Kevin Nelson

I have written before about police using bait to try and  entice crooks to drive off in a car, at which time they are then arrested for GTA. I am generally against such tactics, as they take up a lot of manpower, create liability issues, and get the lowest link in the criminal chain. It’s low-hanging fruit, and does nothing to get at the higher levels of crook involved in the criminal loop involved in property crimes.

In this case, it’s worse. LAPD was setting up moderately valuable property up in a car with the doors open and engine running. Now all you have is a theft, in this case grand theft, since the property is worth more than $900, the legal cutoff above which is classified as a felony.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-banks-20120121,0,4247120,full.column

Reliably liberal bleeding heart LA Times columnist Sandy Banks’ position in this column is similar to mine, in that she feels these operations are bad policy, but for different reasons. She thinks the money would be better spent on drug rehabilitation, so these chronic addicts won’t need to steel. She then contradicts herself when she points out that the gal in the story has been afforded many opportunities to rehab, and consistently relapses, ultimately leading her back to her criminal ways. I’d argue that relapse is her permanent state, interrupted by brief bouts of sobriety.

The police contend that they are snatching up crooks who would have broken into your car, had they not been enticed into stealing from the LAPD bait car. Then they throw out the statistic that property crimes are down 20% since this program has started. No proof that this program is the cause, likely because there is no proof. Crime rates for all types of crimes have dropped citywide.

The comments from readers at the end of the column are instructive, split about 50/50 between folks who think this is a good way to preemptively round up crooks that otherwise would have stolen from them, and people who think money ( what money?) would be better spent on rehab. Some are concerned that we are filling prisons with “made up crooks”, ignoring the fact that these are almost always multiple repeat offenders. One reader comments, “Wow, ten years in prison for stealing a case of cigarettes!” No, dummy, ten years for a life of criminal acts, of which this is the latest, and for which most she didn’t get caught and punished.

I’d like to see the cops be more active in patrolling neighborhoods, and using crime analysis information to make them less random and more focused. I read the weekly crime stats for activity in my beat, and use that to proactively patrol. I am a firm believer in broken windows policing. For that to happen, the police must be encouraged to, and have resources available, to get these “broken windows” fixed. For example, if I see fresh graffiti, but don’t have a graffiti removal company that will quickly come out and remove it, then there is no broken windows policing going on. If police officers or citizens, attempt to resolve problems but keep running into dead ends, both will quickly become frustrated and stop bothering.

It is short sighted for a city to claim to have no money to take care of these problems. There is usually money, but priorities are off. In the long run, which is hard for many politicians to visualize, the increase in property values and quality of life will pay for these solutions.

Hollywood search resumes after severed head, feet, hands found

If the LA Times had clever headline writers they could have had fun with this. Who doesn’t remember this classic from the New York Post: Headless Body Found in Topless Bar

The LAPD is saying the dead guy look like he may be Armenian. Maybe an Armenian Mafia hit? The report said the head was initially found by a couple taking their dog for a walk. The dog drug a plastic bag out from the bushes and the head rolled out.

Taken by the Ontario International Airport around 4:30 pm

The LA Times had a somewhat hysterical editorial regarding an 8-1 decision by the USSC that makes it harder for defendant to challenge eyewitness testimony that is mistaken or flawed. Instead of allowing judges to rule on this, the SC said that juries should be the arbiters of whether these eyewitness accounts are reliable.

According to the LA Times “Statistics show that 76% of 250 convictions overturned since 1989 because of DNA evidence involved mistaken eyewitness identification. A host of factors can lead to mistakes. Most are attributable to manipulation by the police, such as lineups or photo arrays in which the suspect is grouped with people who look nothing like him.”

Assuming the statistic cited is true (and that’s a big assumption, considering where the Times sources its material), the statement that most are attributable to police malfeasance is made up baloney. I’ve participated in a hundred of these photo lineups, known as “6 Packs”. I haven’t seen or been involved in any where the suspect is grouped with others who look nothing like him. In fact, the challenge is finding five other suspects who don’t look too much like him, thus confusing the witness and leading to no identification.

These photo lineups have to be submitted as evidence, so there would be no point in manipulating them in the manner suggested as it simply wouldn’t be allowed in court. In fact, the prosecutor would be mightily pissed if you gave him a photo lineup like that.

Where I have worked, not only do the suspects in the lineup have to look and be dressed reasonably similarly, they have to be standing in front of a same or similar backdrop.  The same sort of rules apply in actual lineups of the type we have all seen in police dramas, but are rarely used due top the expense and logistical considerations.

This new ruling does not prevent judges from excluding eyewitness testimony based on procedurally flawed police lineups. What it does do is shift the burden on judging the reliability of possibly flawed or weak civilian eyewitness testimony from the judge to the jury. Even the usually reliably liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that judges shouldn’t be able to suppress eyewitness testimony in cases like Perry’s because the purpose of suppression is to deter police from manipulating eyewitness identifications.

Obama affirmative action pick Justice Sonya Sotomeyer claimed a broader purpose in the previous exclusion, apparently cut from whole cloth, as she was the only one who thought it, that it was designed to prevent any miscarriage of justice, whether emanating from police misconduct or eyewitness error. The LA Times concludes that it’s disappointing that her viewpoint didn’t convince a majority of the other justices. A majority? How about just one other one?

The power that governors and presidents have to grant clemency and give pardons is an idea that has outlived it’s usefulness. Too many perhaps well-meaning, but clueless, religious fanatics (Huckabee and Barbour) ,as well as just plain crooks ( Clinton) have misused this power.

These people have all been given opportunities in the legal system to have their cases heard. There is an appeals process in place, as well. As long as they received the full protection under the law in the court system, there is no reason for the head of the executive branch to get involved in these cases. Here are some examples of how this power, when misused, can go wrong:

1. Marc Rich was indicted in the United States on federal charges of illegally making oil deals with Iran during the late 1970s-early 1980s Iran hostage crisis and tax evasion. He was in Switzerland at the time of the indictment and has never returned to the U.S. He subsequently received a presidential pardon from U.S. President Bill Clinton on January 20, 2001, Clinton’s last day in office.

2. On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States, mostly in New York City and Chicago There were convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery, bomb-making, and seditionn, as well as firearms and explosives violations.^[3] The 16 were convicted of conspiracy and sedition and sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years in prison. The Senate voted 95-2 to condemn this pardon! Clinton cited executive privilegee for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.

3.Clinton also Harvey Weinig, a former Manhattan lawyer who was sentenced in 1996 to 11 years in prison for facilitating an extortion-kidnapping scheme and helping launder at least $19 million for the Cali cocaine cartel.

4. As governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee commuted and accepted recommendations for pardon for twice as many sentences as his three predecessors combined; in total: 1,033 prisoners.Twelve of those had previously been convicted of murder. Huckabee also commuted the sentence of Maurice Clemmons. Clemmons had plenty of reasons to stay in jail, including child molestation, assault, robbery, theft and possession of a handgun.He had a sentence of 60 years, but with Huckabee’s help he only served 11 years. After his release he subsequently went to Washington state, where, on November 29, 2009, he shot and killed four police officers as they sat in a coffee shop. These commutations and pardons were the result of Huckabee’s religious convictions.

5. On his last night in office, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger commuted the manslaughter sentence of Esteban Nunez, son of Schwarzenegger ally and friend Fabian Nunez. The younger Nunez had been serving a 16 year sentence for his part in the stabbing death of a San Diego State University student.

This power has been abused so many times that it’s time to eliminate it. The fact that these politicians do this on their last day in office is proof enough that they know its scandalous. If they really believed what they were doing is right, they would do it when they still had to stand for election.

From the Weekly Standard:

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a former Army lieutenant colonel, sends THE WEEKLY STANDARD an email commenting on the Marines’ video, and has given us permission to publish it.

“I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.

“All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?

“The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”

Running mate for Mitt?

The Day of the Jackal by Frederick Forsyth

I recently added Day of the Jackal to Kindle on my Droid Pad. Not sure what prompted the purchase, because it’s been several years since I saw the movie. In any case, I downloaded it, fired it up, and spent most of the weekend reading it. It’s one of those books that grabs you, and forces you to take advantage of any spare moment to read it. Since I lug my pad with me almost anywhere, there were quite a few moments when I grabbed a few pages here and there. It’s an excellent book to curl up with while sipping hot English style tea in Starbucks.

The book is set in 1963. The French opposition to DeGalle, the OAS, has hired an anonymous Englishman to assassinate Degalle after several of their own botched attempts.  The man they hire is an interesting character. He’s described as a tall, thin, blond gentlemen. He is quiet and discreet, but intense. An insightful exchange occurs when he meets Goosen, a clandestine gunsmith, to lay out the specifications for the sniper rifle Goosen is to build. The exchange is quite cordial, and not unlike a conversation one might overhear at any gun store. When they finish the negotiation over price, Jackal warns Goosen against telling anyone about their business, “In the event that you should try to do so it is certain I shall hear about the inquiries. In that eventuality, you will die. On my return here, if there has been any attempt to contact the police or lay a trap, you will die. Is that understood?”

I like the character of the Jackal. He is understated, quiet but serious, and meticulous in planning the details of the assassination. At the same time, he is flexible enough to take advantage of the inevitable unforeseen events that come up as the story moves forward.

The book unfolds from the viewpoint of the Jackal, as he meticulously plans the assassination then later puts it in to play, the French security forces as they catch wind that some plot is afoot, and the English police branch MI-5 as they race to help their French colleagues identify the assassin, all the while hoping that he wont turn out to be an Englishman.

The French police inspector Lebel is put in charge of the investigation. He reminds me of Colombo. He’s rumpled, seemingly disorganized and not quite up to snuff, but in reality one step ahead of his superiors, who seem throughout the book to wonder if they really picked the right man for the job.

The story is told in two parts- the first half Forsyth goes into great detail the planning the Jackal does to set up the assassination, including the design and purchase of the gun, the scouting of locations, the preparation of disguises for the multiple personas the jackal will use. Meanwhile, the detailed and unglamorous groundwork of real detective work is detailed as the French police gradually piece together the plot. What could be tedious when done by some authors is really quite fascinating in Forsyth’s hands.

In the second part of the book the Jackal puts his plan into action. He travels into France by way of Italy, then works his way towards Paris, and ultimately, DeGalle. Meanwhile, the French and English police frantically track down leads, without actually knowing what, or who, or even if, some sinister plot is underway.

The book builds in intensity as the characters race towards their goals; the Jackal to the site where he plans to commit his crime, and Lebel and his forces, always a half step behind, until the ultimate showdown.

I like the fact that the locations, dialogue and tactics are dated. While many modern novels in this genre rely on technology as a character to the point that it becomes intrusive, The Day of the Jackal is a character study of an enigmatic killer and the dogged inspector tracking him.

One thing that we don’t learn is who the Jackal really is, and why he does these jobs. We never learn how he came to these skills, or anything about his background. Maybe that’s better left to the imagination, ultimately.

I liked this book a lot. I intend to read some of Forsyth’s other novels, although they may not grab me like this one did.

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759”

While trolling Facebook, as I am want to do, I came across a thread started by the wife of a friend of mine. She said she was going to have to drag her child car seats out of storage due to the new law taking effect in California at the start of the new year. The new law says that young passengers ages six and seven are now required to ride in a booster seat in any vehicle unless they are at least 4-feet-9 inches tall. Previously, only child passengers who were up to age six or weighing less than 60 pounds were required to ride in a booster seat. So in the time between when her children outgrew or out aged the old law and now, she was apparently putting them in great danger. Not any more! The California legislature has come to the rescue.

Never missing the opportunity to stir the pot, I commented that Facebookers should continue voting for Democrats for the state legislature so that they could eventually winnow away all their freedoms.

Another soccer mom then commented on the thread, claiming to be a conservative but willing to concede that if the new law helps to save children, then she is all for it. Says she “ I’m a pretty hardcore conservative and I’m all about my individual rights but this is about my child’s safety. Too many people exercise poor judgement especially with their kids…And God forbid I ever get into an accident and although my children are strapped in, what if that accident kills or injures a child that isn’t. ..when it comes to my kiddos, safety overrides politics to me! “

Unfortunately, many people, especially women, are all too willing to give up freedom as long as it’s done “for the children.” And they get to vote, too! This mom is so concerned about child safety that she is now worried not only about her own children, but the children of those who don’t have the good judgment she professes to have.

According to this self-described “hardcore conservative”,  the safety of children is the paramount concern, and even though she is “all about individual rights” she gladly hands over the responsibility of raising her children to the state. Childrearing is so simple when the government steps in and removes the decision making rights of the parents.

I don’t really know what a conservative today is. If it’s John Boehner and his ilk, I’ll pass. I think this mom is confusing libertarianism with what she thinks is conservatism, and is then willing to make exceptions as long as its in the best interest of children. I’m not a parent but I think if I were I’d be extremely reluctant to cede to the state the most fundamental of rights, the right to rear your children as you see fit.

On a recent visit to the San Joaquin Wildlife Sanctuary I got photos of a Costa’s Hummingbird, a Brown pelican, a Western Scrub Jay and a sunset. I’m looking for help or point me in the right direction on the other birds in this gallery.

http://www.seaandsageaudubon.org/SJWS/sjws.htm

Here we have another reverse discrimination case coming out of New York, in which an appeals court said that it was OK for the city of New London to discriminate against applicants for police officer whose scores indicated that they had a high IQ. The city’s stated reason is that they feel high IQ cops will soon get bored of police work and quit after the city has spent money training them. Here are the details:

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

HT Vox Populi

What the city is really doing here is finding a way to exclude white male candidates. They have quotas to fill, and the fact is that black males, and to a lesser degree Hispanic males, test lower on average than white males.By excluding high IQ candidates, they have a built in excuse to exclude white males without facing a reverse discrimination lawsuit, which they would likely lose.

I submit that even if it were true that high IQ officers quit at higher rates than lower IQ officers, ( they have offered no proof that I can find that this is the case), getting one for 5 years would be better than having a low IQ officer stay on for 15 years. I submit that the rate of use of force and false or bad arrests is higher for low IQ officers than high IQ officers, thus costing the city more in the long run.

Clearly if the city was concerned with officers quitting and training money wasted, they would not allow applicants with uteri. Women are much more likely than men to take extended and multiple leaves to have kids, become quickly disinterested in police work, and quit to raise a family or pursue other interests.

One thing that is that having a high IQ is definitely not a requirement to work in city government or be a judge.