Ladies and Gents,
Well, the title of this blog is "Life in Law Enforcement." I have been looking for folks who have thoughts on this topic. I have found none...I am really surprised by that... The purpose of this blog is to allow folks from whatever aspect of law enforcement to talk about their experiences. I am only a little dissappointed that I have not had more folks respond.
But, that is another subject for another day. Last week I came to the distict realization that family is and should always be the most important entity in our lives. I am a family man and anyone that knows me would agree.... However, I must now tend to other matters within the family that will pull me away from what I love so dearly. My break will probably be brief, but, I must say, this happened suddenly and caught me totally off guard.
I have had years and years of military training in addition to my 17 years in law enforcement. One would think I could not be caught off guard. Not true... i was blown away... Now, I will deal with what the Good Lord has laid in my path.
Tonight's post is simply to remind everyone in Law Enforcement, life happens. We are not immune bacause of what we do. We have to deal with the daily struggles normal citizens have to deal with. never forget that.
Take care and talk to you soon.
What do you think?
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
Violent Weekend
My career path led me to Homicide several years ago. I can't explain exactly what it is that drew me to this line of work, but it is very rewarding in its own way. However, there are times when I wonder just what in the Hell was I thinking.
This past Labor Day weekend has been one for the books. I have made three scenes in three days, not to mention being involved in an incident myself last Friday. I noticed when we were processing the scene on Friday that the moon was going to be a full one. I also knew that we were in store for a very long weekend....Little did I know....
For those that don't know, HPD Homicide works several rotations simultaneously. It is quite confusing to those that don't actually work it, but it's actually quite simple. Long story short, we normally work weekends for a month about every six months. The other ten months of the year, we have weekends off. Everyone knows that when weekend duty begins, the potential is there to work a number of scenes. But, it is rare to get three in one weekend. We normally average three to four scenes throughout the entire month we work weekends.
Because this weekend was so busy, I began to wonder just what it is that makes people so violent on occassion. I don't blame the moon. It was full and I believe that to be a pure coincidence. But, there must be some kind of explanation. The way I figure it, there must be some kind of a scientific explanation as to why violence tends to increase on some holidays. Labor Day and Thanksgiving are the two most violent holiday weekends I know of. Now, I have no solid backing on that statement. That's just my experience.
Do any of you have any explanations to offer?
This past Labor Day weekend has been one for the books. I have made three scenes in three days, not to mention being involved in an incident myself last Friday. I noticed when we were processing the scene on Friday that the moon was going to be a full one. I also knew that we were in store for a very long weekend....Little did I know....
For those that don't know, HPD Homicide works several rotations simultaneously. It is quite confusing to those that don't actually work it, but it's actually quite simple. Long story short, we normally work weekends for a month about every six months. The other ten months of the year, we have weekends off. Everyone knows that when weekend duty begins, the potential is there to work a number of scenes. But, it is rare to get three in one weekend. We normally average three to four scenes throughout the entire month we work weekends.
Because this weekend was so busy, I began to wonder just what it is that makes people so violent on occassion. I don't blame the moon. It was full and I believe that to be a pure coincidence. But, there must be some kind of explanation. The way I figure it, there must be some kind of a scientific explanation as to why violence tends to increase on some holidays. Labor Day and Thanksgiving are the two most violent holiday weekends I know of. Now, I have no solid backing on that statement. That's just my experience.
Do any of you have any explanations to offer?
Thursday, September 3, 2009
President Obama Speaking to Students
Ok, for those of you that know me, this post may be a shock. I, like many others, have heard that next Tuesday, President Obama is going to speak to students. He plans to do this at 12:00 p.m. eastern time. Parents immediately started raising all kins of Hell because they did not want their children subjected to having to listen to the President speak. Why?
Well, I think there are a number of reasons. But, I don't particularly care what the reasons are, I say the man was elected President of the United States. He has a message he wants to give our children about staying in school. His target audience should be in class at that time all across the country. Let the man give his speech to the kids.
Now, as a parent, I am not offended by my children being "subjected" to the President's message at all. I know my kids will talk to me about it when they get home and tell me their thoughts. We will have an intelligent and informed discussion. Quite frankly, I think this may be the only issue that the President and I agree on. Kids need to stay in school.
Now, if a parent has a severe objection to having their child hear the President speak, then I guess they should take their child out of the class for that speech. But, what kind of a message are we sending our kids by doing that? If I disagree with you on an issue, then we will disagree. I will not dodge seeing you or hearing your speeches. That is completely childesh. I think it sends the wrong message.
A better message to send our children is hear what everyone has to say. Educate yourself by reading media from various sources. I rarely trust just the news sources. I also read periodicals, listen to talk radio, read articles on the Internet, all in an effort to ensure I at least have an educated opinion.
Sometimes, I am still wrong.....
What do you think?
Well, I think there are a number of reasons. But, I don't particularly care what the reasons are, I say the man was elected President of the United States. He has a message he wants to give our children about staying in school. His target audience should be in class at that time all across the country. Let the man give his speech to the kids.
Now, as a parent, I am not offended by my children being "subjected" to the President's message at all. I know my kids will talk to me about it when they get home and tell me their thoughts. We will have an intelligent and informed discussion. Quite frankly, I think this may be the only issue that the President and I agree on. Kids need to stay in school.
Now, if a parent has a severe objection to having their child hear the President speak, then I guess they should take their child out of the class for that speech. But, what kind of a message are we sending our kids by doing that? If I disagree with you on an issue, then we will disagree. I will not dodge seeing you or hearing your speeches. That is completely childesh. I think it sends the wrong message.
A better message to send our children is hear what everyone has to say. Educate yourself by reading media from various sources. I rarely trust just the news sources. I also read periodicals, listen to talk radio, read articles on the Internet, all in an effort to ensure I at least have an educated opinion.
Sometimes, I am still wrong.....
What do you think?
Monday, August 31, 2009
We Must Do Our Jobs Correctly
Read this link with an open mind. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all
It is a lengthy article. However, it is worth the time to read it, especially for those of us in investigations. First, I do not subscribe to the politics of this article. The New Yorker is a liberal paper. Because of that, I believe the article is slanted. However, leaving that aside, there are some really good points.
If you have never investigated an arson case, you will have no idea how difficult the cases are. I will say that I have only had two. I can not interpret the scene. I must rely on experts to do that for me. That being said, I am not sure I would not have followed the same methods that were followed in this case. So secondly, I am not posting this article to bash any investigators, prosecutors, judges or witnesses in this case. I merely post it due to the content.
Now, I will summarize the article here. This summary is VERY brief. I highly suggest you read it when you get the time.
A man named Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted of a brutal homicide in which his three children were killed. Arson investigators determined the fire was intentionally set and all three children died as a result of the fire. Willingham refused to accept a plea for life in prison instead of the death penalty. His reason was simple. He said he didn't do it. Willingham was not going to accept a plea for something he did do. He risked the death penalty.
Willingham's attorneys even encouraged him to plea. He steadfastly refused. Subsequently, the jury found him guilty after only one hour of deliberation. Willingham was sentenced to death.
In 2004, Willingham was executed for this crime. At the time of his execution, he had befriended an author who was doing some work for the Innocence Project. She took a look at the case and was able to come up with some interesting interpretations of the evidence, which in my opinion, merit some consideration. To me, this new interpretation of the evidence suggests there is another cause to the fire than arson. That is not for me to determine. What my message is regarding this case is simple. There are several things we can do today that should be considered when investigating cases. I don't believe there is an honest officer or prosecutor who wants to send an innocent man to death row for a crime he did not commit.
Now, on to the points I noticed in this case that merit more scrutiny.
First, let's tackle scientific evidence. To me, there is nothing better. The science does not lie. There was only one bit of evidence that was tested in a lab and the results showed that some kind of accelerant was used in the hallway. I could not ascertain if that was the only scientific evidence tested, but the article makes it appear that way.
Next, a review of the detectives. One detective, Manuel Vasquez, was considered the expert in this case. He made several statements that fires do not destroy evidence, they create it. He also had investigated over 1,200 fires. He testified in court that he did not enter the investigation with any preconceived notions. He said that he approached all investigations with the mindset that the evidence would lead to the suspect. He the later testified, that in his expert opinion, the fire was not only intentionally set, the motive was to kill the kids. The article offers no other proof of that statement other than the statement itself. I personally want to know how it is that Vasquez came to that conclusion. I also find it interesting that he is able to make that kind of opinion in court. His expertise was allegedly in fires and the interpretation of that evidence. I don't find where he should be an expert in what one's intent is when they start the fire. Maybe he does have that qualification, but it's not provided in the article.
The detectives were able to interview Willingham and he denied any involvement in the alleged crime. The detectives and the jury took that to mean he was a cold blooded killer.
Vasquez testified also that the fire does not lie, it is up to him to interpret its meaning, however. (I am sorry, I am not convinced of Vasquez' ability to both interpret what a fire says and what a person says. Two totally different languages.) This burden was tremendous. To me, there was too much emphasis placed on one man's testimony. This was a death penalty case, after all.
Now lets move on to the witnesses. The neighbor first told police and fire investigators that when she saw Willingham, he was very distraught and was unable to get into the house to get his daughters. The fire was very intense at this point and Willingham told her to call 911. The neighbor left to do this and was gone for several minutes. Willingham stated that he tried to get into the house several times but the heat and flames were too intense. He was screaming for his daughters and was unable to save them. Later on, about two weeks later and only after it became known that Willingham was a suspect, did the same neighbor change her story so that she believed Willingham's response was inappropriate. Following is a quote from the article that is most appropriate here.
"Dozens of studies have shown that witnesses’ memories of events often change when they are supplied with new contextual information. Itiel Dror, a cognitive psychologist who has done extensive research on eyewitness and expert testimony in criminal investigations, told me, “The mind is not a passive machine. Once you believe in something—once you expect something—it changes the way you perceive information and the way your memory recalls it.” "
Always remember that witnesses want to conform. It is completely natural. But, we as investigators, have to plan for this and make sure that we do not rely on witnesses alone.
There was another witness whose testimony sunk Willingham. Father Monaghan first stated that Willingham was very emotional and trying to get into the house. However, later, the Father stated that his emotions were inappropriate and that Willingham was "too emotional." Even coming from a man of the cloth, this statement is not up to him to determine. If it were my family caught in a fire, I would be a basket case. Does that make my reaction inappropriate? I say NO!!
The prosecution was somehow able to use posters that Willingham had in his house against him. One of the posters was of Iron Maiden. The poster depicted what was deemed inappropriate and violent. Not to mention, Willingham's tattoos were used against him. His tattoos were not gang related, but were interpreted to be "violent." Now, here I have to agree with the prosecution. I have a tattoo (only one) and to me, it is important. I know that it will never leave me. So, it better mean something to me. I also believe that is the way most people feel when they get their tattoos.
Finally, a jailhouse informant came forward to claim that he heard Willingham confess to him that he killed his kids for money. That was refuted early on in the investigation, but this guys testimony was allowed. Jailhouse inmates are a bunch of liars. Sometimes, their information is "dead on balls accurate." But remember one very important point. These guys are crooks. These guys always have something to gain. So, take their statements in context with the rest of the investigation.
There is WAY more to explore in this particular case. And please remember, this article is published by a very liberal source. The Innocence Project, although a pain in our necks sometimes, actually is a good thing. I believe that they force us to take a really hard look at our cases and ensure we have the correct suspect/defendant in custody.
What do you think?
It is a lengthy article. However, it is worth the time to read it, especially for those of us in investigations. First, I do not subscribe to the politics of this article. The New Yorker is a liberal paper. Because of that, I believe the article is slanted. However, leaving that aside, there are some really good points.
If you have never investigated an arson case, you will have no idea how difficult the cases are. I will say that I have only had two. I can not interpret the scene. I must rely on experts to do that for me. That being said, I am not sure I would not have followed the same methods that were followed in this case. So secondly, I am not posting this article to bash any investigators, prosecutors, judges or witnesses in this case. I merely post it due to the content.
Now, I will summarize the article here. This summary is VERY brief. I highly suggest you read it when you get the time.
A man named Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted of a brutal homicide in which his three children were killed. Arson investigators determined the fire was intentionally set and all three children died as a result of the fire. Willingham refused to accept a plea for life in prison instead of the death penalty. His reason was simple. He said he didn't do it. Willingham was not going to accept a plea for something he did do. He risked the death penalty.
Willingham's attorneys even encouraged him to plea. He steadfastly refused. Subsequently, the jury found him guilty after only one hour of deliberation. Willingham was sentenced to death.
In 2004, Willingham was executed for this crime. At the time of his execution, he had befriended an author who was doing some work for the Innocence Project. She took a look at the case and was able to come up with some interesting interpretations of the evidence, which in my opinion, merit some consideration. To me, this new interpretation of the evidence suggests there is another cause to the fire than arson. That is not for me to determine. What my message is regarding this case is simple. There are several things we can do today that should be considered when investigating cases. I don't believe there is an honest officer or prosecutor who wants to send an innocent man to death row for a crime he did not commit.
Now, on to the points I noticed in this case that merit more scrutiny.
First, let's tackle scientific evidence. To me, there is nothing better. The science does not lie. There was only one bit of evidence that was tested in a lab and the results showed that some kind of accelerant was used in the hallway. I could not ascertain if that was the only scientific evidence tested, but the article makes it appear that way.
Next, a review of the detectives. One detective, Manuel Vasquez, was considered the expert in this case. He made several statements that fires do not destroy evidence, they create it. He also had investigated over 1,200 fires. He testified in court that he did not enter the investigation with any preconceived notions. He said that he approached all investigations with the mindset that the evidence would lead to the suspect. He the later testified, that in his expert opinion, the fire was not only intentionally set, the motive was to kill the kids. The article offers no other proof of that statement other than the statement itself. I personally want to know how it is that Vasquez came to that conclusion. I also find it interesting that he is able to make that kind of opinion in court. His expertise was allegedly in fires and the interpretation of that evidence. I don't find where he should be an expert in what one's intent is when they start the fire. Maybe he does have that qualification, but it's not provided in the article.
The detectives were able to interview Willingham and he denied any involvement in the alleged crime. The detectives and the jury took that to mean he was a cold blooded killer.
Vasquez testified also that the fire does not lie, it is up to him to interpret its meaning, however. (I am sorry, I am not convinced of Vasquez' ability to both interpret what a fire says and what a person says. Two totally different languages.) This burden was tremendous. To me, there was too much emphasis placed on one man's testimony. This was a death penalty case, after all.
Now lets move on to the witnesses. The neighbor first told police and fire investigators that when she saw Willingham, he was very distraught and was unable to get into the house to get his daughters. The fire was very intense at this point and Willingham told her to call 911. The neighbor left to do this and was gone for several minutes. Willingham stated that he tried to get into the house several times but the heat and flames were too intense. He was screaming for his daughters and was unable to save them. Later on, about two weeks later and only after it became known that Willingham was a suspect, did the same neighbor change her story so that she believed Willingham's response was inappropriate. Following is a quote from the article that is most appropriate here.
"Dozens of studies have shown that witnesses’ memories of events often change when they are supplied with new contextual information. Itiel Dror, a cognitive psychologist who has done extensive research on eyewitness and expert testimony in criminal investigations, told me, “The mind is not a passive machine. Once you believe in something—once you expect something—it changes the way you perceive information and the way your memory recalls it.” "
Always remember that witnesses want to conform. It is completely natural. But, we as investigators, have to plan for this and make sure that we do not rely on witnesses alone.
There was another witness whose testimony sunk Willingham. Father Monaghan first stated that Willingham was very emotional and trying to get into the house. However, later, the Father stated that his emotions were inappropriate and that Willingham was "too emotional." Even coming from a man of the cloth, this statement is not up to him to determine. If it were my family caught in a fire, I would be a basket case. Does that make my reaction inappropriate? I say NO!!
The prosecution was somehow able to use posters that Willingham had in his house against him. One of the posters was of Iron Maiden. The poster depicted what was deemed inappropriate and violent. Not to mention, Willingham's tattoos were used against him. His tattoos were not gang related, but were interpreted to be "violent." Now, here I have to agree with the prosecution. I have a tattoo (only one) and to me, it is important. I know that it will never leave me. So, it better mean something to me. I also believe that is the way most people feel when they get their tattoos.
Finally, a jailhouse informant came forward to claim that he heard Willingham confess to him that he killed his kids for money. That was refuted early on in the investigation, but this guys testimony was allowed. Jailhouse inmates are a bunch of liars. Sometimes, their information is "dead on balls accurate." But remember one very important point. These guys are crooks. These guys always have something to gain. So, take their statements in context with the rest of the investigation.
There is WAY more to explore in this particular case. And please remember, this article is published by a very liberal source. The Innocence Project, although a pain in our necks sometimes, actually is a good thing. I believe that they force us to take a really hard look at our cases and ensure we have the correct suspect/defendant in custody.
What do you think?
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Political correctness
Ok, so, now we have elementary schools playing the political correctness roll with our young children. I have my own opinion. Kids should grow up learning how to be kids. We put way too much pressure on them now anyway...I remember being bullied when I was in elementary school. But, I learned how to deal with it. I am not a horrible person today either.
Gone are the days when discipline could be metted out in the schools. I remember when my coach, who was also my science teacher, told me to shut up in class. My class mate and kicker, tapped me on the shoulder and I turned around to tell him to knock it off. I got caught talking.
I had to stand up in front of the class and bend over and grab my ankles. I got popped twice. I never talked in class again. I learned and I had no bruises and my parents didn't sue the school.
I also remember having fist fights with kids in school. We fought over lunch money, accidently kicking dirt in each others faces, talking to a girl, etc... Gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, never played a part in these fights. We simply fought because we were growing up and needed to. There was no need to try to figure out the "political correctness" of it all. We didn't care then and I don't care now.
I hate the fact that people appear to be so sensitive today. GROW UP!!!
Gone are the days when discipline could be metted out in the schools. I remember when my coach, who was also my science teacher, told me to shut up in class. My class mate and kicker, tapped me on the shoulder and I turned around to tell him to knock it off. I got caught talking.
I had to stand up in front of the class and bend over and grab my ankles. I got popped twice. I never talked in class again. I learned and I had no bruises and my parents didn't sue the school.
I also remember having fist fights with kids in school. We fought over lunch money, accidently kicking dirt in each others faces, talking to a girl, etc... Gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, never played a part in these fights. We simply fought because we were growing up and needed to. There was no need to try to figure out the "political correctness" of it all. We didn't care then and I don't care now.
I hate the fact that people appear to be so sensitive today. GROW UP!!!
Welcome
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This is my first attempt at blogging. I want this to be productive, open and informal. I also want to share some information that I know will be beneficial to all. Any and all opinions are welcomed. Open dialogue is extrememly productive and important. Please feel free to vent, inform, or just offer your opinion.
Let's get this thing started, shall we?
This is my first attempt at blogging. I want this to be productive, open and informal. I also want to share some information that I know will be beneficial to all. Any and all opinions are welcomed. Open dialogue is extrememly productive and important. Please feel free to vent, inform, or just offer your opinion.
Let's get this thing started, shall we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
