you can guarantee the decision will be disastrous for you and the organization.

In my seminars, I typically will point at a student and tell them I can prove this by personally ruining their reputation by the next day. I could write something horrible about them, inconspicuously label the article an “opinion” and there is nothing they can do about it. If I get the headline just right, it will go viral, whatever “reputation” they thought they had will be over, and it will live on the internet forever.

Of course, I would never do that, but there are plenty of evil entities that do. It’s so frequent, they have a term for it, and in a rare moment of transparency, Representative Nancy Pelosi described it:

Frankly, this didn’t bother me much when it was relegated to politicians. Everyone understands that (and stock trading) is part of the business, but for years now, The Art of the Smear has been in law enforcement, and the media has been a gleeful partner.

Why?

The reason law enforcement is now dealing with this is the profession's politicization. Issues such as use of force, systematic racism, and many others are not just talking points but the center of political campaigns and news stories. These critical topics elicit emotion, and emotion sells.

A decade ago, the New York Times decided that Dr. Bill Lewinski and Force Science needed to be discredited.

After all, we wouldn’t want science and research getting in the way of a profitable narrative. As a Force Science Analyst, the headline is about as far from the truth as you can get, but the truth has nothing to do with this game.

The lies always work because there is never a shortage of cowards trying to protect THEIR reputation.

It’s not just large organizations like Force Science that deal with this. Dave Grossman is a friend and has been teaching for decades. Here is just one of many lies told about him.

If you think you are immune to any of this, here is what the liars did to my friend Chief (ret.) Tim Barfield last year.

Tim Barfield is as good as it gets. Legitimately, if you knew him he would be the best person you would know and if it can happen to him, everyone is fair game and the game works.

I’ve been called “controversial” more times than I care to discuss. The last time it happened was in a deposition where I was serving as an expert witness. The opposing counsel pulled up a headline and accused me of being a controversial figure. That’s not true for me, Tim, Dave or Dr. Lewinsky.

The Art of the Smear makes it controversial.

Unfortunately, we live in a time where telling the truth is controversial and lying is tolerated for political or narrative gain. As I told that attorney and will tell anyone in the future: I’m not going to explain what a lying reporter should be explaining. The controversy is a society (or lawyer) that suspends their common sense and uses the media as some sort of factual evidence.

How Does This Happen?

In a civil society, none of this would be tolerated but we are long past that. The only recourse for anyone on the other side of the smear is a defamation lawsuit, and that is a complicated and costly process. The current case law dictating defamation was decided 60 years ago, long before the internet. Not only do you have to prove actual malice, but the first line of defense will always be that the smear was simply an “opinion” and opinions have long been protected by the First Amendment. The media can write their lies as facts but tag the article as an opinion and there isn’t anything that can be done.

Until there is a price to be paid for the smear, it will only continue.

A Leadership Dillema

Leaders have a clear decision to make regarding this evil playbook. They can always stay quiet, agree with the media narrative at all times and make decisions, not based on what is right, but based on “how it will look.”

Plenty are taking that path but it’s a path to destruction.

The other decision is simple but not always easy. Make decisions based on facts and tell the truth at all times…regardless of what the liars may say or do.

As someone that has gone down each road, I can tell you that both are pretty miserable but in a different way..

If everything you do revolves around what others think, your soul will be crushed because you are living a lie. If you take the path of truth, you will suffer financially and that next job you want may never be.

Leadership is a blood sport but my decision has been made for years. I will never comprimise the truth for anyone regardless the consequences.

That is the narrow road and the path to courage.

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals across the world. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.

In the last few articles, I’ve discussed the inherent dangers that law enforcement leaders are placing on officers through their policy decisions.

South Bend, Indiana, was one of the most egrigious. After changing their use of force policy from the constitutional standards to a “last resort” policy, officer injuries increased 64% and use of force increased 60%.

Subscribe now

You may wonder how that could be, considering a use-of-force policy that says deadly force can only be used as a “last resort.” The answer is simple. No one knows what that actually means, so the default of the officers making the split-second decisions is not to make a decision.

This hesitation not only gives violent criminals the time to assault officers but also places the officers in a position where they have no choice but to use deadly force rather than a lower level of force, much earlier in the encounter.

This isn’t just my opinion, the FBI has been saying this for years in their research.

Further Evidence

I know what you are thinking. South Bend, Indiana, isn’t exactly a definitive study so I decided to take a larger look at the issue. Frankly, I was hoping South Bend was an anomaly because I have much better things to do.

Unfortunately, I found more of the same.

Many agency leaders have placed their officers in a higher risk of danger with their silly policy changes that have nothing to do with the case law or sound safety practices, but for ease, let’s look at the states that really lost their minds after George Floyd did not die in their jurisdiction.

New Jersey, Maryland, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Virginia all passed extreme “last resort” policies in 2020 and 2021. Each of them is at a confusion level all of their own, from language that says “absolutely last resort” to “all other options must be exhausted,” but all of them have the “last resort” verbiage in their policies.

Granted, about a dozen other states have similar policies, but for now, we will look at the six states that have ensured their officers are in more danger today than ever before. Out of the six states, just three collected officer assault rates.

The Data

Your are probably thinking, that’s not much of a study and you would be correct. The data is not easy to locate, and it won’t shock anyone that our major police organizations do very little to gather it and discuss it. After all, they wouldn’t want anything to get in the way of any stupid policy changes they have made. But after a few hours of parsing several Excel documents, what was anecdotal is getting closer to being factual.

Here is what we do know:

• “quick and decisive action is typically taught to be the safest approach for officers faced with dangerous or unpredictable circumstances…researchers have not been able to address these concerns adequately because, similar to most other police training curricula, de-escalation training has not been subjected to rigorous scientific testing” (Engel et al., 2020).

• Officer assaults have increased every year since 2020, reaching an all-time high in 2024.

The IACP is meeting this week and I wonder whether they will address the rise in officer assaults?

Officer assaults have risen 53% since the IACP pushed out their model policy changes. At the same time time, we have seen a decrease in violent crime with fewer officers working the streets.

This does not make sense.

Why isn’t anyone discussing it?

More To Come

I don’t expect anyone to do anything about this. To cops working right now, they have become accustomed to dealing with cowards behind a desk or that hold office, but I can’t ignore it. I have a series of open record requests out, and I will report the data when I get it.

It’s also painfully obvious that training must change to compensate for what has been done to the profession.

While there remains no body of scientific evidence to support the policy changes of the last decade, there is a ton of research on what keeps cop safe.

It’s time for a training protocol that does just that.

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals across the world. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.

Generally, writing is an outlet to get something off my mind, but not this time. I received several messages from on-duty cops after my recent article, “Are Leaders Killing Officers,” and the problem is not isolated to a few stories.

It’s pervasive and I’m pissed.

I’ve been diving into the literature, and I still don’t have a good feeling.

I know PERF is a joke to every real cop, but they have a stranglehold on many of our leaders looking for their next consulting gig or larger agency to ruin. This study looked at the difference in how citizens assessed use-of-force incidents compared to how those incidents stacked up against the law.

Subscribe now

It should be no surprise that, in general, citizens have no clue what legal use-of-force is and why would they? They aren’t trained in police procedure, tactics, and they’ve never heard of Graham v. Connor (1989).

The Study

A survey was sent to over 1200 U.S. adults, each containing a set of facts for them to pass judgment. Half of the cases involved legally justified and reasonable uses of force, while the other half were unreasonable.

Pete Blair at Tactical Science said it best:

Slightly more than half of the participants who received the legally reasonable stories actually thought they were reasonable, and slightly more than half who got the unreasonable use-of-force stories thought they were unreasonable. Yes, you read that right! The participants were a little better than chance at identifying the legality (reasonableness) of a use-of-force situation, but not much better.

If you watch any news broadcast after a police incident, the reason is simple. Citizens based their judgment on ”extra legal standards” with information that was not known to the officer at the time of the event. What really matters in evaluating police use of force is never discussed afterward.

Now What

While none of this is surprising, the study's recommendations could be potentially deadly to any law enforcement officer working under a leader who adheres to the main research proposal.

Adjust use of force policies to match community standards.

Examples were given in South Bend (Indiana) where they implemented a deadly force policy only as a “last resort.” This 2021 policy change came after a “ton of experts” weighed in, including a letter with 200 signatures from the St. Joseph County Chapter of Faith.

Reverand Terri Bays, a priest at the Holy Trinity in South Bend, was confident in the policy change, saying it will serve officers better because “they will know from practice, what is reasonable, right? They will know what the community expects of them, and that will go into their reasonable judgment.”

Sure, no one has ever defined what a “last resort” actually means.

The Results

These so-called police “reformers” never evaluate their efforts because the narcissism of a church or a priest to dictate the actions of law enforcement when it’s not their lives on the line is incalculable.

The FBI had already warned law enforcement leaders about policy with a “last resort” component.

Their victimology study on the characteristics of officers killed in the line of duty stated that officers killed in the line of duty “used force only as a last resort.”

So what can law enforcement officers expect when their police leaders permit clergy to write their use-of-force policy? In the case of South Bend, where PERF praises their policy change, they can expect exactly what the FBI said.

What Now?

Granted, South Bend was equally ridiculous with their mandatory “de-escalation” demands in policy, so it’s hard to know which part of their clergy led policy change created more danger for the officers, but I wouldn’t be holding your breath for that revised “peer-reviewed” study, and the playbook to harm officers has been evident for years.

A national police organization or media outlet makes the suggestion, usually based on some doctored research, and the “community” demands change.

Rather than telling the truth or upholding long-standing case law, the leaders in the police organization simply cave and make the change.

South Bend is not unique, and I’m not going to stand for it.

Could you imagine doctors, lawyers, or your exterminator listening to a few citizens and changing their policy and procedure?

The answer is no, and that’s evidence #2006 why law enforcement leadership is failing our officers in every aspect of the profession.

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals across the world. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.

When the political winds started calling the profession “systematically racist,” rather than call out the liars, many leaders ran with the flavor of the month.

Most of these reforms have fancy acronyms, accompanied by a PhD and at least one flawed study from an agency that pleases activists and politicians, so police leaders follow their lead.

While this started in my own agency a decade ago, I’ve noticed even more reason on the national scale to fight against these cowards. I committed the majority of my career to officer safety initiatives, and I continue teaching a behavior analysis course called Seconds For Survival. Without getting into the high level details, before a suspect attacks, they give off behavior cues and it is during those cues that we must act or risk exterme danger.

Notice the cues in the above video?

In recent years, I’ve noticed more and more officers have never heard of this and I couldn’t figure out why…until today.

The Incident

An officer reached out to me and told me about an incident that occurred at his agency a few months ago. The details made me shudder for his agency and any others playing this dangerous game. Here’s the story:

• A suspect with a weapon ran from officers, and that was communicated on the radio.

• A responding officer arrived on the scene and cornered the suspect.

• The officer gave the suspect commands to put his hands in the air.

• The suspect raised his hands but then lowered his right hand and walked away towards an open area.

• Without hesitation, the officer tackled the suspect, handcuffed him, and the situation was over.

To anyone with a normal functioning brain, this is a textbook police tactic that controlled a potentially dangerous suspect. No one was injured, and the weapon was found in the suspect’s pocket.

The Problem

A few days later, the officer’s supervisor came to him and said that the department’s defensive tactics unit had some issues with the use of force. They questioned why he tackled him so early and didn’t give him more opportunity to surrender. The officer is facing disciplinary action and re-training.

If you needed any more reason as to why we saw more officers assaulted last year than any year in history, mark this story for evidence item #1.

The Breakdown

I told the officer what he already knew. The scrutinized officer performed exceptionally, and he cannot let the actions of a few cowards playing the acronym game affect his safety.

Graham v. Connor (1989)

All use-of-force actions are grounded in Graham v. Connor (1989). While the fancy and expensive PhD training won’t, let’s judge the officer’s actions based on this:

Officers cannot be judged on any underlying intent or motivation by the suspect but the facts and circumstances confronting the officer at the time.

• A suspect with a weapon is running from officers.

• The suspect initially places his hands in the air, but then goes back to non-compliance.

In judging the actions of the officer, you must consider that police officers often have to make split-second decisions about the necessary amount of force in a particular situation.

• The judgment of an officer, after the fact, in the confines of an office, watching a video, certainly seems outside what the court is saying here.

The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.

The courts have acknowledged the vagueness of this statement, but for a good reason…” split-second decisions.” What would be more reasonable:

1. Asking a suspect with a weapon, who had already fled in public, to please stop as he continues to walk away or…

2. See an opportunity without the weapon in his hand to take him into custody?

While you ponder that not-so-hard decision, here is some additional information that makes the decision by this officer textbook. The officer had previously been in my training, Seconds For Survival, a certified seminar in his state. Part of the training says this:

Officers should identify critical cues like body posture, movements, and verbal/non-verbal signals and make timely decisions that align with tactical priorities. When three or more cues or anomalies occur, additional tactical advantage must be taken. This tactical advantage can’t be just time, as that often gives the suspect the advantage in action/reaction behavior. That advantage must be “Time and Distance” or “Time and Action.”

There’s more to this 8-hour seminar than that, but you get the picture. There is even a definition for the quick decision the officer made, a decision that he is potentially facing discipline for:

Nothing I’ve discussed here is unique, and it’s been studied in academia for over a century.

Unfortunately, the law enforcement profession has been hijacked by scams that have infiltrated leaders and trainers, placing officers at extreme risk.

If you can’t tell, I’m going to do something about this. While I’m not sure it will ever change the minds of the cowards in this situation, maybe it will help others to go home at night.

Read a recent e-mail from a student who said the training saved his life.

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals across the world. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.

The biggest mistake police leaders could make at this moment in history is to think that the pendulum has swung back in a more commonsense way towards local law enforcement.

Subscribe now

Nothing could be further from the truth and all you have to do to see that nothing has changed is what the Department of Homeland Security is dealing with at this time.

If you have bought into the rhetoric about ICE and disagree with what they are doing, congratulations. You’ve been brainwashed, and you likely were kneeling for a lie just a few years ago or advocating for some silly police reform pushed by PERF.

The Accusations

Before I explain why all of this matters to local leaders, let’s break down the horrendous atrocities that ICE is supposedly committing:

THEY ARE FULFILLING THEIR MISSION.

It’s pretty simple. ICE is responsible for enforcing the immigration laws of the United States and they are enforcing the immigration laws of the United States. While you’ve heard all kinds of rhetoric from the typical players, such as they are kidnapping Americans, there hasn’t been one shred of evidence that proves that. You’ve probably also heard that they are using excessive force, but I haven’t seen one video of this accusation that didn’t show suspects fighting, resisting, or worse.

If all of this sounds familiar, it’s because it is. You don’t need to be reminded of what local law enforcement endured for years, based on lies.

However, there is a significant difference today, and that’s why law enforcement leaders need to take notice.

Despite the rhetoric and lies, ICE continues its mission. While that mission is more difficult today, they have not been deterred.

ICE Agents have been the subject of countless death threats and doxing. Unlike what so many local law enforcement leaders did in the past, DHS leadership remains steadfast in protecting its officers.

While the liars are upset, they are wearing tactical gear and masks; it’s being done for the protection of the officers.

Pretty crazy concept.

I don’t have to remind you how local leaders failed us when we faced similar attacks and lies. Not only did many of them prohibit any use of tactical gear for protection, but we were often told to “stand down” and ignore criminal activity. We still suffer from the so-called “reforms” that were thrown at us by those leaders.

Mission Failure=Destruction

Local leaders failed when faced with a similar situation that is playing out with ICE today and that failure is still devastating communities. Crime reached record highs and the profession is still suffering from a recruitment and retention issue.

Turns out that running away from the mission never ends well.

You aren’t seeing this with ICE. They aren’t backing down from their mission, and they’ve had 150,000 applications this year. Wild how support from leaders to do your job helps an organization stay on mission.

Broken Pendulum

The pendulum is not coming back. The same liars and agitators who came close to destroying local law enforcement are doing the same with ICE. Before that, it was Tesla, and before that, it was Palestine, and before that, it was Trump, etc.

Unfortunately, this is not changing, and if local leaders were wise, they would acknowledge their past failures and prepare to do much better in the future.

You are one decision away from crazy people from all of it happening again. The political winds will, once again, point to local law enforcement, and I’m not sure we are ready for it.

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals across the world. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.

The lead goose spends more energy while setting the direction (mission), but at some point, fatigue sets in, and another bird will jump to the top, while the successful leader will become the follower.

Mission First
This isn’t just a goofy story about birds but an example of what organizations can accomplish if they focus on a mission-first philosophy.

• The mission-first leader must be committed to empowering the followers to take the lead.

• The followers in a mission-first organization must be willing to play a role in that mission.

• Communication is the key to a mission-first philosophy. The V-formation of geese is full of honks from the rear. This isn’t random; it’s encouragement and feedback to those involved in the mission.

• Regardless of the bird’s position in line, there is a sense of equality towards the mission. Each bird plays a crucial role in accomplishing the mission and is treated accordingly.

You likely don’t work in this environment, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t. Patagonia is just one example of a company that has made its mission its top priority. In 2022, the company transferred ownership to the Patagonia Purpose Trust and the Holdfast Collective. Regardless of leadership or personnel changes, the company solidified its purpose and mission.

Your organization doesn’t need a trust to make this happen. It simply requires one generation of leaders to change everything we thought we knew about leadership.

Be that change!

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals across the world. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.

Everyone reading this has likely seen a law enforcement leader investigate or make negative public statements about an incident when that incident was clearly within policy, etc. I’ve always found these decisions confusing, and while there may be several reasons for this, including incompetence, more often than not, these cowardly decisions are made out of a love for reputation.

Subscribe now

Today, more than ever, the profession needs moral courage. This begins with understanding what you can control.

Reputation Is a Lie - Character Is a Choice

Reputation lives in other people’s heads. It is shaped by rumor, headlines, a five-second clip on social media, the politics of the moment, and the last person to tell a story in the room. You do not own it. You cannot edit it in real time. You cannot guarantee it tomorrow. In fact, with the current defamation laws, your reputation can be ruined tomorrow by nothing more than someone publishing their “opinion” about you.

Rather than chasing reputation, leaders must pursue character. It is truly earned and can never be taken away from you. It is also the core ingredient of leadership. Character is a daily decision that adheres to a core set of non-negotiable principles that you practice when there is a cost. It is the honest memo you sign, the unpopular truth you say aloud, and the standard you hold even when it reduces your options.

It is not contingent on applause.

Reputation-First Leadership Breeds Cowardice

1. Decision Paralysis
   When the prime question is “How will this look?” rather than “What is right?,” the end is near for the agency.

2. Leading by Headline
   Leaders attempting to keep the trolls happy will find themselves on the opposite side of courage every time.

3. The Disappearing Shield
   While playing to reputation may secure the leader the next job or make them popular in the eyes of the mayor, line officers will either flee to the corner or leave the agency altogether.

The Courageous Leader

Courage in leadership is not just some fancy word. It’s a pattern of disciplined behaviors, repeated when they’re inconvenient and could cost you.

• Principle Before Optics: State the principle first, every time. “Here’s what’s right. Here’s why. Now let’s talk about how this will be received.” Optics may matter, but they can never take the place of what is right.

• Own It: When the facts are sufficient, decide. Document the rationale. Communicate it plainly. Accept the heat that may come.

• Protect the Badge: Tell your people, and show your city, that accountability and support are not opposites. You can investigate rigorously and still stand publicly for fair-acting officers while the facts are gathered.

Courageous Principles

Leading a law enforcement agency is not for the faint of heart, and the demands can be overwhelming. Our natural inclination is to protect our reputation, but if you want to do that, own a flower shop. Apply future decisions with the principles of Courageous Leadership.

• always demonstrate and demand integrity

• stay focused on liberty, civility, and public safety

• never let feelings redefine facts

• encourage vigilance, professionalism, and cooperation

• communicate to eliminate misunderstanding

• anticipate — and continually challenge assumptions and the status quo

• inspire others to lead courageously

The Paradox That Frees Leaders

While it may seem hard to give up on our reputation in a world that scrolls every day to keep it, leaders who embrace character are laying the groundwork for greatness.

Long before Galileo Galilei became the father of modern science, he was put on trial for heresy.

Before he was known as one of the greatest American Presidents, Abraham Lincoln was destroyed in the media during the Civil War.

William Wilberforce may be greatly admired today after his advocacy helped end the British slave trade, but he was mocked and marginalized for decades in Parliament.

When you release your hold on reputation and double down on character, your reputation takes care of itself. You cannot control what people say about you tomorrow, but you can control who you are today.

Choose character and let courage do the talking.

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals across the world. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.

Like many of you, I’ve experienced a very difficult week. There isn’t much I could say that has not already been said, but the time for ignorance in our country and by leaders needs to end.

Our country has what I would call a “political supremacy” problem.

Subscribe now

There is a specific ideology that believes its view of the world is so morally correct and that its political opponents are so dangerous that assassinations are the answer.

While the talking heads and the lying mainstream media are making mental leaps to convince you that the assassination of Charlie Kirk was the work of a single insane person, we must come to terms with the fact that we live in a violent society that will not hesitate to turn that violence on you.

Political Violence

I could turn your attention to the numerous examples of the past violent attacks on college campuses, the burning of Teslas, and the murder of individuals inside a church or school. I could remind you that others held the murderer of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson as a folk hero, but law enforcement knows better.

Long before we endured the burning of police buildings and the countless violent actions by “peaceful” protestors in 2020 and beyond, law enforcement knew all too well the ramifications of these political supremacists.

The FBI Assailant Study states that 28% of cop killers did so “for social and/or political reasons.”

The FBI identified the media and Black Lives Matter as the influence for these killings, and if you haven’t heard this, your leaders are failing you.

While Charlie Kirk faced this hatred on a college campus on Wednesday, law enforcement officers face it every day. If we can learn anything in the midst of this national tragedy, it is that we need to wake up and do what it takes to fight the enemy among us.

The Enemy

Don’t fall for the lie that a few unstable and insane individuals are conducting this violence. While a few are shooting the bullets, the indoctrination of violence has reached the masses.

Charlie Kirk himself pointed to a Rutgers University study called “The Assassination Culture.” While the study said that “a broader ‘assassination culture’ appears to be emerging within segments of the U.S. public on the extreme left,” the findings reveal something much more sinister around us.

Of the respondents in the study who identified as “left of center,” over 50% said that there was justification for the murder of President Trump and Elon Musk. 40% said it was acceptable to destroy property (left of center doesn’t sound like extreme left).

If you don’t believe those numbers, feel free to go online today and read what these demons are posting about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Law enforcement has seen similar postings after the death of their own.

The Call To Action

You don’t have to call for an assassination of someone; all you have to do is give insane people a reason to do it. Long before President Trump, Charlie Kirk, and MAGA were called Hitler, Nazis, Fascists, and deplorables every day of the week, cops endured that and more, and few took issue with it.

We were labeled racists, white supremacists, and boot lickers long before the events of this week, and we will continue to suffer the consequences if we do not take action immediately.

There can no longer be a tolerance for speech that gives others the excuse for violence, and according to the data, this country has millions of people who will endorse and even commit that violence. If the Secret Service will open an investigation on someone posting this vitriol, why are police leaders turning their heads when it happens to their employees?

Be Ready…Don’t Get Ready

Leaders need to take their heads out of the sand and face reality. Law enforcement endured 85,000 assaults last year. While it was a record high, only 50% of the agencies participated in the study. The training and technology at our disposal should be reducing violence against the profession. Still, we are seeing cops more scared of what “others” will think about them rather than protecting themselves from the violence around them. That is the fault of law enforcement leaders.

I have offered to provide my training to help the profession, but few leaders or the organizations that claim to support law enforcement will even acknowledge it. I recently left a metropolitan area with 10,000 police officers. Nine came to training, and most came on duty, away from agency approval.

What Now?

It was just a year ago that we watched as President Trump came a millimeter from the same fate, and nothing changed with society. The Assassination Culture is so prevalent that I see nothing changing, so we must adapt to it.

The good in our society should never want violence, but they need to be prepared to use it when the demons that seek to kill and destroy come for you.

I pray that the good among us stand up and remain on guard…It’s the only answer.

Dr. Travis Yates retired as a commander with a large municipal police department after 30 years of service. He is the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies.” His risk management and leadership seminars have been taught to thousands of professionals across the world. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy with a Doctorate Degree in Strategic Leadership and the CEO of the Courageous Police Leadership Alliance.

Share Courageous Police Leadership with Travis Yates