Showing posts with label Criminal Justice System. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Criminal Justice System. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

OPINION: The Color of Legit

Be forewarned – this involves critical thinking:


The death of a childhood friend and subsequent similar homicides at the hands of criminals with guns in our inner cities has brought me a great amount of reflective pause about how we visualize the legitimacy of homicide victims. Seemingly, there is a great abundance of news headlines featuring homicides that have become all-too-familiar. The victims are usually young, African-American, and live in some of our most populated cities – places which used to be known for significant wealth and prosperity but now are a reflection of something much darker. Their assailants are also described as young, African-American, and from the inner-city. If we’re being specific, there’s also the added description of the homicide which usually “tells us all we need” – the murder was “gang-related”. Many times, our initial summation and often ill-informed analysis hinges on these circumstances. That “analysis” takes just under a few seconds but the power it conveys lasts a lifetime.

What’s most striking is in this internal discourse of legitimacy is not that we’re wrestling with the notion of whether the crime happened but whether the victims “deserved” to be killed and if so, whether a crime even occurred. Come on, admit it. How many times have you heard of a 16 year old kid in Chicago being murdered and saw the words “gang-related” in the article somewhere and thought “Figures”? Oh, you haven’t heard of those kinds of homicides before? No worries, we’ll cover that later.

This perception just doesn’t end with race. “Legit” victims have political parties, live in certain neighborhoods, and subscribe to our favorite religions. I’ll make a small wager – I could post the names of Chicago’s shooting deaths and won’t get near as many “retweets”, “favorites”, “shares”, or “likes” as I do when I post about cop deaths or guys in the military. Don’t get me wrong – I served in both capacities and those deaths were honorable and deserved being mentioned. That being said, what does it say about the value we place on human lives, when we feel certain deaths are worth more of our attention than others. Those officers died on those streets to stop crimes like those murders from happening, yet we’re astoundingly silent when it comes to remembering those dead. Why is that? Is there some part of us that can’t or won’t acknowledge a certain dark truth which is not “all lives matter”?

I was on the podcast, CovertContact not too long ago and somewhere in my rant there, you’ll probably notice I was very emphatic about something I feel will be a pressing national security issue soon. If we don’t embody what we preach which is “all lives do matter” in every fiber of our national fabric, then those who continue to feel devalued will act as those they and those who look just like them have no value. 

Sadly, the crisis we have growing exponentially doesn’t require me to furnish any statistics to make this point – the truth is all too apparent. That simple but very present reality is that unless victims match our skin color, go to our churches, believe in exactly the same things we do, and are willing to admit our supremacy on matters where we disagree, their lives are as meaningless as those “retweets”, “favorites”, “likes”, and “shares” I mentioned before. This is not a crisis we should crave or even begin to think we’re adequately prepared for. Care not because their lives matter but care because all lives truly do matter.

RIP Danny Williams, 29 years old, college graduate, Christian, father, son, brother, cousin, and loyal friend.

Saturday, November 29, 2014

The GateShack - Episode 04 - Ferguson - Lessons Learned



Show Notes:
First, I’d like to extend an apology for the previous episode’s audio issues. I was attempting something new while preparing the podcast and it backfired on me. For that, I apologize and I appear to have the sound sorted out.
During today’s podcast, I wanted to continue our discussion on Ferguson with some of the lessons we’ve learned since August. I focus a lot on some of the mistakes made by Ferguson PD during the early days of the protests. Some of those mistakes are still being made and they offer insight into how we, as security and law enforcement officers, can do better when responding to civil disturbances. Feel free to leave a comment on Twitter using the hashtag #FergusonLessons or leaving a comment below.

Monday, October 20, 2014

The “Rules” From 1829 Which NYPD Commish Bratton Carries

The “Rules” From 1829 Which NYPD Commish Bratton Carries

In 1829, Sir Robert Peel, upon founding the Metropolitan Police in London (the world’s first recorded organized police force), believed certain principles would guide his department into being professional and accountable. There were various attempts at policing before but none had ventured to be as organized as Peel’s was. While “the Met” is the first organized and officially sanctioned police force in the world, many officers are unaware of who he is or the principles he founded modern policing on. As events continue to occur which cause the public to question the professionalism and accountability of its police officers, I HIGHLY suggest any student of criminal justice and policing read these principles and determine whether their respective police departments still adhere to these principles or if they’re mere guides.
  • Principle 1 – “The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.”
  • Principle 2 – “The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.”
  • Principle 3 – “Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.”
  • Principle 4 – “The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.”
  • Principle 5 – “Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to the public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.”
  • Principle 6 – “Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.”
  • Principle 7 – “Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public  who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”
  • Principle 8 – “Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.”
  • Principle 9 – “The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.”
Many moons ago, I had a young military police officer tell me, “Staff Sergeant King, we’re cops – NOT customer service!” She was frustrated at other military members who she felt demanded more than what she perceived the job required. I understood her frustration but I also knew the other members were absolutely correct. Police officers may not have clients in the same way their security counterparts do,  but they do “service” a more influential group of people – citizens. Most cops sign up thinking their days and nights will be spent on countless foot-chases and solving major crimes. In fact, while these things do occur, they do not make up the bulk of a cop’s existence. Even in those situations and various “calls for service”, police officers must never forget the public is heavily influenced by how officers treat their requests and how they respond to them.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

OLD SCHOOL SATURDAY – THIS DUDE IS THE COOLEST NARC YOU’VE EVER SEEN

This has to be the coolest undercover cop/narc I’ve ever seen in my life.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

GUEST AUTHOR - DEVIN RUIC: Disarming the Gun Control Debate


Today's article is a guest blog post from Devin Ruic, a Department of the Army civilian, having previously worked with the Defense Intelligence Agency as an intelligence analyst. Originally from Cleveland, Ohio he decided to take his talents to Washington, DC in 2010 before shifting slightly more north to Baltimore, Maryland in 2012. Devin has years of recreational shooting experience with various firearms, and is expert qualified with the Army’s M11 semi automatic pistol.


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people tokeep and bear arms shall not be infringed.~The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as passed by the States.
The topic of gun regulation is fraught with emotional responses. Advocates for new, restrictive gun legislation refer to exceptional tragedies, like the Newtown Massacre, as an attempt to personalize the loss of victims to the entire country. Gun enthusiasts refer to the Second Amendment, studies lambasting previous gun bans, and anecdotal evidence surrounding the use of specific firearms, like the AR-15, as a personal defense tool. Unlike many commentators, I see value in both of these positions. First, let us discuss regulation and where it came from, starting with this: for decades fully automatic firearms (or "machine guns") have been illegal to purchase or manufacture for civilian use, but how?
Ready...
Well, sawed-off shotguns have been considered illegal since at least 1939, when the Supreme Court decided in The United States v. Miller that there was no reasonable expectation of Second Amendment protections regarding a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" because it did not have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
The Supreme Court went further, discussing the origins of the "militia" as mentioned in the Second Amendment, and determined "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.’A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." This decision provides what could be reasonable regulatory guidance moving forward, then.
Firearms need to have this reasonable relationship to the efficacy of a militia, and that militia is traditionally composed of physically capable males (and women, in modern times) who supplied their commonly used firearms to the cause (a violent, historical "Bring Your Own Beer"). In the 1930s, sawed off shotguns were determined to be neither useful nor in the common use,and therefore those could be easily outlawed (targeting primarily criminal elements, where the ownership and use of said firearm was most common).
Following this crucial decision, and fast forwarding a couple of decades, we arrive at the federal Gun Control Act of 1968. Whether or not you are a connoisseur of federal law, some of its provisions should sound extraordinarily familiar. This act banned the sale or transfer of a firearm to a number of "prohibited persons" including convicts, fugitives, known addicts, the mentally-ill, non-citizens, and other even more-likely-to-be-violent types. If you are feeling a sense of Déjà Vu, that is because almost all of the recent debate has referenced this decades old prohibited persons list, and how in the world we as a society actively prohibit these people from acquiring firearms.
Some of the provisions of this act still sparked controversy, particularly down the line when it was alleged that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) had overstepped its bounds as described by the law, and unconstitutionally restricted some retailers and Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders. In 1982, a Senate panel convened in response to these allegations determined that the Second Amendment protects "an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
In order to fix the legislative problems with the Gun Control Act of 1968 as originally determined by the 1982 Senate panel, the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 was passed. This eased many of the restrictions that were considered controversial in the original act (interstate travel with a firearm, the ban on mailing ammunition, interstate purchases of rifles, etc), but also included an amendment at the 11th hour to ban fully automatic machine guns. Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332, introduced by New Jersey Democrat William Hughes, banned the new production and sales of machine guns starting May 19, 1986, but grandfathered in any firearms produced or owned prior to that date. Aha! I knew those pesky machine guns would come back up - but there you go, a precedent for banning a whole class of firearm.
Aim...
Democratic Senator from California Dianne Feinstein, the driving force behind the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, is attempting to reinstate a more strict version of the ban following the Newtown Massacre, as well as a slew of commonly referenced "mass shootings".
Both the 1994 ban and this proposed 2013 ban primarily target semi automatic rifles, dubbed "assault weapons", such as the AR-15, many Saiga (Russian, basically Kalashnikov brand) shotguns, a number of semi automatic pistols, and so-called high capacity magazines. Most recently, any ammunition loading device capable of holding more than ten rounds has fallen within the reticle (Woo, topical humor!) of this "high capacity" moniker.
Considering I have just introduced a 'common use' (yes, I know, I'll stop now) phrase important to this discussion, I will discuss its origin. "Assault weapon" certainly sounds like a firearm just about no one needs. Heck, it sounds a lot like "machine gun". Unfortunately for those not familiar with firearms, that isn't what the term means. For the purposes of the legislation, the term "assault" rifle refers to a semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, forward grip, an adjustable stock, a grenade/rocket launcher (Holy... what is that doing in there?!), a barrel shroud, or a threaded barrel. So, any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine (many, if not most, modern rifles) and any one of those other characteristics is banned. None of those characteristics (except for the grenade launcher, because how in the world is that legal, anyway?) make the firearm more dangerous or lethal, they simply help stabilize the firearm and make it more comfortable to shoot - an important characteristic for anyone hunting or shooting for recreation or defense. For those keeping score at home, I did not forget that a threaded barrel can allow for the use of a suppressor, but remember that anyone wishing to purchase a one has to apply through the ATF, undergo a background check, pay $200, deal with subsonic ammunition, and receive a revenue stamp - the document proving that the suppressor is legally owned.
Regardless, these weapons must be significantly more dangerous than your day to day target rifle, right?
Not necessarily.
Well, they must represent a high proportion of gun violence, right?
Also a no. The oft-referenced Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report (UCR) highlights this. In 2011, 13,913 murders (or non-negligent manslaughters) were committed. Of these, 323 were committed with any kind of rifle (whether it be fully automatic, semi automatic, bolt action, or lever action). That represents only 2.3% of these crimes. Another 356 were committed with a shotgun, again without distinction between pump action and semiautomatic. By comparison, 6,220 were committed with handguns alone. This accounts for a much more impressive 44% of these crimes.
So why in the world go after "assault rifles" and not pistols as a whole?
A look at the conclusion of a 1988 study conducted by the Violence Policy Center entitled "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America" may give us a pretty good idea (emphasis added): "Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. The reasons for this vary: the power of the gun lobby; the tendency of both sides of the issue to resort to sloganeering and pre-packaged arguments when discussing the issue; the fact that until an individual is affected by handgun violence he or she is unlikely to work for handgun restrictions; the view that handgun violence is an "unsolvable" problem; the inability of the handgun restriction movement to organize itself into an effective electoral threat; and the factthat until someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens, handgun restrictionis simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
It boils down to the confusing nature of the terminology and whether or not a firearm looks scary, and whether the general public will care enough until it becomes a large scale tragedy, rather than the all too common shooting in an urban environment. In my opinion, every shooting should be addressed by future laws, not just famous ones.
So why high capacity magazines? Many commentators claim that the time it takes for an active shooter to change magazines can provide a crucial opportunity for victims to escape. This is a reasonable claim, and I do not dispute the anecdotal evidence supporting it. Shooters have been tackled and subdued, and victims have escaped during these precious few moments. Not always, however, is this the case.
Eric Harris, one of the Columbine shooters, did not have access to high capacity magazines, but instead came into possession of thirteen 10-round magazines. He was able to fire 96 rounds from his Hi-Point 995, a carbine rifle firing pistol ammunition, before he killed himself. 13 victims died.
Seung-Hui Cho, a student at Virginia Tech, murdered 32 people, using a Walther P22 (which has a 10-round magazine of .22 long rifle bullets) and a Glock 17 (which can house 10, 15, 17, 19, or 33-round magazines of 9x19mm ammunition). Cho fired at least 174 rounds in a matter of minutes, and police found an additional 203 live rounds in his possession after the fact. Having chained the doors shut behind him, Cho prohibited his victims from escaping, and was able to reload with near impunity, regardless of his magazine capacity and choice of pistols, rather than an “assault rifle.”
None of this changes the fact that far too many innocents have died at the hands of madmen who, through either a failure of the system or a previous criminal act came into possession of firearms and then used them in the commission of horrendous crimes. In order to combat these crimes, something does need to be done - and members of both parties accept that basic fact. The difference lies in what should be done, and how the current crop of politicians is moving forward.
Fire!
The first logical step in combating illegal firearms is universal background checks. This is a truth that National Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre needs to accept - even without prosecutions for every failed background check, limiting the means of dangerous criminals from purchasing firearms is not a bad thing. Plus, when you peddle the idea as the face of the gun lobby in 1999, 2013 is a really bad time to attempt and backtrack. However, there are obvious weaknesses in the current federal background check system. If it were a foolproof system Gerald Hume - a schizophrenic with a violent past - would not have been able to purchase a number of firearms and ammunition from FFLs and proceed to engage in an 11 hour standoff with police while Hume protected the chopped up remains of his own mother from discovery.
Let me be absolutely clear - I am suggesting a vast increase in the sharing of information between the States and the Federal database system, to include information that would label potential gun buyers as violently mentally-ill. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) permits the waiving of privacy in the case of national security activities, whether these relate to intelligence collection or counterintelligence. A new version of this act could allow for a redacted version of the information regarding an individual’s adjudicated mental status to be listed within a federal database without unnecessarily infringing upon a patient's’ privacy, in the same way as federal investigations already sidestep the restrictions HIPAA imposes. There is already a precedent for medical data being used to prohibit gun ownership - the prohibition on gun purchases by patients prescribed marijuana, despite the legality of medical marijuana state-by-state. Regardless of the justification for the prescription, the ATF draws the line at the use of a federally-illegal narcotic in conjunction with firearm ownership. If marijuana users are more of a concern than the adjudicated mentally-ill who are determined to be violent, we are living in an upside down world.
Second, banning a semiautomatic rifle with but one military characteristic is illogical. Origins within military design are ubiquitous in firearms - a Soviet-issued infantry rifle is among the most popular hunting rifles in the US and the Colt 1911MA1 pistol, designed for the US military, is still possibly the most popular handgun in America, neither being more dangerous than the average target or hunting firearm. Additionally, a rifle with a ten round magazine chambered with a .22 round may be less lethal than a semi automatic pistol chambered with a .45 round, depending on the intent and capability of the shooter – but this is not a consideration worked into current legislation that would ban even .22 caliber rifles shaped like their higher caliber “assault weapon” brethren. Regardless, an attempt to limit the potential danger associated with either of these weapons in a the hands of a violent shooter is a natural response to mass shootings utilizing “assault rifles” specifically (though we should not provide a pardon to the use of illegally owned handguns in the same manner). To this end, regulation of high capacity magazines moving forward is a middle ground that can accomplish both gun legislation parties’ goals.
For pro gun regulation advocates, the institution of a policy similar to that of the regulation governing suppressors can effectively control the public’s, and potentially criminals’, access to seemingly unnecessary high-capacity magazines. This could, anecdotally speaking, provide for more opportunities for victims to escape active shooter situations while the perpetrator changes magazines.
Despite the institution of such a regulation, those citizens and firearm aficionados that want high capacity magazines for any number of reasons could still apply to the ATF in order to purchase either the magazines or the components to maintain currently owned and grandfathered-in magazines, thereby not banning wholesale the ownership or manufacture of these devices, while still encouraging the manufacturing and sale market of lower capacity magazines for hunting, recreational, and self defense purposes. Using the logic that criminals are unlikely to pass the necessary application process and background check for the hypothetical regulation, the supply of high capacity magazines and their component parts to these criminal elements would dry up over a number of years, while law abiding citizens continue to enjoy their freedoms, as well as allowing firearms to be effectively customized to its legal shooter - male, female, competitor, hunter, or otherwise.
Reload!
Gun legislation is controversial, from whatever perspective you look at it. From the extremes, either the Democrat-controlled Senate and Executive Branch are looking to create a database to exploit in the future (it isn't), or Republican gun owners are looking to take up arms against the democratically elected government (they aren't). This is not a debate where we can use ad hominem attacks, like those in the previous sentence, nor should we. Instead, we should look to solutions that allow for the continued exercise of constitutionally guaranteed rights, while still moving toward a system that will prohibit the mentally-ill or criminally-minded from acquiring theweapons they use to commit murder.
The firearm regulation debate should not be a push from one side of the political spectrum, but rather a push from every gun owner, parent, hunter, teacher, target shooter, and doctor alike. We can attempt and ban objects used to kill - but cars, knives, garbage bags, and even our own hands would be on that list. We need to deal with the people that commit these acts and their possession of the weapons enabling them. We also need to realize that no action we will take will create the utopia of peace we want to leave for our children - but that doesn’t mean we shouldn't act, it means we should act intelligently and hope they will be left with better circumstances than and a more peaceful world than we were, while still retaining their Constitutional rights.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are exclusively those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any agency of the U.S. government.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Five Things You Should Know About Christoper Dorner: Myth Busted


Folks, on Twitter, I have made no qualms about my feelings about Christopher Dorner. He is a murderer plain and simple. I won't be using this as a post to defend him or his actions. This post is mostly to talk about his mortality and the myths that surround him.

  1. Dorner was not an operator.  First, let's define "operator". An operator is anyone who is engaged in direct action covert operations. They come from the special operations and intelligence community.  They receive extensive training in things ranging from combat SCUBA to defensive driving, ordnance, small infantry tactics, covert infiltration, and high-altitude low opening (HALO). This training takes YEARS. And it takes even longer before some are considered operational. Many don't even get to go to schools right away before they go operational. Here's what we know about Dorner. He was an aviation school washout. What does that mean? The Navy tried for two years to make Dorner a pilot but couldn't for undisclosed reasons. These reasons could have been weight (he gained weight dramatically over the years), physical disability, ineptitude, or variety of dis-qualifiers  This compounds the myth further because the Navy spent a lot of money trying to train Dorner to be a pilot. So what happened next? They sent him to be a part of a riverine unit. This sounds pretty cool. Here's the problem. Dorner only stayed with that unit for 2 years before he was forced to move on. You will notice a pattern when examining his record. He has a history of bouncing from military unit to military unit.  Most likely, when you see such movements and not rapid promotions or earned recognition, it is indicative of someone who couldn't quite fit in. By the time he finished his deployment in Bahrain where he guarded an oil platform (a job Army cooks were doing for a while), his career in the Navy was nearing its end.  Dorner lacked any of the operational or training requirements to meet any criteria associated with being an operator.
  2. Dorner was a narcisssist. He used scary terms like "asymmetrical warfare" to bolster who he wanted people to think he was. In his manifesto, he was no longer Christopher Dorner, Navy and LAPD washout. No. He became a mythical persona. He was someone out of a Hollywood revenge movie. He became something he couldn't be in real life - special and unique. He believed LAPD had robbed him of that. Count how many times Dorner used the pronoun "I". It's quite extensive. Also notice how he never went to DoJ or any other entity. The slight wasn't against his victims. LAPD had done something far worse. They picked on Christopher Dorner.
  3. He was mortal. There are several signs we have of Dorner's mortality. Let's look at his failed escape attempts. An experienced operator plans his missions with meticulous detail. They don't miss anything. The one thing they never mess up is their extraction. Dorner messed up all of his extraction plans. After he robbed the old man at the marina of his boat, he forgets to secure the tow line. It, as we know, got caught in the propeller and the boat never left its dock. This is seamanship 101. How does a harbor cop like Dorner miss this? Because he's not a pro. He hadn't planned on everything to include his adrenaline overcoming his thinking. It happens to a lot of people in combat. This is why operators are heavily screened to judge how they operate under stressful conditions. Dorner's extraction from Big Bear failed as well. I'm not talking about the fire. I'm speaking of before that. Let's look at what went wrong there. He believes he can drive off-road skillfully which is evidenced in his manifesto. Again, he did not forecast poor weather conditions nor the amount of stress he would be under. So what does he do? He wrecks his transportation, breaks the axle, and is forced to set the truck on fire.

    He also didn't realize the Marshals were on to this extraction. They had marshals and Recon Marines conducting surveillance on his hideaway spot when they saw the fire. Sensing the impending arrival of law enforcement agencies and knowing the roads would soon be blocked, he tried to hold a couple hostage. This planned failed because they got away and told police who made contact and engaged Dorner. He was killed not by police but by the realization that for all his talk, he was just a washout.
  4. Dorner may have had access to information he shouldn't have had but that doesn't mean he had any of the tools or knowledge he claimed. I won't get into how or why or even if Dorner had access to undercover vehicle plates. Here's what I will tell you. Having those plates and recognizing them under stress in real time are totally different. Remember Dorner would have to be trained and skilled in vehicle counter-surveillance. This takes months of training to perfect. This training we know Dorner did not get in the Navy or with LAPD. His Navy time was spent with aviation training units and doing coastal security. I have experience in military law enforcement and security more extensive than Dorner while active duty and I was also in charge of requisitioning training for assets in my unit. No such training exists for anyone in any of Dorner's previous billets. Also, Dorner wouldn't have time to run down every suspicious vehicle following him.

    He also used terminology very familiar to military and law enforcement personnel and most people who have read a Vince Flynn novel. He claimed he had HUMINT (human intelligence or spies) when in fact, he was alluding to social engineering (calling schools and hospitals to obtain information he needed). He claimed he had IMINT (imagery intelligence). There is no way he had access to any discernible IMINT technologies. These require a very involved intelligence tasking and have considerable oversight. Additionally, satellites cost money. What he had was Google Earth and possibly some aerial photos that would be very dated. Having this information and using it are also completely different. He could plan escape routes but no way he could plan target mitigation with dated or unreliable data flawlessly. His signals intelligence came from scanners.

    He also had knowledge someone would expect of an LAPD officer so he knew basic tactics and procedures. What he could not have known  is that people he was matching wits with (those analysts he called out) are all experienced intelligence analysts and officers from various operational theaters. Studying threats is what they do for a living. When you get a second, look into where the people who work at fusion centers, JTTF, and VICAP come from. Talking and planning for them is kind of easy. Where it gets tough is whether your plan is superior to anything they've encountered previously. 
  5. Dorner also gave away a lot of information about himself in that manifesto. When you talk to the cops, you always give them more information than you should. Dorner gave them insight into his personality, his intellect, his methodologies, and what tools he could have. I've already talked about his personality and that his intellect was somewhat congruent with someone who is a college graduate. His methodologies and tools were expected. We knew he'd shoot it out with the cops because he said so and did it. His tools were also greatly exaggerated. There is no way he had access to MANPADS. He doesn't have the income or the resources needed to get something al Qaeda couldn't get into the US. Dorner gave an 11-page blueprint that spelled out his demise.
Whatever you think of Dorner, know this - he was very mortal. He made mistakes that no experienced person would have made. He lacked the background and tools to pull off what he claimed he could. Dorner was military-trained but flunked out of every single advanced training he was given. We panicked that he would find a plane but records indicated he had no pilot's license. He couldn't even get a boat out of port. He wrecked a truck and broke its axle because he didn't check the weather for ice and snow. He burned all of his weapons and camping gear which he would need to survive the massive manhunt on Big Bear. Allowing his hostages to escape caused the local cops to be on his trail and corner him in a cabin where he would burned before presumably shooting himself. I say all of this to debunk the myth surrounding this murderer and bring some illumination on the nature of the killer of four people.

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Visualizing Mass Shootings in America (1982 - 2012)

Visualizing mass shootings in USA
Click on the map to enlarge

Here's what I like about this infographic. It not only let's you see data by location but also by mental illness, weapons legally acquired, venue, weapon type, race, gender, and year. Be sure to click on the map to enlarge it so you can see the graph.

Take a look at the actual data:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AtIWtgxch7DtdERIVnowSkx4NGRjN3E4UjdWMHNRY3c&output=html

Friday, January 25, 2013

INTERVIEW: The Coolest Mass Spectrometer At the Airport You Know Nothing About - The Griffin 824

Griffin 824 in operation (Photo FLIR)
Last week, I had the privilege and esteemed honor to interview Garth Patterson from FLIR about a product I’m dying to tell you about – the Griffin 824.  Before I begin, I’d like to remind you I was in military law enforcement/security for 10 years.  However, my knowledge of the science behind the Griffin 824 is cursory at best.  So, I called every person I knew who understood mass spectrometry to give me a brief tutorial.  As you can tell, Garth explained things perfectly.

Garth, can you tell me about your background and the product?  Let’s begin with you and then what it actually does?
Well, I’m the program manager for the Griffin 824.  I previously worked for Griffin before it became a part of FLIR.  The device is a mass spectrometry device which analyzes chemical compounds at the molecular level.  It is used in a variety of field applications ranging from corrections, law enforcement, border crossings, airports, etc. It looks for explosives and narcotic traces from a user-gathered sample.
Wow, that sounds pretty interesting.  How exactly does it do that? *At this point, I’m hoping Garth doesn’t go over my head.*
What happens is the user swipes a surface with a 1-inch paper-like sheet.  The sheet contains a surface area that picks up trace elements from the surface to be examined.  The user then inputs the sample in the Griffin 824 which then inserts the sheet between two stainless steel plates.  The plates are heated to vaporize the sheet and the elements.  The ions are then manipulated using electromagnetic fields and an analysis is conducted using software in the Griffin 824.  The device can differentiate between “junk” and actual compounds.  Something ion scanners previously weren’t so good with. 
How does a user know they have a “hit”?
The machine will display a green light at the initial startup and will then go to yellow when analyzing.  After the analysis is complete, the light will either go green again to signal a negative result or go red to annunciate a positive result.
How long does it take to start up the 824?
It takes approximately 20 minutes. Though, analysis takes about 10 seconds.
Why mass spectrometry?
It’s the standard for quality lab analysis for chemical compounds.  It’s also court-friendly.
So what separates this from the lab?
It can be taken into the field.  Mass spectrometry uses a lot of big expensive equipment in a lab, as is the case with Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry.  Because it’s transportable as a single unit and has many field user-friendly applications, it’s a natural fit for field analysis.
Going over some of the literature, it claims the 824 is equipped for both audio and visual alert cues. 
Yes.  We felt there was a need for operators not to have a loud, audible cue annunciate in front of a subject.
Are there any other applications that set the Griffin 824 apart from other technology?
It’s network addressable.  This means you can presumably plug the 824 into a network and have results shared over a network to a command and control center.  The 824 also has administrative and user profiles for individual operators in addition to a USB report for flash drives.  The screen is also a touch screen.  There is also no carrier gases needed which means no big helium tanks.  The unit is self-contained.  Given its ease of use, it takes a little under a day to train personnel on how to use the 824.
Garth, to say I’m impressed is an understatement.  How long from inception to production?
About 4 years.  We have another mass spectrometer, the Griffin 460 where we received feedback from operators wanting something for field use for narcotics and explosive detection analysis.  We saw the biggest need initially in airports for trace detection.
Garth, thanks so much for taking the time to speak with me.  It was truly an honor.  

For more on the Griffin 824, please click on the links below.

FLIR Griffin 824 web page

FLIR Griffin 824 Datasheet 
To see the Griffin 824 in action check out the video below (no audio)

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Video: Choose Your Own Crime Stats


Folks, this will be my last post on gun control for a bit (I hope).  I found this video to be a great illustration of what's wrong with our current debate on gun control legislation.  Often, we allow Internet memes and populist angst to be our compass on things we want our government to legislate on.  We often do this without the scantest hint of sound research.  Our sources are biased and manipulate data for their own agenda.  I encourage you to do your own research and look for sources that are reliable and have a solid reputation for being unbiased.  Don't allow your ignorance on an issue to misguide you to a decision based on faulty logic and data exploitation.  When in doubt, remember Stalin relied on his own analysis of intelligence gleaned from the KGB to determine who was killed or imprisoned as an enemy of the state.  25 MILLION lives later we realized the folly in this logic (sort of).  Then Iraq happened and again, we trusted alleged manipulated data to make presumably very flawed decisions.  In a time of increased divisiveness and out of control vitriol-filled rhetoric, too much is at stake to get it wrong this time.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

The Facts On The President's Gun Violence Executive Actions

We all knew this day would come. We've known the Vice President and his commission were working on recommendations to stymie the kind of acts of violence we've seen in places like Newtown, CT. There has been an enormous amount of rumor and hyperbole surrounding the commission's recommendations. Add in various conspiracy theories and cries for revolution and uprising and you have what I call a "perfect storm of biased and subjective opinions disguised as facts". Like the NOAA, we should name this storm - Logic Storm "Lunacy".

First, let's start with the 23 executive actions the President can take. You should know the President, while he cannot pass laws, he can write instructions for his executive agencies on how they can enforce existing laws. Contrary to what you read on social media or partisan-loyal sites, the President is NOT taking away guns. What he plans on doing is ASKING Congress to renew the assault weapons ban. We'll cover that at a later when we have his bill in front of us. You should know this bill has the same chances of survival in the House of Representatives as ice in a microwave.

Here are the actions the President will order (click here for a link to the pdf):
  1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
  2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
  3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
  4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
  5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
  6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
  7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
  8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
  9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
  10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
  11. Nominate an ATF director.
  12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
  13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
  14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
  15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies
  16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
  17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
  18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
  19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
  20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
  21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
  22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
  23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.


There you have it.  There is no existing measure TODAY to take away your guns. The most prominent piece of these executive actions is mental health. Most of of the actions are meant to supplement existing law enforcement and mental health initiatives BOTH sides claim are needed. There is nothing overly invasive for private citizens in THESE actions. No black-booted thug army created. No UN-mandated confiscation plan. That is not to say the assault weapons ban won't be.

The Violence Policy Center, an anti-assault weapons non-profit think tank said in 2004:

Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing "post-ban" assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts. The VPC estimates that more than one million assault weapons have been manufactured since the ban's passage in 1994. The sad truth is that mere renewal would have done little to stop this flood of assault weapons.
Salon.com reminded us today the likelihood of such a bill passing through the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.  Though the article is harsh on the GOP one cannot ignore with a 33 vote deficit and a GOP House swollen with partisans, there is very little hope of a ban occurring during this term.

There is some language in the executive actions that will ruffle some folks' feathers such as proposing gun shows no longer be exempt from background checks.  This closes a significant loophole in existing federal law regarding background checks. There's also very broad language thus far as to providing mental health treatment to Medicare recipients. It's a nice tie-in for folks who presumably the President wants to buy-in to "Obamacare". Ironically, most active shooters have come from upper to middle class homes and weren't on any acknowledged public assistance.

Are there things in the President's current plans that I don't like?  
Yes.  

Do I think this will stymie the tide of most gun violence?  
No.  

Is that because I think this covers crimes like Newtown and not crimes that occur on streets in cities like Chicago where the weapons are already on the street and purchased through various straw purchases?  
Yup.  

Are there things I like?  
Yup.
  
Are they pertaining to mental health and putting additional resources in the hands of those who have to respond and mitigate these issues? 
Yup.

Do I think an assault weapons ban is feasible or worth pursuing?  
Not really. The bad guys already have these guns and tougher sentences do little in preventing these heinous acts.  

Are these actions a good start? 
Possibly. We'll have to wait and see, unfortunately. C'est l'vie.

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Living in Chicago's Gang Occupied Neighborhoods by AssociatedPress



Chicago is experiencing a more than 50 percent surge in homicides, most of them on the city's south and west sides. In the second of a three part series, The Associated Press looks into the lives of people in those violent neighborhoods. (June 12) Subscribe to the Associated Press: http://bit.ly/APYouTube Download AP Mobile: http://www.ap.org/mobile/ Associated Press on Facebook: http://apne.ws/c7lQTV Associated Press on Twitter: http://apne.ws/bTquhb Associated Press on Google+: http://bit.ly/zuTKBL

Sovereign Citizens and Law Enforcement by SPLCenter



This Southern Poverty Law Center video was created to help law enforcement agencies better prepare for encounters with "sovereign citizens." In the case of two West Memphis, Ark., police officers, Brandon Paudert and Bill Evans, a routine traffic stop of father-and-son sovereign citizen duo Jerry and Joe Kane in May proved fatal when son Joe, 16, leaped from the car firing an AK-47, cutting down both officers. The Kanes died in a shootout with police an hour later in a Wal-Mart parking lot after wounding two more officers. SPLC estimates that as many as 300,000 people may consider themselves sovereign citizens — and the number is growing.

Friday, December 16, 2011

Targeting Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2011 passed by US Senate



Ahhh snap!  According to United States Senate, the boys and gals at the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration just got "additional tools to target extraterritorial drug trafficking activity".  Yesterday, December 15, they passed Senate Bill 1612 (aka Targeting Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2011) introduced by Senators Gloria Feinstein (D-CA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Robert Casey (D-PA), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Tom Udall (D-NM), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).    Basically, this makes it a crime to manufacture or distribute a chemical knowing or intending for its import into the United States specifically within 12 nautical miles of the US.  What does that mean?  Let's say, you distribute HU-210 (synthetic cannabis) which is "100 to 800 times more potent than natural THC".  Given the knowledge of its Schedule I status, any chemicals found to be used in its creation could become prosecutable.  The manufacturers of these compounds have also won themselves at the defense table along with you.  If enforced, this might have a profound impact on loophole-savvy "legal pot" storefronts.

Monday, September 12, 2011

Commentary: Have we "evolved" beyond incarceration as a punishment?




Have we gotten to a point as a civilization where we have "evolved" past incarceration as an effective means of crime deterrence and punishment? During a course I'm taking on corrections, I posed this question to my classmates. I am beginning to be of the opinion that we are getting close to seeing incarceration as not being punitive nor rehabilitative enough for certain offenders. How can it be when our culture glamorizes abhorrent behavior and has created an outside "culture" where our norms and morals are seen as inconsequential? We tend to think of punishments in terms of these values. Most law-abiding citizens enjoy freedom. Criminals place little value on freedom or the rewards of a compliant and peaceful lifestyle. So why do we structure our punishment towards them with this value? As my favorite Vulcan says, "It's illogical."

I'm not opposing incarceration for certain violent offenders. However, I firmly believe "jail time" for crimes against property and certain misdemeanors has become extremely costly and offers very little restitution for its victims and the community. In other words, "the punishment doesn't fit the crime".

So what do I propose? The time has come for our society to reexamine our criminal justice system and assess whether our expectations are realistic enough. I would surmise we would conclude those expectations are too high given the diminishing resources dedicated to eliminating crime. With budgetary cuts in rehabilitation programs and correctional facilities, we have attempted to solve our "crime problem" with a minimalist attitude. In other words, "there is money in the treatment and not in the cure".

Our national conversation needs to move beyond the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" paradigm and into one where we contemplate alternative punishment/rehabilitative environments. What are your thoughts?

About Us