I have spent my entire adult life in law enforcement leading officers, supporting their families and surviving the moment every cop fears. In 1987, a bullet struck my ballistic vest and stopped inches from killing me. That impact never leaves you. It is a permanent reminder that every officer who puts on a uniform risks their life for the country they serve.
That is why I wrote to the president on March 2, and why I am writing again now. My request was simple and rooted in a truth every American should accept: There is no statute of limitations on killing a police officer. Justice should not fade with time, political changes or shifting priorities. Yet across this nation, some officers have been murdered in the line of duty, and their killers have never been brought to justice.
Two cases show the urgency.
Officer Thomas T. Wood of the Maywood Police Department was murdered in 2006 while sitting in his patrol SUV. Twenty years later, no arrest has been made.
Deputy Oneal Moore of the Washington Parish Sheriff’s Office in Louisiana was ambushed and killed in 1965. Multiple investigations have been conducted, yet no charges have ever been filed.
Different eras. Different regions. The same unacceptable outcome.
When a federal agent is murdered, the U.S. responds with full force and never backs down. That level of commitment should apply to every fallen officer, regardless of jurisdiction.
I am calling for a permanent, well-funded national cold case unit within the FBI dedicated to unresolved police line-of-duty murders. Not symbolic reviews. Not temporary initiatives. A continuous federal effort to reopen every case, retest all evidence, reexamine every lead and pursue every suspect without exception.
This is not a partisan issue; it is a moral one.
President Trump responded to my letter. But the national media has been silent. No coverage. No discussion. No acknowledgment of the issue or the fallen officers behind it. That silence is dangerous. It suggests that justice for murdered police officers is optional — or worse, expendable.
Unsolved killings of police officers weaken accountability. Families deserve answers. Officers still serving deserve to know their country will not abandon them. The public deserves a justice system that does not look away when those sworn to protect them are murdered.
I am not requesting special treatment. I am requesting national responsibility.
I will keep speaking out until someone listens.
Tom Weitzel, retired chief, Riverside Police Department
Prisoners need better treatment — not new prisons
When the Illinois Department of Corrections recently announced a new Logan Correctional Center will be built in Crest Hill, next to the Stateville Correctional Center, I felt deep worry for the women who are behind bars there. As a former Logan inmate, I know firsthand the incarcerated there are suffering through conditions the IDOC itself deems “unsuitable for any population.”
As I experienced when Dwight Correctional Center closed in 2013, the process of closing a prison is challenging. It affects everyone involved — incarcerated people, guards and loved ones. Nerves are frayed. Tempers can flare. This is why we need a transfer plan now.
This anticipation, fear and threat of violence mirrors the dynamics of domestic violence relationships — dynamics all too familiar for the people incarcerated at Logan, many of whom are survivors of gender-based violence. Many of those who were transferred out of Dwight still have post-traumatic stress disorder from the experience.
I am part of No New Prisons Illinois, a campaign endorsed by nearly 50 organizations opposing the state’s billion-dollar plan to rebuild two prisons and urging IDOC and Gov. JB Pritzker’s office to adopt the Logan Transfer Rapid Response Plan. The plan provides a comprehensive list of measures to mitigate the harm of future transfers.
The plan reflects the experience of currently and formerly incarcerated people who have endured prison closures and know the pitfalls that come when a solid, well-thought-out plan is not in place.
If the state is committed to the safety and well-being of people incarcerated at Logan, then at least let transfers be conducted humanely and safely. Have a definite plan in place and tell people what to expect before the move.
The new women’s prison is not expected to open until 2030. By this time, 66% of people currently incarcerated at Logan will have served their sentences and will have been released.
It is my sincerest prayer that people at Logan will not have to suffer the trauma of a transfer. Instead, I pray and ask that the money slated for the building of new prisons is redirected toward reducing the current prison population and improving conditions in the facilities that already exist.
Janet Jackson, fellow, Women’s Justice Institute, and community ambassador, Illinois Prison Project
Boutros’ criticism is out of order
U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros recently criticized Cook County judges, claiming they were using trickery in their treatment of violent offenders. In a news conference, Boutros asserted judges would detain violent offenders at the first court appearance when the “numbers count” and then would release them at the second appearance.
Under the Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today, or SAFE-T Act, a judge can only detain offenders if the prosecutors file a petition. A hearing is held for the judge to consider the type of crime, the facts supporting the charge, the defendant’s background and whether the defendant poses a threat to the community. A judge then decides if detention is warranted or the defendant should be subjected to electronic monitoring or home confinement.
Under the SAFE-T Act, the initial decision over detention is not a final determination. The SAFE-T Act allows prosecutors and defense the opportunity to file a motion challenging the judge’s decision.
Boutros, in his recent news conference, mentioned the judge who released a man on electronic monitoring before he allegedly went on to kill Chicago Police Officer John Bartholomew. Boutros also mentioned the man who allegedly set a young woman on fire on the CTA’s Blue Line. With these two tragic cases, a reasonable argument can be made that the judges exercised poor judgment in granting the release. But the reality is judges do not possess crystal balls to foresee the future.
Boutros needs to familiarize himself with Illinois Supreme Court Rules 3.8 (f) and 3.6 (a).
Rule 3.8 (f) provides, in part:
“The duty of a public prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict. The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
…refrain from making extrajudicial comments that pose a serious and imminent threat of heightening public condemnation of the accused….”
Rule 3.6 (a) provides:
“A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and would pose a serious and imminent threat to the fairness of an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”
It is not a surprise Boutros would ignore such rules. Look at the improper prosecutorial actions committed under his watch related to the indictment in the “Broadview Six” case. One of his prosecutors had improperly vouched for the strength of the evidence before a grand jury and dismissed several members of the panel who were skeptical of the case. Boutros was forced to dismiss the case as a result.
Ironically, the prosecutorial misconduct was revealed only after his office tried trickery to hide it. His office initially tendered a grand jury redacted transcript to the judge for inspection — covering up the improper actions of the prosecutors.
When a prosecutor — the official sworn to uphold the constitutional safeguards of the criminal justice system — turns their ire upon the bench, they do not just breach professional responsibility duties; they fracture the bedrock of our justice system. Criticism is valid when it involves a failure to uphold the rule of law. However, personal attacks on members of the judiciary serve no useful purpose; they are tactical smokescreens designed to detract from the facts and inflame the public’s passions.
Lawyers and judges alike must remember that they are not gladiators in a theater of personal grievance but custodians of a delicate, sacred institution. Above all else, they must answer to the rule of law.
Daniel M. Locallo, retired Circuit Court of Cook County judge and former Cook County assistant state’s attorney
AI may not kill us, but it kills creativity
I enjoy reading Neil Steinberg’s thoughtful columns even when I disagree. Case in point is his writing about the fear we have about new technology (“Is AI going to kill us all? Radio, when new, also seemed a menace”). I get his point. We often fear new technologies; albeit radio didn’t kill Lester Wolf — the careless use of electricity did.
The same danger faces us with artificial intelligence — its misuse, not the technology itself. What AI strips us of, when we allow it to do our thinking, is the process of self-discovery.
For example, when we allow AI to do our writing. The writing process is inextricably connected to thinking — thinking that is reflective of higher-order reasoning and self-knowledge. Good writing (and thinking) is at times contradictory, ambiguous, full of human emotion and nuanced. AI can’t deliver on that front.
What will “kill us” is allowing a technology tool to do our thinking for us. This is no illusionary risk.
Joe Burke, Edgewater
Don’t be down on Deep Tunnel
The negative tone of news coverage regarding Chicago’s Deep Tunnel following massive early July rains is baffling given its benefits, impact and history.
The Deep Tunnel is being ripped because the Thornton reservoir, when full, is smelly, the system’s rate of drainage is slow, and the capacity to handle runoff isn’t sufficient.
These attacks are overstated, and coverage of the Deep Tunnel lacks balance. In the 1970s and 1980s, coverage focused on flooded basements following heavy rains was frequent and cliché. Though basements still occasionally flood, they are minimal, thanks in part to the Deep Tunnel and the three reservoirs it feeds ahead of treatment.
Also, the Deep Tunnel was an inspiration for Milwaukee’s tunnel system and Indianapolis’ DigIndy project. Combined, these efforts have provided substantial environmental and health benefits to the urban Midwest.
More broadly, the 109-mile-long Deep Tunnel is an engineering marvel.
The reversal of the Chicago River and development of the skyscraper have been called engineering marvels of Chicago. The Deep Tunnel is also a wonder of modern engineering and deserves more appreciation.
Craig Barner, Lincoln Square
Team owners care more about income streams
I love how billionaire sports team owners say “we care about our fans,” but put games on streaming services that a lot of fans don’t have. The only fans owners care about are Benjamin Franklins. No one can say that their viewership is higher compared to regular TV. How come a game can’t be on TV and streaming at the same time? This is exactly why a salary cap will only make owners richer while the majority of people can’t go to games.
Richard Orrico, Melrose Park
Campaigns, casino cash shouldn’t mix
Every American politician should be banned from taking campaign contributions from any casino group, owner or anyone with stock or financial interest in any casino or its entities. The reason is obvious, but we all know some politicians will continue to take contributions from casinos and give it to charity when the casino is investigated.
Richard Barber, Mount Greenwood