LAPD Officers Shot

On June 25, 2013 the Los Angeles Times reported that two LAPD officers were ambushed as they were waiting for the gate to open at the station parking lot.  On the same day, in a different part of town, another LAPD officer and a parole agent were shot inside a home during a search.

Although it appeared that both shootings were unrelated, it brings up the dangers that police throughout the United States face on a daily basis.  Both situations were on different ends of the threat level meter.  One occured out of nowhere, while officers are sitting in a relatively safe area in a police vehicle waiting to enter the police parking lot.  They were ambushed from the rear and fired on in a location where the threat level would be considered very low.

In the second shooting, the officer and the parole agent were in a much more heightened  threat level as they searched a residence for a suspect.

Police work is a job that can go from sheer boredom to extreme danger in the blink of an eye.  Cops are always looking, their minds working like a computer that can register things in a nano-second that 'don't seem right' or are 'out of place.'  The work is extremely mentally taxing.

Cops are the ultimate symbol of authority in our society. They are the ones that can take away a person's freedom.  They are the ones who stop people from acting out there worst behavior on others.  There are really bad people out their with a grudge against society and the people that stand between them and us are the police.  These people obey their own code, and shooting a cop is their ultimate defiance against the society they hate.

Whether there uniform cops on patrol or detectives working on cases, once they hit the street, they are always on alert.  Even when off-duty, they're always looking.  You cant turn it off.  The price they pay for that over a career is often high blood pressure, broken marriages and alcoholism.  It comes with the job.  But they are the sheep dogs who protect the sheep from the wolves who would prey on them.

Aaron Hernandez Arrest

New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez was arrested yesterday in Massachusetts for murder.  In following the case in news broadcasts and the internet, I was struck by the appearance of the detectives during the multiple searches that were done at Hernandez's residence.  In the videos and photographs I saw of the detectives conducting the searches, I noticed that the majority of them were not wearing a sports jacket.  

When I was a LAPD homicide detective in South Central Los Angeles, my lieutenant was a stickler for us to always wear our sports jackets any time we were at a crime scene or in the public eye.  People even called homicide detectives 'the suits.' It didn't matter how hot it was, whether we were canvassing a neighborhood for witnesses, or baking at a crime scene; he made us wear those jackets.  At the time some thought he was old fashioned and out of touch, but now that I look back on it, he kept up the public image of professionals at work.  Even today as a private investigator, I still wear a sports jacket when doing interviews or witness canvasses.  When people think of police detectives, they think jacket and tie.  Anything less and it minimizes the public perception.  

It was interesting to note that when Hernandez was led out of his house in handcuffs, the two detectives with him both had their jackets and ties on.

The Aaron Hernandez Investigation

Recently New England Patriot's tight end Aaron Hernandez's name has been in the news regarding a criminal investigation.  According to news reports, a number of search warrants have been served at his residence in Massachusetts related to the death of a man not far from Hernandez's home.  ABC News reported that police wanted to know why house cleaners had been hired recently to Hernandez's home.  Stating the obvious, as of yet Mr. Hernandez has not been charged with a crime related to this investigation and should be considered innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law.  News agencies have also been known to get information wrong.  My comment here is only on a possible investigation step by the police related to the alleged aspect of having a professional service clean a house, supposedly after a crime might have occurred in it.

First off, the police would most likely interview the owners of the cleaning service and the actual workers who cleaned the location.  Questions would probably include things like when were you hired, who hired you, what directions were you given, were there specific instructions regarding any problem areas at the location.  They would also be questioned as to what, if any, odd or suspicious things did they encounter in the location.  Regarding any possible blood stains at a location or in a vehicle, even after a thorough cleaning, blood stains oftentimes can still be found.  Blood stains can spatter and still be found on clothing, shoes, etc.  Forensic investigators can utilize chemical sprays that can reveal blood stains invisible to the naked eye.  The bottom line is that blood stain evidence can still be recovered even after someone tries to destroy it.

Death of the Night Stalker

Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker, died in prison on death row on June 7, 2013.  According to his bio on Wikipedia, He was convicted of 13 murders, 5 attempt murders, 11 sexual assaults and 14 burglaries.  His trial lasted over four years. That was the headlines.  Here’s the reality.  Ramirez’s crime rampage occurred in the spring and summer of 1985.  It was during an extremely hot weather period.  He terrorized the state of California.  People were afraid to open their windows at night, despite the heat, for fear of the Night Stalker.  Although most of his crimes occurred in Los Angeles County, on one weekend he murdered a man and shot his wife in San Francisco and then drove to Orange County were he shot a man and raped his fiancé.  In his long list of crimes, he nearly decapitated one murder victim, gouged out the eyes of another, and on two occasions shot and killed a husband and then raped his wife.  I worked the LAPD Night Stalker task force in the hunt for this serial killer.  He professed allegiance to Lucifer and left pentagrams at crime scenes and on a victim’s body.  Of all the criminals I came in contact with and investigated during my police career, he was the one that was truly evil.  He lived 23 years on death row before he died.  I did not mourn his passing.      

The Fast and Furious Investigation

Let’s start with what we know about the Fast and Furious investigation.  The Alcohol, Tabaco & Firearms Agency (ATF), a law enforcement branch of the federal government, started a ‘gun-running’ operation out of there Phoenix, Arizona office.  Guns were allowed to go across the United States/Mexico border in the hope that they would be able to track them from the US into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels.  There was poor accountability of these weapons and it was a botched operation from the start.  It has been reported that a number of Mexican nationals were killed in Mexico with guns from this operation.  Brian Terry, a US Border Patrol agent, was killed in a fire fight  on US soil on December 10, 2010 in which one of these weapons was found.

 

When a law enforcement officer dies, his department carries on an in-depth investigation into the shooting.  They do this prosecute those involved, to find out went wrong operationally and to find out if anything could have been done differently during the gunfight itself to educate and perhaps save other officers lives in future gunfights.  The heads of departments where officers have lost their lives want to know details of what happened and what went wrong, and they want to know it immediately.  One of the guns tracked by the ATF was  found at the crime scene of Agent Terry’s death.  You would think the head of the US Border Patrol, a federal law enforcement agency, would be screaming for accountability regarding this from the ATF, another federal law enforcement agency that specializes in weapon tracking and violations.  You would also think that major players in federal law enforcement would want to get to the truth of this, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

The Justice department is headed by the Attorney General, the senior law enforcement official in the United States.  That position is currently held by Eric Holder.  The Justice Department initially denied the existence to Congress of the Fast and Furious operation.  Mr. Holder initially stated to Congress in May 2011 that he had only become aware of the operation just a few weeks prior to his testimony.  Note that this is six months after Agent Terry’s death. Six months after that, in November 2011, Holder admitted to Congress that gun walking occurred in Fast and Furious.

 

Let me see if I have this straight.  The senior law enforcement official in the United States, which just happens to have an agent killed on the border in a highly contentious illegal immigrant smuggling area, claims he had just learned of the failed gun walking operation that allowed weapons to go into another sovereign nation on the US border and of which one was found at the crime scene of a federal law enforcement agent, only after about five or six months after the federal agent’s death. He then admits to Congress six months after that testimony that gun walking did occur in Fast and Furious.

 

Am I to belief that the senior law enforcement official in the US, with a large staff of trained lawyers and investigators, would knowingly go before Congress and at best not have his facts right about a federal gun walking operation into another sovereign nation and that was also involved in the death of a federal agent?  Wouldn't you think that with the Mexico/US border being such a sensitive issue, coupled with the death of a federal agent, that Mr. Holder would have used all of his department's resources to get to the bottom of things prior to his testimony?  

 

Here’s another thing.  Are we to believe that a regional field office of a federal law enforcement agency would run an undercover operation allowing guns to go across the border into another sovereign nation, in this case Mexico, without people way, way up in the federal government not knowing about it or signing off on it?

 

Here’s the last thing on this.  When an individual pins on the badge, whether it is a municipal, state or federal law enforcement department, he or she readily knows the risks they take.  They do this with the knowledge that their fellow officers will to come to their aid, no matter how dangerous or mortal the situation.  They also believe that their agency will leave no stone unturned in order to hunt down the killers, thoroughly review the shooting itself and the operation attached to it, and make tactical and operational improvements in order educate and save their fellow officers in future operations.  If killed in the line of duty, they know that their department and employer (city, state or nation) will do everything for their next of kin and family, including giving them all the details of how and why their loved one perished.

 

Mr. and Mrs. Terry, the parents of slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, are still waiting for that call.

 

Informants: Working Hard or Hardly Working

When I first started out as a young police detective, I would spend hundreds of hours, often times for naught, trying to solve a heinous or complex crime.  After a while, I discovered that if I spent about fifteen minutes with the right person, in the right place, and maybe throw in a cigarette and a candy bar, I could often crack the case.  In investigating terms, the right person was an informant.  This goes for both police detectives and private investigators.  Often times there is someone out there who has knowledge of the case, but you have to use the right approach and do it in the right location, in order to get the right results. 

Try not to let police movies or TV cloud your vision of how to work an informant.  You don’t approach someone on the street and expect them to talk to you.  By doing this, it also shows your lack of knowledge of the street and you won’t be trusted.  For police detectives, an individual can be interviewed back at the police station or in the lock up. 

I used to scan the daily arrest logs to see if anyone got arrested near one of the crimes I was investigating, or if any of my informants had managed to get themselves locked up.  I’d talk to the detective that was handling the individual’s current arrest to clear it with him, and then I’d go and talk to him.  It’s amazing how many arrestees, knowing that their looking at going back to prison, will talk to you if you have the right approach.  You have to be able to convince them that you will protect them and not reveal their identity.  Start small, and once they give something up that appears to be good, that’s when they get rewarded with the coffee or soda.  The more they give up, and the bigger the case, is when the candy bars and cigarettes come out.  Remember, they get the goodies after they cooperate, not before.

The same holds for private investigators.  You can meet with a possible cooperative informant off-site from his workplace or home.  Whether you’re a cop or a PI, you always pick the time and location.  You want to make sure you’re not being setup.

Different motivations motivate different people to give up information.  It can be fear, revenge, retaliation, power, honesty etc.  You need to find which one is the one that turns your informant.  Find the right one, and your case can be solved.

George Zimmerman - Defendant’s Rights and the Media

On Thursday, June 14, The Daily Breeze (a newspaper here in Southern California) reported that a judge in Orlando, Florida, had ruled that statements made by George Zimmerman to police detectives after he fatally shot Trayvon Martin can be released to the public.  The judge further ruled that the identities of witnesses who had not been identified yet, can stay private.  The article went on to state that both the prosecutors and Zimmerman’s defense attorney had wanted to keep both Zimmerman’s statement and the witnesses identities private.

Additionally, according to the article, the judge said disclosing Zimmerman’s statements to police detectives would not jeopardize his ability to get a fair trial.  Further, the judge ruled that tests given to Zimmerman after the shooting could be released, as well as some crime scene photos and Zimmerman’s recorded telephone calls from jail.

Where do I begin?  The United States Constitution guarantees the accused the right to, among other things, a fair and impartial jury.  This judge’s ruling allows key elements to the case, including Zimmerman’s statement to police, crime scene photographs, and Zimmerman’s recorded telephone calls from jail to be released to the press.  Among other things, this allows the potential jury pool that will sit in judgment of Zimmerman to view  key evidence of the case before it can be argued in court.  Potentially this information can be splashed all over newspapers and be argued by so-called experts on TV talk shows again before a trial even begins.

I note also that the article stated that both the prosecution and the defense attorneys argued against the release of this information.  Ironic that both opposing counsels argued against it but the judge ruled in favor of the news media who wants to have it.  Is it just me that thinks this ruling says that the rights of the news media trumps those of the defendant who is on trial. 

At least the judge ruled against releasing the identities of the witnesses in the case who have not yet been identified.  Can you imagine the circus that would have ensued if he hadn’t?  You would have had news agencies parked out in front of their houses and knocking on their homes or workplaces just to get an exclusive interview.

I am not arguing the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman here.  That should be done in a court of law with all the evidence presented before a jury of his peers.  What I am saying is that this latest ruling by a Circuit Court judge in Florida troubles me greatly in regards to Mr. Zimmerman chances of getting a fair and impartial jury.

Homicide Rates in the City of Angels

When people talk about homicide rates, I always tell them about the Homicide division I worked in back in the late 1980’s for the Los Angeles Police Department. The police division was the 77^th Street Division, which was located in South Central Los Angeles.  There were seven teams of homicide detectives with a total of 14 detectives along with one detective supervisor.  In 1987 there were 160 murders in that division alone, which is the most for any one police division in the city’s history.  Again, that was not the city wide homicide count; it was just our division’s.  I believe there were 18 LAPD geographical police divisions at the time. It was not uncommon for one team that had the weekend on call in 77^th Division to have two or three homicides over a weekend.

There is no other way to put it, but that 77^th Division was a violent area.  It was the divisional policy to call out a homicide team only if the victim was pronounced dead at the scene.  There were shootings, stabbings, bludgeoning’s and beatings etc. almost daily.  Many of these crimes were gang related with Crips and Blood gangs shooting each other with regularity.  The term ‘drive-by shooting’ became a household word.  On many of these occasions the victim(s) miraculously survived.  Those serious crimes were the victim(s) lived were handled by the crimes against persons (CAPS) unit.  If homicide detectives had to roll out for every serious crime that occurred in the division where the victim was still alive they would have completely worn us out.  It is truly amazing how resilient the human body is and how much punishment it can take. 

I recall on one occasion where we were called out because the victim had been stabbed in the heart and another where the victim had been shot multiple times, including one to the head, and they were still alive but in critical division.   The sergeants at both crime scenes felt that the victims were going to expire and called us out.   We worked all through the night and into the next day conducting the crime scene investigations, canvassing the area and interviewing witnesses.  In both cases the victims survived.  The cases were then turned over to CAPS detectives.  Our case load was too intense to handle anything other than homicides.

It also seemed that no one died till after midnight.  When you had the weekend on-call duty, you’d try not to work overtime on Friday and get home and jump into bed for a few hours’ sleep.  The phone calls from the watch commander’s office notifying us of a murder always seemed to come between midnight and 4:00 AM.  You never got enough sleep, you were always working overtime trying to solve cases, and when you did you were constantly in court for preliminary hearings and murder trials.  

You also knew that you and your partner were the only ones that could obtain justice for the victim.