Investigation of Potential Crimes With Findings Of Insufficient Evidence ARE NOT Equivalent to Not Guilty, Exoneration, or No Crime Was Committed

I have 36 years of experience in law enforcement, 30 of those years working as a deputy and a Supervisor in Patrol at seven different stations in Los Angeles County. As such, I’ve had a fairly extensive breadth of experience investigating criminal allegations, investigating citizen’s complaints against deputies, arresting criminal suspects, writing supporting reports and other documentation, testifying in Court, reviewing and critiquing literally thousands of criminal complaint reports, and accumulating a more than passing familiarity with local, state and relevant federal statutes, regulations, laws, case law decisions, and policies and procedures.

There is a persistent, pernicious conclusion being promoted in this country that a finding of insufficient evidence of the commission of a crime by an individual or individuals is equivalent to an absolute finding of NOT GUILTY or an exoneration of the commission of a crime or crimes. This is simply erroneous. If crimes were, in fact, committed obviously some person or persons committed them. If a particular person is not indicted and tried in a criminal court, they obviously cannot be found guilty or not guilty, nor can they necessarily be determined to be exonerated unless the person, persons, or ALL persons responsible can be confidently established.

In the case of the Russian interference and manipulation of public opinion in the 2016 elections in the United States, the fact is persons associated with the Russian government, under the direction of Vladimir Putin, conspired to influence our elections by sowing discord, damaging the public image and reputation of one specific presidential candidate, and bolster, benefit and help shape the perception of Donald Trump.

The fact is, several persons associated with, and participating in Trump’s campaign sought to communicate with Russian operatives, conceal their interactions, lied about these interactions and changed their explanations of their meetings and interactions as these contacts were exposed by the media and/or government officials. Many of these individuals were found to have committed other crimes and/or lying to investigators. But in most cases, there has been no satisfactory explanation of their lies, concealments, or refusal to answer questions by these individuals, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner, or any of the others.

People lie for a reason. They conceal, refuse to speak, and change their stories about what happened, what they did or didn’t do, why they did or didn’t do them, how and why things happened, and who did them, or knew about them. People lie, conceal and protect others and themselves for a variety of reasons — usually there is some inherent benefit to themselves; money; power; or promise or expectations of one or the other. Loyalty is another reason, but usually has it limits when personal jeopardy and harm exceed personal benefits. Rarely is loyalty absolute, unless motivated by fear if the object of their loyalty has literally the power of death over them or those they care for.

I do not believe in coincidence. Especially when there are too many incidents of so-called “coincidence” which defy a rational, reasonable explanation. The juxtaposition of so many Russian interactions with Trump associates, the absence of appropriate statements, responses and actions by Donald Trump, as president, to Russian representatives and Vladimir Putin, and Trump’s inappropriate or factually contradictory statements, opinions, and conclusions about Russian actions, intentions, and particularly Vladimir Putin intentions, motivations and trustworthiness, and the dearth of any rational, reasonable, factually supported explanations for this behavior defies the probability or possibility of “coincidence.”

Donald Trump was not exonerated or found NOT GUILTY of a conspiracy with the Russian interference, or of obstructing the investigation into those crimes, likely because he and his campaign and associates effectively concealed the requisite evidence of their activities, conspiracy and their motivations and intentions.

As Robert Mueller explicitly reaffirmed today:

“And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”

“The introduction to the Volume 2 of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.”

“A special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report and I will describe two of them for you.”

“First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.”

“And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.” [Impeachment]

“And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.”

Simple logic dictates:

If agents of the Department Of Justice cannot indict a sitting president because of this DOJ Opinion, then it would seem to follow that, contrary to what Attorney General Barr has said, you cannot exonerate him either under the existing circumstances as documented in the Mueller investigation and report.

It is NOT in the legal purview of DOJ or Attorney General Barr to make a determination of exoneration. That is under the purview of Congress alone.

What Happens When The Macho Movies Actually Meet the Reality of An Active Shooter?

Actor Steven Seagal trains Arizona volunteer posse on school security techniques

Arpaio said volunteers would receive 100 hours of training, drive marked vehicles and, in some cases, be armed with automatic weapons. They would not enter the school unless they observed an immediate threat.

About a dozen people protested the anti-school gun violence training. “No gun should ever be in a school,” said Fountain Hills resident Cynthia Wharton.

“We are paying him to have certified deputies here, not to bring a circus and not to use our town as a political platform,” Guadalupe town councilmember Andrew Sanchez said to the Associated Press.

The Maricopa County’s volunteer posse is one of the largest in the nation and boasts nearly 3,500 members. Arpaio announced this week he wants to add 1,000 more people to his posse. In the past, they have been asked to patrol shopping malls, scope out illegal immigrants and track down dead-beat dads behind on alimony, according to ABC News.

Seagal was already a posse member prior to Saturday’s simulation and his A&E TV reality show “Steven Seagal: Lawman” followed his adventures as a deputy sheriff for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. The action film actor has also been deputized with the sheriff’s offices in New Mexico and Texas.

Other famous Maricopa County volunteer posse members include television actors Lou Ferrigno (“The Incredible Hulk”) and Peter Lupus (“Mission: Impossible”).

From an online article on NYDailyNews.com / U.S

I enjoy the thrills and cathartic release, and the fantasy sense-of-vindication most anyone derives from watching violent action movies, involving fantastic car chases; spectacular feats of physical agility; punishing, prolonged fight scenes of superhuman endurance and resilience; and equally fantastic shoot-outs between the GOOD Guys and Girls and those on the Dark Side But I am a stark realist when it comes to the actual practices and establishment of policies relating to the defense and protection of REAL PEOPLE and REAL CHILDREN, at school or anywhere else

While I have enjoyed watching the movies of Steven Segal, and other actors who portray heroes from law enforcement and the military, in the plentiful number of American-made action films, I believe too many Americans have become deluded about what is real, and what is fantasy. Delusion does not only inhabit the purview of the mentally ill. There is no dearth of delusion among the sane members of society who choose to believe things based solely on their emotions and beliefs, not on facts or empirical knowledge. Many people base their beliefs on what they have heard or accepted as common knowledge from other people who have repeated things they believe to be factual or empirical truths, couched in authoritative tones of credibility. Many people in positions of authority and public trust are assumed to possess the expertise and credibility of their position and background. Yet how many of them have actual training, empirical knowledge or first-hand experience with what they talk about with authority? How many have sought the counsel of multiple actual experts? How many have seriously considered even a few of the blind spots of their individual perceptions, or engaged in critical analysis of the strengths, risks, pitfalls and actual effectiveness of what they support, or propose, as a course of action? Continue reading What Happens When The Macho Movies Actually Meet the Reality of An Active Shooter?

Retirement: Exploring Old Paths – Seeking and Pursuing New Ones

I retired from one of the largest Law enforcement organizations in the United States of America on April 15th 2011. I began this life journey over thirty six years before, on September 9th, 1974.

Through this blog I hope to share some of the life lessons I’ve learned, the experiences I’ve had, and the unique perspective which I believe I developed and brought to my former career.