I believe we all have different reasons for being here. My interests use OSINT to identify victims and traffickers and general research into cyber-related fields. I find a lot of great info on LinkedIn (that's how I found 'We Fight Monsters'!). If you're interested in learning more about OSINT and it's applications two of the best accounts to follow are Ubikron (https://www.linkedin.com/company/ubikron/) and OSINT Experts Society (https://www.linkedin.com/groups/13047129/). Both have plenty of resources and regularly post items of interest.

One of the most dangerous moments in any investigation is confirmation bias. I’ll give you a quick example, there was an armed robbery in the city that I work in. The lead detective had a theory of who the suspect might be now keep in mind the suspect had a mask on and gloves. Now, without concrete evidence that pointed him in that direction, he already had a suspect in mind, why? Because the suspect lived in close proximity to the business, he is also known to be a serial robber. My problem with that early on assumption is that now he needs to build a case around the theory that it was the suspect versus gathering all the evidence like interviews, technology, cameras in the area etc…. Long story short I was right it did not turn out to be who this detective thought it was. The Lesson: It’s when we lock onto an early theory and—without realizing it—start filtering everything through that lens. Evidence that supports our belief gets amplified. Evidence that contradicts it gets minimized, explained away, or ignored entirely. In investigations, this isn’t an academic problem. It’s a truth problem. I’ve seen solid investigators become intellectually rigid once a narrative forms. The case stops being about what happened and becomes about proving we were right. That’s when blind spots grow. That’s when mistakes compound. That’s when innocent details turn into “inconvenient facts.” The danger isn’t incompetence. The danger is confidence without constant challenge. Strong investigators do a few things differently: • They actively search for disconfirming evidence • They ask, “What would have to be true for my theory to be wrong?” • They invite peer challenge instead of resisting it • They separate ego from outcomes • They stay comfortable saying, “I don’t know—yet” Good investigations are dynamic, not linear. The story should evolve as new information comes in. The moment your theory becomes untouchable, your investigation becomes fragile. This applies beyond law enforcement.

Good morning brother, how is it going with the National Guard there in Memphis? Have not heard any news so far. Praying for you guys there.

I want to dive deeper into something that sits at the core of policing, training, and the human experience—but rarely gets the airtime it deserves: Emotional regulation is one of the most powerful forms of crime prevention we have. Not technology. Not policies. Not equipment. Human regulation. Human capacity. Human control. Because when you strip away all the noise, most of what law enforcement deals with is emotion without direction: People who never learned to pause. People who never learned to sit with discomfort. People who never learned to name a feeling before acting on it. People who were raised in environments where chaos was the norm and regulation didn’t exist. Every cop knows this pattern: Somebody can’t handle anger → becomes an assault Somebody can’t handle shame → becomes a lie, a cover-up, or avoidance Somebody can’t handle fear → becomes violence or self-destruction Somebody can’t handle stress → becomes addiction Somebody can’t handle grief → becomes isolation or suicide And this isn’t just individuals. This is generational. This is cultural. This is systemic. If we taught people how to regulate emotions early on: We would see fewer: • Domestic incidents • Fights • Road rage • Juvenile crimes • Relapses • Overdoses • Suicides • Mental health crises • Officer-involved uses of force • Broken relationships and broken families This isn’t hypothetical — it’s observable reality on every shift. Emotional regulation isn’t soft. It’s tactical. It’s the ability to: – Stay stable under pressure – Recognize the difference between a feeling and a fact – Think while the nervous system is screaming – Decelerate when everything inside wants to accelerate – Not weaponize emotion in conflict – Recognize when you’re escalating someone else without realizing it – Use calm as a strategy, not a luxury This is the same skill that makes elite operators effective in combat. It’s the same skill that makes high-level negotiators successful. It’s the same skill that keeps officers alive during critical incidents.