Very late to this thread obviously, but wanted to chime in a little.
I'm not a 24-7 listener to the scanner, and only relatively recently noticed "hey I'm not hearing police calls". Came here and found this thread.
Generally, I get that there are some things that ought not be made public by default. The open dispatch channel with others encrypted seemed a reasonable balance. But making police work completely opaque to the public is a bad, bad thing. And to that Lenexa officer quoted in the editorial, feigning surprise that the first media inquiry was two weeks after the press release? The timing of the announcement was selected preisely to duck such public comment.
IMO this is part and parcel of a bad trend among people in government and policing to believe they are not public servants, but rulers over the public. (And secondarily, a trend toward a militarization of police. The very name "tactical channel" suggests this.) Ask them why x is done, and the answer often boils down to "shut up, that's why". And that's what's happened here. They cannot provide a solid example of where open dispatch channels created problems beyond inconvenience, only theoretical speculations, and they just did it.
And re. "public safety communications are setup as a form of entertainment", that's simple nonsense. The public does have a right to know what's going on in their neighborhoods and communities, unfiltered by various public officials who often conceal such information for illegitimate reasons.
And to that officer (I think the same Lenexa officer) who said "just come to the scene and ask an officer"? Yeah, right. Try that. In the vast majority of typical cases (as opposed to highly public situations where media get involved) I bet if you get any response at all it'll be "leave", and if you don't, arrest.
My father was a career police officer. I am not "anti-police". But when you tell me "I need to do everything behind closed doors", it's fair to pursue the question "what are you hiding?".
