UMKC students question hiring of former KCPD captain who backed convicted detective 37%

By Cassandra Flores0%

4/28/2026, 11:37:13 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Quote-first Misdirection, Optimism Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 12.9% saturation with 74 hits. Analysis detected 495 faulty-reasoning hits from 573 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.4% and a BS Rank of 37% (13,935 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 63.70% of the article peer group.

UMKC students voiced outrage and planned to protest the decision to hire retired Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department (KCPD) Captain Daniel Graves, who backed a former detective convicted in the 2019 killing of a Black man. 
In 2021, Graves wrote a letter of support for Eric DeValkenaere, a former KCPD detective convicted of killing 26-year-old Cameron Lamb, stating that the prosecution of DeValkenaere was “politically motivated,” that he was not a public safety threat and requesting that the former detective remain out of jail pending his appeal. 
“This is not a man who would intentionally hurt someone unprovoked or with malice,” Graves wrote. 
“Never a man of recklessness, ineptitude or trial.” 
DeValkenaere was found guilty of second-degree involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action in November 2021. 
Presiding Judge Dale Youngs determined that DeValkenaere and his partner, Sergeant Troy Schwalm, entered the property without probable cause or an issued warrant. 
UMKC’s chapter of the Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA) will rally against the hiring decision of Graves on May 5 at 12 p.m., outside the UMKC Police Station. 
Ainsley Heffern, a freshman studying sociology, stated they felt “extremely disappointed” but not surprised upon hearing the announcement. 
“If we have a chief of police who is basically okay with Black people being murdered by the police, what does that say about how UMKC values their diverse students?” 
Heffern said. 
“UMKC loves to preach about diversity, but when it comes down to protecting the diverse student body  they don’t care.” 
Briar Craft, a freshman in criminal justice and political science, said the decision horrified and enraged them. 
They stated that Graves has failed to demonstrate an “objective version of justice” after his letter of support for DeValkenaere. 
“[DeValkenaere] was charged for his crimes  proven in a court of law  that he was guilty for this crime. 
And yet, Daniel Graves still defended this man,” Craft said. 
“He does not care for actual justice. 
He cares for his own biased version of it.” 
For his role as UMKCPD police chief, Graves stated plans to hold the department to its highest standard, committed to transparency, communication and the measured responses necessary in campus policing. 
“I believe policing is at its best when it’s grounded in service, trust and integrity,” Graves said. 
“To the UMKC community  you have my commitment that we will serve with respect, dedication and fairness every single day.” 
Alyssa Lally, UMKC’s assistant spokesperson, commented on Graves’ actions. 
“Graves has said he wrote the letter as a character reference for an appeals hearing, expressing his personal experiences on an officer he had worked closely with in the KCPD for more than a decade,” Lally said. 
Graves is married to Police Chief Stacey Graves, who has served with the KCPD department for nearly 30 years. 
Before his retirement in 2023, Graves appeared to be working off-duty when he accompanied Taylor Swift at the Kansas City Chiefs game in Green Bay, Wisconsin. 
The department policy only allows officers to work within the city limits of Kansas City and prohibits them “to act as private security personnel.” 
KCPD stated that the controversy did not impact Graves’ decision to retire. 
This story was originally published by Roo News. 
KCUR 89.3 is licensed to the University of Missouri Board of Curators and is an editorially independent community service of the University of Missouri-Kansas City. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 6.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Cassandra Flores: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 4.9%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.2%Cassandra Flores: 5.5%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias8.2%This article: 3.1%Cassandra Flores: 2.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias3.1%This article: 12.9%Cassandra Flores: 15.2%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias12.9%This article: 1.6%Cassandra Flores: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias1.6%This article: 7.0%Cassandra Flores: 4.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error7.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Cassandra Flores: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.5%This article: 4.2%Cassandra Flores: 4.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect4.2%This article: 1.2%Cassandra Flores: 3.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect1.2%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Cassandra Flores: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem1.2%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 1.4%Cassandra Flores: 6.1%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority1.4%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 5.9%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 5.2%Cassandra Flores: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope5.2%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.7%Cassandra Flores: 8.0%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization3.7%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 4.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.0%Cassandra Flores: 9.6%Columbia Missourian: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion8.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 3.1%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 6.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 8.9%Cassandra Flores: 6.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection8.9%This article: 6.3%Cassandra Flores: 7.6%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice6.3%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 6.3%Cassandra Flores: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Flores: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

573 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers51%attributed speech279writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 100.0% coverageDaniel Graves • 16 words • 0.0% coverageDaniel Graves • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageAinsley Heffern • 18 words • 0.0% coverageAinsley Heffern • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageAinsley Heffern • 21 words • 0.0% coverageBriar Craft • 17 words • 0.0% coverageBriar Craft • 20 words • 0.0% coverageBriar Craft • 21 words • 0.0% coverageBriar Craft • 10 words • 0.0% coverageBriar Craft • 7 words • 0.0% coverageBriar Craft • 9 words • 0.0% coverageDaniel Graves • 30 words • 0.0% coverageDaniel Graves • 17 words • 0.0% coverageDaniel Graves • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageAlyssa Lally • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageKCPD • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ainsley Heffern

100%flagged-word coverage
69 attributed words23% of attributed speech31% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Quote-first Misdirection-18.3 ptsWriter: 18.3%Ainsley Heffern: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-12.9 ptsWriter: 12.9%Ainsley Heffern: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-12.9 ptsWriter: 12.9%Ainsley Heffern: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.