Not too long ago, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker dismissed President Donald Trump’s assessment of over-the-top violent crime in Chicago as being rooted in “lies,” saying that “civilian law enforcement is how you fight crime,” and “[w]e’ve got terrific people on the ground.” Meeting with some of these civilian “peacekeepers,” Pritzker said on Facebook, “It’s folks like these that we need more of doing the hard work of community violence prevention, not troops on the ground to undermine efforts fighting crime.”
After Pritzker touted his meetings with “community violence interventionists” and state-funded “peacekeepers,” praising these “trusted messengers” whose “genuine relationships with the community are crucial to mitigating violence,” some uncomfortable information emerged. As first described by CWB Chicago, one of the “peacekeepers” Pritzker was photographed one-on-one with was apparently wanted on outstanding criminal warrants in four states; worse still, six days after the photo-op, the man was allegedly involved in a high-value commercial burglary culminating in a car crash that killed an innocent motorist.
The awkward photo showing Pritzker grinning alongside the “peacekeeper” has now been removed from the governor’s website. Seeking transparency on how (or even whether) the participants in taxpayer-funded violence intervention programs are vetted, the activist group Judicial Watch initiated a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information from the governor’s office on vetting, background or other checks, and selection criteria both generally and specifically with respect to the “peacekeeper” in the photo-op, including knowledge of his criminal history and warrants. Judicial Watch claims the governor’s office has all but ignored the request, leading to a lawsuit being brought this month seeking to compel disclosure.
There’s clearly no shortage of poor judgment when it comes to these questionable violence interruption programs, even at the nation’s capital.
The District of Columbia Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement (ONSE) oversees the district’s violence interruption/intervention programs, which included a program called Life Deeds (“a collaborative community engagement strategy designed to support District residents in reducing gun-related violence in our communities”). According to the Washington Post’s detailed article (also here), in December 2023, 43-year-old Frank Johnson was working for Life Deeds as a violence interrupter when police pulled him over on a traffic stop. Officers found “two firearms under the driver’s seat in a BMW X6 belonging to Johnson,” one of which had an obliterated serial number. Johnson, a convicted felon, was charged “with felony unlawful possession of a firearm, a repeat offense for him.”
Despite being convicted on the gun charge, Johnson was “rehired as a violence interrupter last year for a different organization receiving D.C. government grant funds.” A spokesperson for the ONSE “defended Johnson’s hiring as a violence interrupter for a second time after the 2023 arrest” because “[a]n individual who has been convicted of a gun charge is not necessarily disqualified from working as a violence interrupter [VI] as we value lived experience and the credibility that may grant a VI in working with those most at-risk of gun violence.”
Since then, Johnson and a second man who has worked as a D.C. violence interrupter have been reportedly charged with murder in connection with the shooting of a 31-year-old real estate agent at a D.C. nightclub in September 2023. The police arrest affidavit filed in D.C. Superior Court allegedly claims that Johnson “fired nine times into the bar’s dimly lit second-floor dance floor,” killing the victim and wounding three others.
As explained by the Washington Post, the second man “had been a violence interrupter with Cure the Streets, a separate program that was run through the D.C. Office of the Attorney General.” The Post writes that his lived experience included being previously charged with second-degree murder in 2020, but “[p]rosecutors dropped that case for lack of evidence, and [he] was allowed to continue working as a violence interrupter.” According to a 2020 news report, the man’s attorney at the time described him as “a respected member of his community … Because of the role that he plays in this neighborhood, I think the court can readily find that he is in fact not a danger. Quite the opposite. He actively works to prevent dangerous situations here in the District.”
Last year, Gregg Pemberton, the chairman of the D.C. Police Union, testified on the utility of D.C.’s violence interruption programs before a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. “There’s almost no evidence of any efficacy of these violence interrupters,” he said. “As a matter of fact, one of our city council members has been indicted for accepting bribes from a violence interruption organization, and I can name at least a half a dozen suspects who have been arrested for murder, gun charges, drug charges, other violence charges who have been paid by violence interruption organizations. Violence interruption in the District of Columbia is a grift and it is a way for tax dollars to get funneled into the hands of criminals. We shouldn’t be spending a dime on violence interruption in the District of Columbia as there’s absolutely zero proof that it works or has any level of efficacy whatsoever.”
As outlined in a federal Department of Justice press release, the bribery allegation refers to a D.C. council member now awaiting trial on charges of using his official position to pressure employees to renew multimillion-dollar contracts for “violence intervention service” providers (including Life Deeds), in exchange for cash and kickbacks of future grants.
In another alleged example of sleaze associated with these programs, a Seattle activist running a violence intervention nonprofit funded by thousands of taxpayer dollars from King County was reportedly indicted in 2024 on federal charges related to a multistate drug trafficking and money laundering operation. A news report asserts that Marty Jackson, “well known in Seattle as the former head of SE Network SafetyNet, a non-profit with the stated goal of providing violence intervention,” was charged with “using her non-profit to launder money for a drug trafficking operation that was run by her son” and her husband.
In all of these cases, it must be emphasized that criminal charges or a complaint are merely allegations that a defendant committed a violation of the law and are not proof of wrongdoing; all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
That said, there is an element of wishful thinking and a lack of demonstrated efficacy in the violence interruption concept that should be very familiar to those who follow the gun control debate. To be sure, the idea of convicted violent criminals turning their lives around to prevent further violence in their own communities is an appealing concept. But appealing story lines, even coupled with good intentions, are not the same thing as proven results.
So it goes with gun control, which offers the enticing promise that we are only a few more “commonsense” laws away from a world in which firearm related crime is a thing of the past. To believe that, though, you have to believe criminals who are willing to transgress the laws against murder and violence will be more scrupulous about things like “gun free zones” and magazine capacity limits.
Wouldn’t a better solution than to limit everyone’s constitutionally protected access to arms be to focus on the comparatively few who have demonstrated the willingness to use them illegally?
As Illinois Republican Party Chair Kathy Salvi said of Pritzker’s “peacekeeper” debacle, the governor “would rather do a photo op with fugitives to bolster his leftist bona fides than do the work it takes to even figure out if his previous anti-violence programs he’s funding … are being co-opted by law breakers.”
It kind of makes you think advocates of “violence interruption,” who overlap heavily with gun control supporters, are more interested in what they believe these policies say about them than in delivering real improvements in public safety for their constituents or communities.
More Like This From Around The NRA
