NRA has been consistent in its suggestions for tackling firearm-related crime: Enforce the existing laws against criminals. Elect the right policymakers. Take crime seriously. And while politicians work on effective policy, and law enforcement officials on effective use of resources, be sure to allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves everywhere they have a legal right to be.
In terms of what doesn’t work, focusing on the use of violent criminals as advisors or employees for “violence interrupter programs” would be a good starting point. Chicago – as is often the case with ill-advised public policy – is a case in point. Once again, a “violence interrupter” working with CeaseFire Chicago has been a violent disrupter in his own right, as evidenced by being sentenced to 22 years in federal prison for a string of violent and brazen carjackings that left one victim shot and others threatened at gunpoint.
The first carjacking occurred in the drive-thru lane of a Dunkin’ Donuts. Jamari Edwards got into the passenger seat of a man’s car, pointed a gun, and ordered him out. As the victim walked away, prosecutors said, Edwards asked the victim why he was not scared, then shot him in the leg. Moments later, Edwards circled back, frisked the wounded man at gunpoint, and took his wallet and phone before driving off in the victim’s car.
Two days later, Edwards confronted another driver outside a gas station convenience store. He pressed a gun into the man’s back then frisked him for valuables and the keys to the vehicle.
Later that same week, Edwards and an accomplice targeted a woman sitting in the driver’s seat at the same gas station. Edwards pointed a gun at her head and told her to get out of the car before he would blow her brains out. When she hesitated, he yanked her out by her necklace stealing her purse, wallet, and phone, then fled in her car.
It was also noted during the court proceedings that Edwards worked with the anti-violence group CeaseFire as a “violence interrupter,” which is described as an organization “dedicated to stemming the violence that permeates through certain portions of Chicago.”
It may be that, with correct oversight, “violence interruption” programs can be a beneficial adjunct to law enforcement by helping to educate, mentor, and de-escalate violence among a small group of individuals generally serving as the catalyst for violent crime in specific areas with a high propensity for these types of offenses. The success of these programs, so their supporters claim, relies heavily on utilizing participants who have credibility with, access to, and the trust of high-risk individuals. Sometimes this means people with criminal records and prior prison terms of their own.
But if violence interruption programs are going to be credible with the public whose taxes pay for them, they must, at a minimum, screen out employees who are still actively engaged in crime, to say nothing of violent crime.
Over the past few years, numerous employees of CeaseFire and other similar organizations have been arrested and/or fired after being accused of violent crimes across the city. Just within the past few days, Illinois Governor Pritzker was pictured with a “peacekeeper” who at the time was wanted in four states on active criminal warrants and shortly before the individual allegedly participated in a fatal smash-and-grab burglary. Also, three workers, who supposedly worked to end gun violence in Chicago, were charged with illegally carrying guns while they were already on bond for other felony gun cases. One of the men’s cases included allegations that he shot at two people.
This is not an issue unique to Chicago as similar stories echo among “violence interrupters” in other cities like Minneapolis where two workers with 21 Days of Peace were recently arrested in relation to a shooting that occurred in March, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota. NRA-ILA reported on even more of these instances here: Delusional City Leadership – Criminals Are Making Our Cities Safer!
While supported by the credulous mainstream media as a proactive alternative to traditional policing, the evidence does not back the effectiveness of “violence interrupters” in various cities nationwide. The programs have done next to nothing to curb crime and in some cases have been accused of merely pushing violence into adjacent neighborhoods. Beyond that, the ongoing political in-fighting over funding and oversight is further unraveling the scheme, including in Minneapolis and the District of Columbia.
Without doubt, these will not be the last of unfortunate news stories on unsavory characters being part of an unproven experiment on crime control. Ultimately, with the notable and ongoing crime challenges in major cities nationwide, now is not the time to spend millions of dollars on risky endeavors and even riskier people when citizen safety, and lives, are at stake.
For proven alternatives, see the first paragraph of this article.
More Like This From Around The NRA
