DesertExile: June 2006

28 June 2006

Illustrating Liberal Hallmarks

This picture,and its written message, show the two hallmarks of Liberals: Hypocrisy (Yes, prosecute, sue and harass the KKK, Excuse, defend, justify Islam) and Fantasy(We can negotiate with Islam. After all, it is a "religion of Peace")

Liberals defend: The Irish terrorists (they just want their own country), Palestinains (Subscribe to the Myth that the Israelis denied the local arabs a "Homeland" --truth is Syria and Jordan both expelled the Palestinains with deadly force)and the Soviet Union (Oh, yes, there was FREE health care, and guaranteed was a Worker's Paradise)

A little history. After the Civil War, a powerful lobby in Washington DC wanted to "Punish" the South for carrying on the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln said that the Prodigal Son had returned, and he would welcome the South back into the Union. But Lincoln was assassinated.

The Yankee (Still a word spit out like bile) Carpetbaggers(Residents of the NORTH, who came South with bags made of carpet,instead of Suitcases...kind of like Senator Hillary Clinton who never lived in New York until she wanted be elected from there) came down. The "Punishers" passed a law that "Anyone who had served in, or gave aid and comfort to the Confederate Army" had no vote.

Legislatures filled with former slaves. The only ones who could vote were the largely illiterate former slaves. The new legislatures voted funds to Carpetbaggers to build buildings, roads, and perform services, the majority of which were never started or completed.

The ones who were denied a vote, but still taxed, responded with violent force. They knew that the Yankees would quickly hang them if anyone could point out who they were. That force was a secret society, which morphed into a symbol of hate.
It wasn't hate then. It was trying to get a vote.

26 June 2006

For those complain.......

Everyone has heard complaints that "X" police Department, or " Y" Sheriff's Department routinely employ brutality on citizens they conatct. My response is BULLS**T!.

If an Officer Deputy, or law Enforcement officer (LEO) uses excessive force, that usually is a defense for anyone that they have arrested. The defense attorney's pitch to the jury is,"Ladies and gentlemen, my client has already been punished once"

Everyone has seen the TV show Las Vegas. It is no stretch to say that almost every business has that amount of video surveillance cameras.WHY? LAWYERS. Lawyers sue you for "insufficient security rendered to patrons and guests".

So, if a LEO uses excessive force, and the allegation is bolstered by evidence and injuries, the following Pile Driver hits are coming:
1. The LEO WILL be fired. No Agency will retain an officer when evidence is availble to confirm the allegation. WHY? LAWYERS. If the Agency keeps the officer, their name will be on the lawsuit.
2. Your friendly local prosecutor will not be your friend anymore. You will be charged with" Assault under color of Authority". Don't worry about getting a good attorney to defend you.. You have no job and no income.
3. The perpetrator WILL SUE you. The LEO will suddenly find that no one at the Department knows him/her. Sergeants or supervisors are there to protect THE DEPARTMENT, not the LEO.
4. If this isn't bad enough, the FBI can step in at any time and investigate the LEO for "Civil Rights Violations". The FBI is NOT the LEO's friend. If the LEO makes the mistake of thinking " They are just cops too", the LEO will hear every incriminating word uttered in the FBI's presence at a hearing or trial. The wise move is to say" I will not have any conversation with you unless my attorney is present".
5. If you try to be employed by another Agency--forget it! They all have your history, and you are a liabilty and a marked EX-LEO.

So, if you haer someone say thatr "So and So" got "beat up by the cops" know this: So and So had an ass kicking coming. The LEO's can justify the force they used to effect an arrest.

25 June 2006

No Jury Duty for me

On June 26, 1975, two FBI agents, Mr. Jack Coler and Mr. Ron Williams, entered the Jumping Bull Ranch, private property. They allegedly sought to arrest a young Native American man they believed they had seen riding in a red pickup truck. A large number of AIM supporters were camping on the property at the time. A shoot out began, trapping a family with small children in the crossfire. The more than thirty men, women and children present were surrounded by over 150 FBI agents, SWAT team members, BIA police and local posse members, and barely escaped through a hail of bullets. When the gun fight ended, a Native American named Joe Stuntz lay dead. His killing was never investigated. FBI agents Coler and Williams were also dead. They had been wounded in the gun fight and then shot point blank through the head by a still unidentified assailant. (Emphasis added).

ANY REASONABLE READING of paragraph #5 would leave the impression that there had been a government assault on the Jumping Bull compound that day by a large force of well-armed agents and police, who forced a confrontation, resulting in a shootout that pinned innocent women and children in the crossfire. The result being that two agents and a Native American were killed in the melee.

However, the actual sequence of events is well established by the timing of urgent radio calls from Agent Williams. In this instance, the impression left by paragraph #5 is not what happened that day, but because timing is everything, an accurate sequence of events is available to the reader.
Clearly, based on the overheard conversations, the agents did not stop, exit their vehicles, and start shooting. Their shooting was a result of trying to defend themselves from attack. They knew from the outset of driving onto the reservation that they were out-numbered and ill-equipped for an armed confrontation with only their service revolvers with them inside the vehicles (their more powerful weapons still in the trunks). They were miles away from any responding assistance, and in an understandably hostile area with an AIM camp nearby. Suggestions by the LPDC that the agents entered Jumping Bull and started a shootout belies what actually happened.

This is just one instance where the killer came up with a story. As you can see, the fellow FBI Agents have a web site to counter lies, propaganda, half-truths, and implied prejudice. As with many cases where the killer is a "Minority", a myth and image has been created around the killer.

Today's title...No Jury Duty for me. This is because no defense attorney or plaintiff's attorney in a civil suit will seat me on a jury. I've sat through about a hundred jury selections. Cops, judges, nurses, doctors, anyone who is friends with, or any family of a cop--is "excused". Basically, the defense attorney asks," Who in here watches news, reads papers, or is on the internet?" O K " Who in here only watches American Idol and Days of Our Lives?" O K. Group #1--you are excused.

As an Officer dealing with the Criminal Justice System, I KNOW that if a person has reached the point of a jury trail, HE/SHE is guilty as Hell.
IF an officer or detective makes an arrest, he/she has to submit it to a supervisor, usually a Sergeant. If there is a way out for the Arrestee, the Sergeant will see it, and demand that the Arrestee be released at once.
IF the Sergeant approves, there is a Court-Liason Officer. That officer will read through the case with a fine screen, looking for any exceptions or justifications.
Again, the Court Officer has the power to get a case dismissed.
IF the case goes to the prosecutor, there is an "Issuing Deputy". His/her job is to "File" charges, i.e., enter the case into the "Legal Pipeline". Prosecutors can dismiss a case, and they do NOT have justify the dismissal.
IF the Prosecutor issues the case, it will be heard by a judge in a "preliminary hearing". This hearing is to determine if there is enough evidence to forward the case to a Jury Trial. Many cases end here. The Defense Attorney approaches the Prosecutor and says,"What are you willing to GIVE ME?", i.e, "How can I look good to this dirtbag defendant?" In a majority of cases, the charge is dropped from a Felony to a midemeanor, and at worst, the arrestee spends a year in the County Jail system.

So, if a case has been pressed this far, the perpetrator is guilty of the charge, and probably several others.

23 June 2006

The Shell Game

Illegal Aliens Linked to Rise in Crime Statistics
Jim Kouri

The former Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that as of January 2000 the total unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States was 7 million. This total includes those who entered the United States illegally and those who entered legally but overstayed their authorized period of stay.
A more recent study estimated that there were about 10 million illegal aliens living in the United States as of March 2005. The study estimated that nearly 700,000 aliens entered the United States illegally or overstayed their authorized period of stay each year between 2000 and 2004. Some experts believe this is a overly conservative figure and that illegal immigrants number close to 20 million.

At the same time, after a steady annual reduction in crime, the annual FBI Uniform Crime Report reveals a slow but sure yearly increase in crime, especially violent crime. Some criminologists attribute the rise in crime to illegal aliens who come into the United States with a criminal background.

Many illegal aliens in the United States have been arrested and incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails, adding to already overcrowded prisons and jails. The US Justice Department issued a report on criminal aliens who are incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails.

The report contained information on the number of criminal aliens incarcerated, their country of citizenship or country of birth, and the cost to incarcerate them. Congress also requested that the Government Accounting Office provide information on the criminal history of aliens incarcerated in federal and state prisons or local jails who had entered the country illegally.

In the population study of a sample of 55,322 illegal aliens, researchers found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990.

They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien. One arrest incident may include multiple offenses, a fact that explains why there are nearly one and half times more offenses than arrests. Almost all of these illegal aliens were arrested for more than 1 offense. Slightly more than half of the 55,322 illegal aliens had between 2 and 10 offenses.

About 45 percent of all offenses were drug or immigration offenses. About 15 percent were property-related offenses such as burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and property damage. About 12 percent were for violent offenses such as murder, robbery, assault, and sex-related crimes.

Dan_Gerous's Comment

In a previous post, I explained how Law Enforcement likes to project an image of Adequacy, when in fact there are not nearly enogh offcers to do the job.

My experience was that your "Leaders" (Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains)were judged and promoted on their STATISTICS.
When I was studying for my degree in Criminal Justice Administration, a required course was STATISTICS. The instructor was an odd type, but very likeable. He began the class with this statement: "Figures don't lie--but liars can figure".

In our Department, there was an implied pressure to not take accident reports. WHY?
An accident report is a STATISTIC. If you don't take a report, there is NO STATISTIC.

Bad statistics were crashes, Officer on-duty injuries, Injuries that resulted in lost time, Citizen Complaints, greivances (bad treatment from office staff), and an excessive number of hours of sick leave taken by officers,
Good Statistics were numbers of citations up from last year, arrests up, Fatal crashes down.

"Leaders" found ways to "skew" the numbers. EXAMPLE: Officer was hurt in a patrol car crash-not his fault. Officer agrees to take the recovery time as vacation.

In the report by Jim Kouri, I can assure you that the problem is MUCH WORSE than the STATISTICS he wrote about. I know that the majority of the time, Border Patrol would not come to take Illegals from me. They had not enough people to go to jails to pick up offenders who had just got out.
The crimes he speaks of are recorded by STATE, COUNTY, and CITY enforcement Departments, Each one of them is trying to show "GOOD STATISTICS.

Be Afraid, very Afraid!

21 June 2006

Correctional Officers


Florida Guard Shoots Officers In FBI Arrest Attempt

Six guards in all had been indicted Tuesday in an alleged sex-for-contraband scheme that authorities said went on for two years.

When FBI agents and Justice Department investigators arrived at the prison Wednesday to arrest the men, one of the indicted guards shot a federal correctional officer, said FBI spokesman John Girgenti. He said the officers fired back.

The agents were not expecting the prison guards to be armed, the law enforcement official told the AP, though he could not immediately explain why.

The official said the guard fired with a personal weapon, wounding a Bureau of Prisons employee who was assisting with the arrest. Agents from the Justice Department's inspector general's office returned fire, killing the guard, the official said, adding that a Justice Department agent was killed in the exchange. It was not immediately clear who fired that fatal shot.

"The community is safe. The institution is in lockdown status," federal Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman Carla Wilson said.

Dan Gerous's thoughts:

O K, road cops and street cops got into trouble too. Every 3 months, a thing came out, the "Punitive Action Summary". Usually there were 8 to 12 officers who (later on, not named, no ID number given)had done incredibly stupid, sometimes criminal things. This was out of 4,800 Officers.
Actions ranged from Letter of Reprimand to termination.

For almost 4 years, I worked at Blythe, California. At the time, it was ideal for any law enforcement officer to work there. No one was high or low. Border Patrol was regarded as brothers, as was Blythe Police, Riverside County Sheriff deputies, and Fish and Game Wardens.

Of course, Blythe has the same climate and environment as Baghdad, Iraq.

After I left, a prison was built near Blythe. The actions of those who worked at that prison soured relations between all of the Departments.

1. CO's (Correctional Officers) tend to think of themselves as Law Enforcement. They are not. They deal with the already-convicted.
2. They think that they rate the same "Professional Courtesy" i.e., overlooking minor violations of traffic laws that other Law Enforcement receives.
In Blythe, when they did not get that "Professional Courtesy", their Union Rep instructed them to file a complaint against the Officer or Deputy issuing the citation. One was tape recorded. Later, she came to the office and filed a complaint, making several allegations. All were refuted by the officer's tape recording, and she was referred to Court for a violation of Giving False Information.
3. You constantly hear about drugs and weapons coming into prisons. How do you think they get there? Certainly not UPS.
4. Later, in other prisons, I heard tales of female guards becoming enamored of male inmates, CO's having "business arrangements" with inmates, and constantly being stopped and cited for all kinds of anti-social driving.

In my view, if someone tells me that he/she is a C O, my suspicion ranking is at 10 on a scale of 10, until they show me otherwise.

20 June 2006

Teflon Cops

By Tim Dees

Every law enforcement agency with more than a few sworn seems to have a few of these. Teflon cops are the ones that can do no wrong. Personnel complaints filed against them mysteriously disappear, or the internal investigation requires so much time that the complainants and witnesses become eligible for AARP membership before there is any disposition. Off-duty misconduct incidents are immediately found to be unrelated to their professional status.

Despite reputations that cause ordinary officers to experience radio failures when assigned calls with them, they receive one preferential assignment and promotion after another, and their personnel jackets contain nothing but glowing praise, frankincense, and myrrh.

Where I worked, we had a kind of club they belonged to. It was called FONG: the Fraternal Order of Neat Guys. Believe it or not, some of them actually had membership cards. The elite inner circle, kind of the way that Masons become Shriners, made up MOSS. That was the Mystic Order of Secret Stuff (okay, we didn't use the word "stuff"). I never saw a MOSS card, but I suspect that anyone who owned up to belonging would have had to kill me immediately after confessing.
How do these merry, mischievous lads come to be? Most of the time, they attain their status by one of three methods. Sometimes they are the relatives or associates of powerful people that have the capacity to end, or at least limit, the career of an executive of the officers' employer. They can also be people who had the rare fortune to catch one of those same executives in a compromising situation sometime early in their career. Thus, if the executive allows something unfortunate to happen to the favored officer, a police brand of Mutually Assured Destruction (a nuclear weapons doctrine that came to be during the Cold War) would go into effect. And occasionally, the golden boy or girl is a member of an ethnic faction or other perceived underclass who will immediately attribute any disciplinary action to racism or another contentious and reviled motive.

Lord Acton, a historian who lived around the turn of the century (not this one, but the one we finished using a few years back), said "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Cops who are not subject to discipline when they act badly are, in essence, absolutely powerful. People depend on cops to bring wrongdoers to justice, and protect them from harm. When the cops are the wrongdoers, and can't or won't police themselves, they're no longer public servants, but rather public masters. That kind of thing goes against everything this country is and was supposed to be about.
More often than not, the non-favored cops are the ones that are most offended by these people. Assignments and promotions that would go to them are instead given to officers that are less qualified and often incompetent. They also resent being slammed for misconduct incidents that are far less grave than those committed by the chosen few. (VERY TRUE!)
This practice is allowed to endure in part because of political pressures, but also because of weakness of character. Cops know, or learn very quickly, that they have to make difficult decisions.

Along with the joys associated with doing things that private folks don't get to do comes the burden of having to do what's right and just, rather than what is convenient and self-serving. It's an element of the public trust. That trust and burden increases as one rises in the organization, despite the attitude of many that think the opposite is true. When the trusted abandon their commission, they should be removed -- quickly. Too often, we get intimidated by what they might do, and go along with the program. Cops are supposed to be courageous, but it's clear that there are different kinds of courage. People who show no fear in taking down a heavily armed felon will quake at the thought of signing a termination letter.

How do we fix this brand of problem? Mostly, it comes from standing up and demonstrating the kind of courage that seems to be lacking. The tradition can't endure without the secrecy. But it has to be based on a value system that everyone buys into. A zealot that takes on the system himself will be identified as a renegade and be dealt with swiftly. The public is less likely to believe that the entire department, except for a chosen few, consists of renegades. Do what's right, get rid of the ones that don't, and everyone -- cops and otherwise -- will be better for it.

Tim Dees is the editor-in-chief of Dees was a law enforcement officer for 15 years

Yes, every Department has these. In my Department, they were known in the old days as "A Golden Boy", or a "Fair-Haired Guy" .
Later that population increased due the Federal Government, especially the office of EEOC, rules (backed up by Court Decrees and decisions) that every Department had to have X number of minority officers, and Y number of Females. At one time, LAPD had no men coming on for almost a year because the Feds had said they had to have 15% women before they could accept another man.
This latter day population is almost bullet-proof from discipline. An action brings a retaliatory accusation, and probably a law suit, alleging A. Racism or B. Sexual Discrimination. Either is a career killer.

Golden Boys almost always went over the line. A great example was Craig Peyer, a California Highway Patrol officer who strangled a female he had stopped.
Craig got to take Media on ride-alongs. Craig got to go to "Ships-at-Sea". (You flew to Hawaii, spent two days at taxpayer expense, then boarded a Navy ship coming back from WESPAC.) You gave traffic Safety lectures on at least two ships per day.
Craig got to pick his days off.
Craig wrote a lot of tickets, producing desired numbers. At that time, Supervisors demanded NUMBERS.[Tickets, Arrests, recovered stolen cars] Each government where a citation is written receives a portion of the fine, so they put pressure on the Governor, who puts pressure on the Commissioner.

You see, since Craig Peyer, the Highway Patrol can not dispose of complaints. All Inquiries ( Complaints, requests for explanations of actions) MUST BE LOGGED Failure to do so, and discovery of that failure results in: A. Your promotion outlook is ZERO. B. You may be subject to Department discipline, probably termination. C. All actions by the "protected " Officer, when people hear the news, against persons, will result in lawsuits. All of those lawsuits will have the Supervisor's name--your name, and everyone in the Chain of Command-- on them.

The result is that EVERY allegation must now be investigated, no matter how trivial or false.
Most Departments will not look at the number of verified complaints, just the total number.
In the Highway Patrol, if you get four complaints in a year, you are sent for two weeks to
"Charm School" at the Academy. That is the first step to firing you, if you continue. If you get four more in a year, you WILL be terminated.

17 June 2006

Assumptions will get you killed.

June 05, 2006
An LAPD officer was critically wounded Saturday night during a shooting with an armed robbery suspect in Southwest Los Angeles.
Based on the preliminary investigation, on June 3, 2006, around 10:30 p.m., Southwest Area Officer Kristina Ripatti and her partner, Officer Joe Meyer, were patrolling the area of La Salle and Leighton Avenues, in the Exposition Park area. A man ran directly in front of their marked patrol car, mid-block on Leighton Avenue. The officers slowed their vehicle to avoid hitting him, exited their vehicle and followed the suspect, 52-year-old James Fenton McNeal.
McNeal reached the front porch of a nearby residence, turned, pointed a gun at the officers and fired. An officer involved shooting occurred. McNeal was struck in the torso and died at the scene. Officer Ripatti was struck twice by the suspect's gunfire, and was taken by paramedics to California Hospital Medical Center, where she remains in critical but stable condition, with serious wounds.
It was later learned that the suspect had just committed a robbery at a local gas station. McNeal, a career criminal, had served multiple prison terms for a long list of violent crimes, including armed robbery and murder. He was most recently released from the Central Men's Colony, San Luis Obispo, on August 18, 2002, after serving 9 years for attempted robbery, and subsequently spent 3 years on parole, ending November 18, 2005.

Ripatti is paralyzed from the waist down.

Now-let us ponder this:,10987,1198892,00.html
Sparked by a TIME report published in March, a U.S. military investigation is probing the killing of as many as 24 Iraqi civilians by a group of Marines in the town of Haditha last November. Several Marines may face criminal charges, including murder. And new revelations suggest that their superiors may have helped in a cover-up.

In the first case, the Detective recognized the shooter as local. She ASSUMED that he was just walking home, and wanted to ask him about local gang activity. She did not know he had just robbed a convenience store with a gun.

The Marines in Haditha were in a different set of circumstannces. They KNEW that the locals were out to kill them. They KNEW there had been umpteen IED attacks, and if the locals could get you stopped, small arms fire would BE COMING!

From my experience, in both cases, the GOOD GUYS did what was correct procedure at the time. Ripatti had to assume that the shooter was just a citizen. The Marines had to assume that the BAD GUYS were trying to kill them.

In Ripatti's case, she will live impaired, but not face an investigation, as her partner was also there. If she had been alone, she would have been a crazed racist,out-of-control Police Officer, who wanted to shoot Mr. McNeal. McNael, or race-pimps would have said Mr. McNeal was just defending himself. His several trips to prison would have been ignored or concealed.

As to the Marines, they have been placed into an Inquisition. Haditha locals , who had attacked the Marines REPEATEDLY, are " The Witnesses". The story was brought out by a Time reporter, who has an agenda. Right now, that case is coming apart like a cheap suit.

16 June 2006

Confirmation: You can not discipline "Minorities"

San Diego police Sgt. Martha Sainz, who was accused of physically attacking a subordinate officer in front of children at a camp in August, has prevailed in her appeal to keep her job.
During a private hearing recently, Sainz gave her side of the story and convinced Assistant Chief Joel Bryden that his initial decision to fire her was too harsh, said sources familiar with the case. Bryden converted the firing to a reprimand.

Sainz is fighting the reprimand and seeking a promotion to lieutenant, which she believes was unfairly withheld because of the controversy surrounding the camp incident, said the sources, who asked not to be identified because personnel matters are confidential.
Bryden and Chief William Lansdowne declined to comment. Neither Sainz nor her husband, San Diego police Officer Jim Stevens, returned calls seeking comment. Her lawyer, Donovan Jacobs, also declined to comment.
Sainz's father-in-law, retired San Diego police Lt. Ed Stevens, reviewed the Internal Affairs report on the incident and pointed out problems that helped Sainz's case, according to the sources.
Stevens confirmed this week that he read the report but declined to say more. “All everybody wanted from the get-go was fair play and justice,� he said.
Sainz has been on maternity leave and it's unclear when she will return or what her assignment will be, the sources said.
Sainz was served with papers in January indicating that she was being terminated in connection with the incident at a safety-patrol camp for sixth-graders on Palomar Mountain.
Witnesses told The San Diego Union-Tribune that Sainz reacted badly when she unwittingly sat on a wet sponge in front of scores of campers and realized she had been the victim of a prank.
The witnesses said Sainz attacked the subordinate officer, Stacee Botsford, putting her in a headlock, punching and choking her. Botsford, who was not seriously injured, did not return calls seeking comment.
After the incident, Sainz, a 14-year veteran, was temporarily reassigned from her post in the Juvenile Administration Unit to an administrative post in the domestic violence squad.
Under the department's disciplinary system, firings are not effective until appeals within the department are exhausted.


My point is that IF a Man--especially a Caucasian male had struck another officer, he would have been charged with a FELONY. FELONY= 1. You are Fired. 2.
Can never carry a gun again. 3. Lose right to vote.

What this female minority ( Sainz= Hispanic surname) did was an assault on someone she KNEW was a police officer.

But, if you are a double minority and "Connected", you can do it and get promoted.

15 June 2006

Psych Exam-Part 2

Part 2: The Psychological Fitness-for-Duty Examination: What every police officer should know
Ultimately, the examiner will prepare a report that will almost always first go to the referring agency. Again, there is no single universally format for such reports. However, following the IACP guidelines, Rostow & Davis, in their comprehensive volume on the subject, A Handbook for Psychological Fitness-for-Duty Evaluations in Law Enforcement , (Haworth Press: 2004) provide a useful and practical format for psychological FFD evaluation reports, which I outline here along with my own comments and suggestions.
The exact style and content of the report may vary according to the needs and preferences of the individual psychologist and police agency, but should contain the following basic elements:

Identifying data.
The officer’s name, identifying demographics, departmental referral identification, name of the evaluator, and dates of the evaluation.

Reason for evaluation.
This describes the main incidents, issues, and referral question(s) that have led the officer to the psychologist’s office. Although a wide range of data may be relevant to the individual’s overall psychological functioning, the focus of the evaluation itself should be relatively specific to the referral question at hand.
Sometimes, officers are referred without clear indications for why an FFD evaluation is being ordered (“He’s got an attitude problem�). In such cases, the psychologist may have to take responsibility for helping the referring agency refine its referral question (“What problematic behaviors is this officer showing that reflects his bad attitude?�).
Also, somewhere at the beginning of the report should be a statement that clarifies the issues of informed consent and the uses to which the evaluation findings may be put.
Background information.
The information in this section can be narrow, i.e. what took place during the arrest incident that led to the citizen’s complaint? Or broader, i.e. what has been the officer’s general experience and style of handling intoxicated or belligerent citizens or of dealing with people generally? Again, the scope and range of such background data are defined by their relevance to the referral question(s).
For example, conflicts with previous employers may be relevant; history of physical abuse as a child may not. Details of the officer’s dealings with drug suspects on duty may be pertinent if they affect his or her job performance; marital infidelities or weekend barhopping may not, if they have no impact on job effectiveness.

Clinical interview and behavioral observations.

Consistent with the importance of speech content, voice tone, eye contact, body language, and general appearance, much useful information can be gleaned about a subject from a good clinical interview. How the subject answers questions is just as important as what he or she says. Clinical status – anxious, depressed, delusional, angry, evasive, intoxicated, hung-over, angry, guilty, lackadaisical – can be determined most accurately only by a one-on-one interpersonal interaction with the subject. Another important feature of this interaction is to develop a rapport with the subject sufficient to allow accuracy of responding and test-taking.

Review of records.
Depending on the individual case, the volume of pertinent records can range from a few sheets of paper to literally cartons of documents delivered by truck (this is an occupational hazard for any forensic psychologist). Not all of these records may be directly pertinent to the present case, but I won’t know that until I’ve rolled up my sleeves and sorted through them.
For me, distilling this raw data down to a few paragraphs or pages that will summarize the main points useful for the reader, and then integrating this with the information gained from the clinical interview and test findings, is one of the most challenging and time-consuming aspects of report writing (Mark Twain once wrote, “If I’d had more time, I would have written you a shorter letter�).

Psychologists should clear about the sources of the records they cite: they may be expected to justify every statement they make at a subsequent deposition or trial.

Psychological test findings.
Once again, there is no universally accepted psychological test battery for FFD evaluations, and each psychologist has his or her preferences (some use no psychometric testing at all), but there are certain standards as to what kinds of diagnostic issues should be addressed by these instruments. Some psychological tests are specifically designed for law enforcement assessment, while others are general tests of psychological traits that can be adapted to the law enforcement FFD referral question(s).
The basic areas that should be covered by these measures include: general intelligence; cognitive functioning (attention, concentration, memory, reasoning); personality functioning; assessment of mood (anxiety, depression); and screening for psychotic symptoms (delusions or hallucinations).
Some psychologists insert specific measures for malingering to gauge if the subject is being truthful in his reports and in his test responses. In this section, the psychologist should be sure to document both the actual test scores and their interpretation. For example:
“A full-scale IQ score of 103 on the WAIS-III places this officer’s overall intelligence in the average range.�
“A T-score of 86 on the Psychopathic Deviate scale of the MMPI-2 suggests high impulsivity and a characteristic disregard for rules and authority.�
Conclusions and discussion.
This is where the psychologist puts it all together. This section should be a succinct summary of the main points relevant to the FFD question(s), with documentation of the examiner’s reasoning on each point. For example:
“Psychological test findings are essentially within normal limits, with the exception of a tendency to disregard rules and conventions and to responding impulsively under stress. This is supported by the officer’s statement that, ‘If I know the SOP is wrong, it’s my responsibility to do it the right way, isn’t it? If I try to go through channels and make any recommendations to the brass, they just blow me off. That’s why I went ballistic in the lieutenant’s office when he told me I could be suspended.’
This is further corroborated by records indicating three prior disciplinary actions in his present department, and at least one prior suspension in his previous job.
“Overall findings are consistent with an officer of average intelligence, no major mental disorder, high ability and skill in certain job-related areas (firearms and vehicles), but with a long-standing tendency to disobey authority and respond impulsively, but not violently, under conditions of stress.�

This is perhaps the most challenging section of the report, because here the psychologist has to boil down his or her findings to a specific set of recommendations that will affect this officer’s future life and career. Again, although there is no one standard model for expressing this, the protocol of alternatives offered by Rostow & Davis (2004) is both psychologically valid and practical:
• Unfit for duty. The officer is unfit for duty and is not likely to become fit in the foreseeable future, with or without psychological treatment. Examples include the effects of a traumatic brain injury, a longstanding severe personality disorder, or a substance abuse problem that continues to get worse.
[I've seen several of these. After an incident, an officer has various problems. One had a back that would not let him move , but there was no clinical source. Another would shake like he was frezing after confronting a belligerent subject. Another would pull his weapon at the least resistance after being shot at]

• Unfit but treatable. The officer is currently unfit, but appears to be amenable to treatment that will restore him to fitness in a reasonable amount of time. For example, a depressed, alcoholic officer agrees to enter a 12-step abstinence program, attend psychotherapy sessions, and take prescribed antidepressant medication as needed. Following the recommended course of treatment, the officer will usually be referred for a post-treatment evaluation. The recommendations of that evaluation may include maintenance of abstinence and continuation of psychological treatment in some form, or the officer may be discharged from treatment with recommendations to follow up as needed.
To me, this is a disaster waiting to happen. This is the case of the Alcoholic, the Drug Dependenty. You have to give them a chance to "Re-hab", and meanwhile, you are a person short of full roster

• No psychological diagnosis. There is nothing in the results of the psychological FFD evaluation to suggest that the officer’s unfitness for duty is related to a mental disorder or mental heath diagnosis. In such cases, the officer will usually be referred back for administrative coaching or counseling, further education and training, or disciplinary action (see article on Police Discipline). We psychologists sometimes need to remind ourselves that people can exhibit lousy behavior for any number of self-serving reasons without having to peg it to a psychological “disorder.� When that’s the call, we need to make it.

• Invalid evaluation. The officer has failed to cooperate with the evaluation, has not been truthful, and/or has shown malingering or other response manipulation on psychological tests. This can range from an officer sitting in stony silence, arms crossed, opening his mouth only to say, “I’m not saying nothing to no damn shrink without a lawyer;� to a subject waltzing into the exam all smiles, talking a blue streak, telling a long and involved tale of woe (“I was framed!�) and working just too damn hard to ingratiate himself with the evaluator.

Alternatively, the subject can behave appropriately, but his account doesn’t jive with the records. Or the test findings are inconsistent and invalid.

Again, aside from a few psychometric indices on some tests, malingering or response manipulation is often not something that leaps off the page and identifies itself, but has to be carefully teased out, put together, and documented by the evaluating psychologist. This, too, is part and parcel of a competent clinical evaluation and good report-writing skills.[In other words, unless you are hooked up to a Voice Stress analysis, you can snow your way past this]

One of the purposes of an FFD evaluation is to make recommendations for education, retraining, counseling, or treatment. This topic is treated in detail in a separate article.
To summarize, the best use of an FFD is to help find ways to salvage and rehabilitate a problem officer. (???--or "Build a case")
Humaneness aside, it is much more costly to train and supervise a new officer than it is to rehabilitate an established one. For this reason alone, discipline and dismissal should be a last resort. More importantly, law enforcement agencies who treat their officers fairly reap dividends in terms of morale and enhanced performance.

My observation is that all too often, Discipline-or the lack of--is based on the PERSONAL preferences of the Supervisor. We have seen the coming of the "Don't get mad-Get even" crowd. These people remind me of the 60's song " Smilin' Faces". They will smile to your face, never show irritation or anger, but "Lay Paper"[documentation for future administrative action] on you in a heartbeat.

It is based on witch hunts. Case in point, two officers try to subdue a suspect in Detroit. In the struggle, the suspect was hit with a flash light and died. The suspect was Black, the Officers were white. So, the Officers were fired, and handed over to Prosecutors, who got them 15 years in prison.

Like a lot of things, this works well in theory, but when the personal component is introduced, it goes to Hell.

14 June 2006

How it "Looks"

This man is being confronted and subdued. From my point, he has said or done something that qualifies countering with deadly force.

From one who has never "been there", it would appear that: 1. The subject has his hands up and empty. and 2. Weapons are not necessary now.

This also would trigger a response that the two officers might be psychologically imbalanced.

Departments have three big hammers over them:
1. Politics. Police Departments are usually controlled by elected officials, who give orders and increase or cut budgets. Politicians, for the last 20 years, have pandered to " Minorities", and those who have access to the media. Arrest or shoot a "minority" and your life will be Hell on Earth.
2. Public Opinion. The reason this is important is Item #1.
3. LIABILITY. Liability-or in my view, the ability of a parasitic attorney to tap into taxpayer funds, destined for the benefit of a total community and channeled those funds, at least 33% of the judge or jury award, into his/her bank account.
Lawsuits are mostly based on NEGLIGENCE. Negligence says you neglected or failed to do something you should have done. KNOWLEDGE is a big element here. If the Department KNEW of a potential harmful situation, and took no corrective action, they are very liable.

So, many departments have an either in-house psychologist or one on retainer. [Of course, Parasite Attorney will name his/her own EXPERT WITNESS(psychologist), also known to cops as Liars-for-Hire.]

As an officer, shoud you be unfortunate enough to encounter a situation as shown above, you will later be ordered to a Psychological Review.


Laurence Miller, PhD Police Psychologist
My department has referred me for a Fsychological Fitness-For-Duty (PFFD) exam. What is that? What's the best way for me to approach this situation...and should I be concerned?
Although you should be cautious and concerned (putting it mildly), there's no need for anger or panic. If carried out correctly, the psychological FFD need not be unnecessarily adversarial or demoralizing.
On the other hand, this kind of evaluation should not be taken lightly because the results of an FFD may be brought before a court or a governmental commission and your entire career may hinge on the FFD's conclusions.
To make some sense of this process, here are some things that you, your referring supervisor, and the examining psychologist should all know.

That is if the psychologist is not a Liberal, and does not believe in "use of force".

Don't assume the worst.
I'm not your enemy; for that matter, I'm not your friend either. Even if the FFD order comes in the context of a bitterly contentious departmental action, it's not my job to pass judgment. My role is to objectively evaluate your mental status and relate it to the specific referral questions as to your fitness for duty.

Be prepared to see what you said, and the examiner's opinion somewhere in the future at a trial, either of a civil or criminal case. Defense Attorneys and Plaintiff's attorneys love to emphasize how unstable you are/were.

From experience, if ordered to one of these sessions, I would:
1. Delay. Make them wait.
2. Read up on what the psych "professionals" consider "aberrant behavior".
3. Follow this from Dr. Laurence Miller:

Come prepared.
Show up on time. If you were supposed to bring any records or materials, have them with you. Make sure you have your reading glasses. If the exam is scheduled for early afternoon, make sure you had lunch. Accordingly, I'll make sure you are seen at the appointed time and that all my materials are ready when you arrive.
Read everything you sign.
At the outset, there'll be a bunch of forms to sign. Read them. If you have any questions about what you're signing, let me know.
Expect to be treated courteously and behave accordingly.
Even though I'm not your enemy or your friend, you should expect me to act professionally. I should not demean or humiliate you and, even though I may have to ask you some tough questions, you shouldn't have to feel like a criminal suspect. Remember, the more comfortable you feel during the examination, the better your memory will be and the more accurate will be the information I obtain. So I have nothing to gain by trying to make you squirm. By the same token, I ask that you try not to bust my chops more than necessary. I understand that you don't want to be here and I also understand that you've had a whole life and career outside the narrow confines of this FFD case. You're a professional and so am I; we both have a job to do so let's do it.

This last is important. Think about it! On many of the offenders you contact, attitude is usually the decider of what type of action you take.


11 June 2006

parallels: Rodney King and Haditha

Some people will not recall the clamor and commotion over a home video that showed Rodney King getting his butt kicked. (1991)
Seems Rodney was driving a car with expired tags on the plate. He didn't want to get stopped because he was out on parole, but he was using drugs and probably out of the area he was restricted to.

So, Rodney ran. He was chased by a California Highway Patrol night shift car, with a husband-wife team of officers. Rodney ran into Los Angeles. You do not run in Los Angeles, because, as Chris Rock says in a popular video, " If the police have to chase you, you know they are bringing an ass-kicking with them".

Somehow, Rodney got stopped. In the part the MainStreamMedia DID NOT SHOW YOU, the three passengers were calmly handcuffed and led away. Rodney came out fighting. Rodney was "Dusted" (Using PCP--Yeah, I know the media bobbleheads said the hospital found no drugs in his system. BS!. You look at the hits he took, and was able to keep fighting. Try hittingYOUR knee or ELBOW sometime. Count how many seconds pass before YOU can move).

Police Procedure says you DO NOT try to box or wrestle with a resistant arrestee. You use your baton. Which is what LAPD did.

BUT-from the publicity that followed:
---Rodney was not charged, but was given over a million dollars.
---The CHP Officers were disciplined, as was their Sergeant, their Lieutenant, and their Station Commander.
---The LA Prosecutor bowing to Race Pimps indicted the police officers for " Assault under color of Authority". A State Court Jury found them " Not Guilty".
---The Race Pimps prompted a riot.
---George Bush 41 was about to run for a second term. Pandering to the Race Pimps, he sicced the FBI on the LAPD officers for "violating Rodney's Civil Rights". ( NOTE: IT is NOT double Jeopardy, as several police officers around the US have found out. You can have the case dismissed in State Court, but if someone up there decided you need to be done, the FBI can and will charge you with violating Civil Rights)
--Politically-Correct Administrators in CHP HQ put into effect that if an officer saw what he/she thought was excessive force, that officer was to:
1. Tell the Offender to stop the use of force, and
2. File a written report of observations of the incident (Rat out your fellow or allied law enforcement officer) There were stiff penalties listed for failure to follow these rules.

IN Haditha, the Marines were attacked for the umpteenth time. They were under fire, as usual, from a bunch of Islamo-Facists. If you are taking fire, you fire back at where it is coming from.
Naturally, Rahim, the Raghead, had herded women and children in there, thinking, "Ah-the Marines will not shoot in here--there are women and children". The afterthought of Rahim the Raghead was" Hey --if they do shoot in, we can claim a massacre".

Rahim has done what attorneys in the US have done to police officers: Make it a "Damned if you do-Damned if you do not" situation.

Personally, I'm sick of people with the last name of Bush throwing soldiers and cops to the wolves to please Race Pimps and Mexicans.

09 June 2006

Leaving California

My family has moved to a town in Arizona that is above to 5, 000 foot elevation level.

We are gone from California.

1. Costs and prices keep going up. Include in costs TAXES.
All politicians try to tell you that they are there to help ( Themselves , by experience and observation). We had a major fire in 2003. God smiled on us as none of our buildings or vehicles burned. Yet, the homeowner's insurance jumped from $1100 to per year $6500.
When I complained about the increase, the Dept. of Insurance wrote back, said that "You have no fire department, the rise is justified, and you are lucky you can get insurance".

2. Related to #1. ILLEGAL ALIENS. If you think that Illegals are not affecting you, you are seriously deluded.
In the San Diego Area, there are left THREE trauma centers. Three for about two million people. Why? If you have a trauma center, you have to treat all comers, regardless how small their complaint is. You KNOW these ILLEGALS will NOT pay their bill. They will give a phony name and address and be " in the wind".
A second aspect is that both wealthy and cheap businesspeople will use these ILLEGALS to cut their costs. Who makes up the difference? You do.
California govenments of all levels can not do enough to kiss the Illegal's asses. Many laws are intentionally NOT enforced on ILLEGALS. Yet, ILLEGALS can milk the benefits system, and sue YOU for any slight you do to them. Parasite lawyers, usually based in Santa Ana are willing, ready, and able to make your life an economic Hell.

3. The stranglehold on every social aspect by Liberals.
We can not notify parents of the intent of a minor to have an abortion. but we can promote the climate where minors get pregnant.
We can not pay for tuition for military but we will pay for ILLEGAL's tuition.
And NO Politician has the guts to say:" You are not a citizen, pound sand".

4. Though the State is Liberal, some act like Republicans. For instance, John Moores, owner of the Padres ball team, lives in Rancho Santa Fe. He is a stone cold Lib, who had Jimmy Carter throw out the first pitch last year. He flies the Mexican Flag at the same height of the US Flag at the ballpark.
Yet, the new ballpark is only a scheme to make more money. He got a huge chunk of land around the ballpark in order to build it. Moores put it next to the Convention Center, away from parking. Locals have to either take the trolley to get there, or pay Ace Auto Parks (Reliable contributor to San Diego City elction campaigns) $12 to park while watching the game.
Then, 14 story Condos rose up next to the ballpark, selling at $600,000 for a 1400 Sq. Ft. Condo. Meanwhile, homeless and Chicanos who had lived in the area were now the focus of police attention, who urged them to find shelter elsewhere.
Alex Spanos, wealthy Republican, acts like a Lib. He owns the Chargers. He wants San Diego City or County ( The TAXPAYES) to PAY for a new stadium. Who does he hire to get this done? Mark Fabiani, Clinton and GORE attorney, who tried to take the 2000 election for Gore.

In this same category, you have companies that build huge developments, but DO NOT build adequate sewers or roads. Freeways are jammed every morning and evening, and one erratic fool driver can bring things to a halt. SANDAG, (San Diego Area Association of Governments-on which Mexico is given a vote) gets tax money for roads. What do they build? Bike Lanes and Bike Paths. Trolley lines at a BILLION dollars that are not compatible with the older section of the trolley line.

What have I come to?

Yes, Arizona has a Liberal for a Governor--for now. Napolitano's claim to fame was that she was Anita Hill's attorney during the Clarence Thomas Hearings ( If that wasn't slander and defamation, I'll kiss your__)
BUT-the citizens of Arizona are on the warpath. They passed Prop 200. They are the first stop for the Minutemen, who our delusional President called " Vigilantes".
They get roads built-fast. In five years three major freway systems have been built.
And I'm going to be here to vote with them, and vote McCain out of office.

02 June 2006

Haditha--SO WHAT?

So, there are accusations that Marines killed "Innocent Civilians in Haditha....
From the AP story, attacks on Coaltion Troops have occurred with deadly regularity.
What are Marines trained to do? Fight back.

My question is: How long are they supposed to " take it"?

How many Marines do we throw away to keep from pissing off some raghead who passionately hates us, and with every opportunity, will kill us?

As I've written here before,the dumber the person, the more they respect immediate, overwhelming force. They have to know that they will either: A. get their ass kicked,or B, be killed.
They have to be more afraid of us than the competition.

So if some Marines killed a few extra--I will not condemn them.