Zachariah Peterson Threatens to Mow Down (Kill) Teachers at Local Christian School (Part 2 / update)

Just me perhaps, maybe I missed it; but the law enforcement handling of a recent situation strikes me as a little odd.  They are unusually quiet.  In view of several high-profile and tragic attacks on schools, we, locally, have Zachariah Peterson who, in an online statement, threatened to go to a local Christian school and “mow down,” “execute” teachers and administrative staff.  The school, located in the Portland Metro area, has not been specifically identified.

Refer my previous post: 

Peterson was arrested reportedly by the Oregon State Police and lodged in the Multnomah County Jail.  He has been charged as an x-felon in possession of a gun – as I understand it four guns.  His bail was set at $100,000.  There was some indication, early on, that federal charges were pending; but nothing has materialized.

This arrest occurred September 11^th, and with the exception of the initial, somewhat perfunctory reporting of the incident, there has been little or nothing since.  Why?

It makes me wonder what is going on – a significant public interest arrest – and no reported follow up in more than two weeks – no official statements.  What’s up with that?  Was there some problem with the arrest?  Was the arrest and the circumstances misrepresented?  Is Peterson otherwise occupied with a pending psychiatric evaluation?  Has he been released on bail?  Was there some substance to Peterson’s claims of abuse?  Why hasn’t the school been identified?  Why hasn’t the school been called upon to comment?  

It seems like local media would be all over this story.  But, I don’t see it.  Strange.

True Nelson

Zachariah Peterson Threatens to Mow Down (Kill) Teachers at Local Christian School

On September 11th, Zachariah M. Peterson, a Beaverton, Oregon resident, WMA, age 29, was arrested by federal and local authorities and lodged in the Multnomah County Jail.  He is currently being held on $100,000 bail and charged as an x-felon in possession of a gun – in this case several guns.  Other charges are reportedly pending.

This case interests me because of the stunning allegations that Peterson intended / threatened to go to a local school (a Christian middle school) and “mow down” the teachers with which he had grievances.

He has been arrested, but the resulting charges and bail, as well as the news coverage – so far – seems minimal.

“The investigation began Thursday (9-10-15) when state police received an email from the host of an unidentified online community forum.”

True’s note:  The online forum has now been identified as ‘General [M]ayhem.’  I had not previously heard of said forum.  I did check it out – a gathering of assorted nuts, in my opinion.  However, I’m glad this forum has an adult monitoring it with the good sense to report the psychotic posting of Peterson.

“The email alerted police about a disturbing post made on the forum site at 1:50 a.m. Sept. 4 by someone who claimed to have attended a Christian middle school as a youth and suffered abuse at the hands of teachers and administrators.”

“The poster wrote of planning to enter the middle-school building… catch each one of the abusive teachers and mow them down with a shotgun, according to a federal criminal complaint…”

“…the poster would enter the elementary school building and execute as many abusers as possible along with personnel in the administrative office, the federal affidavit said.”

True’s note:  I suppose it could be inferred that students present at the time, and injured or killed, would incidentally and merely constitute inadvertent collateral damage.

“The federal agents and state police traced the online post to an IP address…”

“On Thursday… the alleged poster, Zachariah M. Peterson, allowed investigators into his home. There, police located four firearms and ammunition. Peterson also admitted he sent the threatening online post and was taken into custody.”

“Oregon State Police arrested Peterson. He was booked into the Multnomah County Detention Center at 1:17 a.m. Friday on a federal marshal's hold and accused of a single allegation of felon in possession of a weapon. Investigators also seized his firearms.”

** Above quoted information from an article written by The Oregonian reporter, Maxine Bernstein on 9/12/15.

More to follow…

True Nelson

So you want to hire (or perhaps become) a Private Investigator. There are some things you should know. (Part 3 & Conclusion)

This informational essay, in three parts, is best read in order:

Part 1 / Part 2

Who becomes a private investigator?

The answer to that is almost anyone who is interested, over the age of 18, who has a clean record. 

The background check performed by the state licensing agency is probably the principal benefit to the public, and does give the public some assurance that they are dealing with a somewhat reputable person.  Please note that I didn’t say the person was necessarily qualified.

My personal opinion, albeit somewhat controversial, is that I find it hard to believe that anyone, without at least five years of law enforcement or other very intensive investigative experience, can be an effective private investigator.  There is just too much to know.  There are too many unanticipated situations that can quickly arise and become a serious liability issue, a violation of law, or even dangerous.  If you put your faith in such a person, all I can say is ‘good luck.’

What about private investigators’ fees?  What’s fair?  Well, it’s kind of an over-generalization, and a cliché, to say that you ‘get what you pay for.’  This is not necessarily true.  There are some very good investigators who specialize in certain areas (like surveillance) with fees that are relatively modest.  On the other hand, you can run into private investigators that have fees that are over-blown and exploitive.  Be careful and do your homework.  If a PI is very qualified and has good references, you are better served to consider this option – even if their fees seem a little higher.  A bad, inexperienced, or poorly trained PI can cause a client untold grief.  Moreover, you may not have actually saved any money.  Good PIs cover a lot of ground quickly.

Do private investigators have variable fee structures?  Yes, they often do.  This is usually based on good business practices and self-protection.  Is the client a potential repeat client?  Am I assured that I will not have any collection issues with this client?  Is the proposed case very complex and demanding, with short deadlines?  Nonetheless, professional investigators should be able to explain their ‘fee structure’ without too much hesitation – and be able to furnish you this information in writing.

Regarding fees in Oregon, particularly in the Portland Metro area, a potential client should expect investigative fees in the neighborhood of $80 to $150 per hour, plus expenses.  If you are quoted more than that, I would spend some time looking elsewhere.

If you are shopping for a PI in a major metropolitan area such as New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco expect the hourly rate to be higher.  Rural areas, the hourly rate will be somewhat less.

How do I locate a private investigator?  Well, the telephone book is probably your worst resource.  Internet searches are good and becoming better.  If you can get a referral, that’s great.  Attorneys are sometimes a good source for referrals.  Professional associations can be a good source for referrals, particularly associations which require or expect certifications, and/or standards for continuing education.  A quick word about ‘certifications’ (and there are many floating about):  some ‘certifications’ can be simply purchased for a small fee, and as a result are meaningless.  Always investigate the certifying association or body, and what is required to obtain a particular certification. These days this is easily done on the internet.  As with any profession, private investigation is definitely a profession filled with many skilled, educated and experienced people, and unfortunately quite a few duds.  Ask questions, get quotes and be an informed consumer.  If you don’t, you could quickly find yourself on the receiving end of a civil suit.

When I search for qualified private investigators in other areas of the country, I almost always look for someone with a law enforcement background.  Again, anyone, and I mean almost anyone short of an identifiable ex-felon, can become a private investigator.  A potential client should look for experience, references, and educational background – anything about the private investigator that you could conceivably verify, and would tend to give him or her a degree of credibility.

Good private investigators do have a certain amount of overhead:

Some have offices and staff.

Truly competent private investigators will subscribe to several databases, not customarily available to the general public.  They are not free.  These databases greatly expedite investigations, not to mention that they contribute professional thoroughness.

Advertising is critical.  If a PI doesn’t advertise through various outlets, the public just won’t find him.

All licensed PIs are required to take courses on various investigative subjects, plus ethics.

They belong to professional associations (all have dues).

If ‘certified,’ the PI will have additional fees to maintain the certification – as well as educational requirements that must be fulfilled.

All PIs usually possess an abundance of investigation related equipment such as cameras (still and motion), recording devices, tracking equipment, telescopic equipment, and – if they do quite a bit of surveillance – they will have a specially outfitted van.

Last, but not least, the professional PI must carry Errors and Omissions Insurance as a protection for the Client and for himself.

Final Thought:  Many believe that private investigation is easy.  Those people watch too much television.  It isn’t easy.  It can be difficult, stressful and sometimes dangerous.

Oh and one other thought:  As the client of a PI, you are invariably going to reveal some information that you consider confidential – perhaps even intimate details of your personal life.  Pick someone that you feel you can trust.

True Nelson

So you want to hire (or perhaps become) a Private Investigator. There are some things you should know. (Part 2)

This is part 2 of an informational essay on what is necessary to become a private investigator; and / or how a potential client might find and retain a qualified private investigator.  Information most understandable if read in order.

Refer:  Part 1 of subject essay.

In Oregon, for example, you should understand that the licensing process is basic and generally attempts to determine if the potential applicant understands associated State law and general liability issues.

Additionally, the applicant is fingerprinted to verify that there is not some sort of criminal background of which the State should be aware.  The applicant is required to be bonded or insured.  In Oregon, a minimal bond is required.  However, many PI firms carry liability insurance for the protection of themselves and the client, with coverage in the neighborhood of one million or more.

In Oregon, and there are variations of this in other States, applicants with little or no prior investigative experience are allowed a ‘provisional license,’ – until they gain some rudimentary experience.  This might be something the potential client may want to inquire about.  Experience is generally important in most professions, but particularly in PI work.  Some states, a few, require no licensing whatsoever.

The ‘excepted category,’ referred to under Oregon law and frequently used in other States, largely refers to private investigators who work for a single employer.

Many law firms use this exception for the purpose of deploying their paralegal or administrative assistant (secretary) to conduct investigations, rather than retaining a licensed private investigator.  It is a practice that is not, for the most part, known to the public.  Theoretically, the paralegal or administrative assistant is under the constant supervision of an attorney; and, I believe, covered by the attorney’s ‘errors and omissions’ insurance.  Whether or not this constant supervision is actually true or even practicable is a controversial issue within the private investigative field.

Clients, when dealing with investigative fees incurred by a law firm (sometimes very expensive investigative fees), should not be shy about asking who conducted the investigation and what was his/her qualifications.  Attorneys use this ‘excepted category,’ as an additional profit opportunity.  Some paralegals and administrative assistants, possibly through trial and error, become quite competent.  Nonetheless, if a client has an important issue that requires a professional investigation, I recommend that you not trust that investigation to the Attorney’s secretary.

Furthermore, attorneys should be aware of the potential requirement that they might have to call a private investigator as a witness – perhaps to impeach another witness or another PI – and what type of impression their PI may have on the jury, including whether or not the PI appears qualified and professional.

One additional comment, that hopefully most attorneys are aware, is that attorneys need to insulate themselves from the witness interview process to preserve their own credibility.  Whether this necessary insulation is preserved by having one of their employees conduct a witness interview is, in my opinion, doubtful.

Some companies and corporations have ‘staff’ investigators.  And, I suppose it makes sense that these staff investigators not be required to be licensed in every state in which they work on behalf of their employer.  On the other hand, if the staff investigator is headquartered in a state that requires licensing, it’s hard for me to accept that he/she should be exempted from usual and customary standards, including the required periodic training and educational programs.  I think the public should expect consistent standards all around – just my opinion.

Who becomes a private investigator?

To be continued…

True Nelson

So you want to hire (or perhaps become) a Private Investigator. There are some things you should know. (Part 1)

This will be an informational essay on what is necessary to become a good private investigator; and / or how a potential client might find and retain a qualified private investigator.  I will split this essay into 'parts' to accommodate my blog format; and the information would be the most beneficial if the parts are read in order.

Many believe that the sole purpose of a private investigator is to ‘observe or interview and then report.’  As a result, it is commonly believed that these attributes fall within the province of almost any literate person regardless of background, experience, education and training.  Experienced investigators not only know the quickest, most cost efficient manner of accomplishing a project, they also carry-out the assignment in a legal and professional manner which does not adversely impact the client.  Furthermore, the more an investigator knows and understands about a situation the more useful and valuable his observations will be to others.

I’m occasionally asked about how one selects a private investigator.  And, I must admit this can be difficult.  I will attempt to simplify the process.

Licensing:  Most states now have licensing for private investigators, but not all.  Oregon and Washington do have licensing.  In other states, generally typing in your online search function ‘a State’s name with a request for licensed Private Investigators’ will immediately display the necessary information.

What is a Private Investigator:  Per Oregon Statute:  “Investigators solicit or accept employment to obtain or furnish information about persons, property, crimes, accidents, etc. [Oregon Revised Statutes 703.401(3)]

Investigators must be licensed unless they are in an excepted category. [Oregon Revised Statutes 703.411]” Other States generally have a similar definition.  (Will explain this later.)

What you really would like to know is what makes a good PI and how do you select a private investigator from the several hundred, perhaps thousands that are available in each State.  OK - can do.

To be continued...

True Nelson

Nicholas Kristof / Guns / His View from the Ivory Tower

I must take issue with Nicholas Kristof, and his recent op-ed piece “Lessons from the Murders of TV Journalists.”  Of course, Kristof had to give us some clarity and expound on his anti-gun position, relevant to the tragedy in Virginia.  Mr. Kristof, do they actually pay you for this stuff?  Oh yes, I almost forgot.  You went to Harvard.  OK, I apologize and retract that insensitive remark.

However, if I might digress for a just a moment, Harvard is becoming a sort of inside joke (from Frazier Crane to Barrack Obama); a joke that everyone appreciates – other than Harvard alumni I understand.  It must be a very difficult school to get into – unless you are wired in some way.  I know our President had a difficult time preparing himself for the rigors of a Harvard education.

Obama quoted:  “Man, I wasted a lot of time in high school.  There were times when I, you know, got into drinking, experimented with drugs.  There was a whole stretch of time where I didn’t really apply myself a lot.”

I wonder if Harvard has that Presidential quote prominently displayed on campus as motivation for their new recruits.  I might suggest a caption:  See, anyone can do this.

Back to the topic at hand:  statistics lie and liars use statistics.

Kristof:  “More Americans have died from guns in the United States since 1968 than on the battlefields of all the wars in U.S. history.”

Hardly original, that old stat was drug-out years back by Mark Shields, who we all know from the PBS News Hour.  And, yes, apparently that is a fairly accurate statistic from what I can determine.  But, what Kristof fails to mention is that the vast majority of those deaths were by accident or suicide.  Kristof would probably respond, ‘Well, yes, but so what?’  It’s the implication Mr. Kristof – don’t you get it?  Accidents happen (car accidents, occupational accidents, and stupid accidents) and people intent on suicide would have found a way under any circumstances.  Furthermore, Kristof, by inference, seems to minimize the sacrifices of our military for what I consider to be a meaningless comparison.

Kristof:  “More Americans die in gun homicides and suicides every six months than have died in the last 25 years in every terrorist attack and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.”  Again, he drags in military deaths and our military personnel’s, relatively speaking, inconsequential sacrifices – something he knows little about – having never served in the military.  That said, I can’t statistically refute the statement he makes, other than possibly the word “every.”  Those kind of statistics are harder to track down.  But, Mr. Kristof wouldn’t try to mislead – or would he?

Oh, just a small additional observation, why does Obama tend to label obvious terrorist attacks as workplace violence?  Is he attempting to tamper with statistics?

  

Kristof:  “To protect the public, we regulate toys and mutual funds, ladders and swimming pools.  Shouldn’t we regulate guns as seriously as we regulate toys?"

I guess Kristof is unaware of the fact that there are in excess of 20,000 statutes, ordinances and regulations regarding guns and ammunition at the Federal, State and Local levels.  Can some improvements be made?  Yes, but shouldn’t we look at strong enforcement of current laws first?  I’d support that.

Here are a few new laws that I would favor:

•                Convicted felon in possession of a gun:  automatic three years in prison – no judicial discretion, no chance for parole.
•                Knowingly selling or furnishing a gun to a convicted felon:  automatic three years in prison – no judicial discretion, no chance for parole.
•                Theft of a gun, during the commission of a felony:  automatic three years in prison – no judicial discretion, no chance for parole – in addition to any time associated with the attendant felony.

I could go on, but what’s the point?  A few, very few, people will read my blog post.  Whereas, millions will read and be influenced by Kristof’s ramblings.  That’s not really fair; but is, nonetheless, one of the benefits of a Harvard education.

True Nelson

Alek Skarlatos, Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler / You Make Us Proud / Conclusion (3 parts)

Now that I have offended much of the French populace, I might add that they shouldn’t really concern themselves with my personal opinion because many Americans wish we were just like the French.  And, quite a few of our political leaders are moving us, gradually you understand, in that direction.  Soon we too will have mercenaries fighting our battles.  It’s really cheaper in the long run and many Americans can’t be bothered with the mundaneness of self-reliance and self-protection – certainly not any dangerous military service.

Oh, what about the U.S. Second Amendment to the Constitution?  No problem there.  Our Supreme Court can just fine tune it a little, reinterpret what it means; and, that’s that, it can be placed on a dusty book shelf.

Let’s see… My Second Theory regarding the courageous actions of Stone, Skarlatos and Sadler:  Well, it has to do with their familiarity with guns.

Guns are after all inanimate, mechanical objects or basically tools.  My contention is that the more you know about a tool, even a dangerous tool, the more comfortable you become using it – being around it.

Example:  You are in a public place, suddenly accosted by an obviously distraught, possibly deranged person waving a chainsaw around and endangering people, even children.  The chainsaw is loud and scary.  What type of individual, excepting an armed police officer, would be the most likely to intervene and attempt to neutralize this dangerous person?  I would think it would be someone who was familiar with chainsaws, perhaps even utilized a chainsaw on a daily basis.  Why?  Because that individual understands that chainsaws can be dangerous, but that they do have limitations.  He would look for that brief moment of weakness, either on the part of the person operating the chainsaw or the chainsaw itself.  He would not, in other words, be frozen in a state of inaction; or feel his only option is to run.

What does that have to do with the incident on the train?  Perhaps that particular incident, and their particular reaction, had something to do with Skarlatos, Stone and Sadler’s familiarity with guns.  Both Skarlatos and Stone were known to have some military training.  But I would also venture that Skarlatos, Stone and Sadler had some previous experience with guns as hunters, target shooters, etc.

I’ve been around people who were frightened to even touch a gun, for fear they would inadvertently do something in handling a gun that would cause it to harm them or someone else – as if the gun was alive and had a mind of its own – much like one might treat a poisonous snake.

The French have very strict gun control laws governing ownership and use.  Gun ownership and use is not part of their culture or their traditions.

Perhaps I’m wrong about the three Americans.  I suppose we’d have to ask them.  I’d like to know how experienced Stone, Skarlatos and Sadler are with guns.  Do they own guns?  Did they grow up with guns?

I did and many of my friends did.  Would any of us have the courage to confront a terrorist?  I don’t know.

I’ve had considerable training and experience with weapons (guns), particularly in the FBI.  One thing that I believe I would quickly recognize is how proficient is this person with his weapon, as well as what are the limitations of this particular weapon.  Those observations would be my deciding factors as to how best to react.

True Nelson

Alek Skarlatos, Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler / You Make Us Proud / Part 2

What motivated Spencer Stone, Alek Skarlatos and Anthony Sadler to take action as they did in the French train incident?  Why them?  OK, and this “American thing” the ‘thing’ the British Colonel referred to, is there something to that?

I’m not certain of course, but I’ll take a stab at it.  Actually, I have two theories.  These are just my opinions.  No offense is intended.  One of my theories is about France the country and the current cultural, sociological traits of their citizens.  A subject of which I admittedly know little, other than generalized observations.  The other is about guns.  A subject about which I know quite a bit.

First Theory:  In contrast to the United States, France has evolved, since World War II, into a pacifist country with an emasculated military; and that same description could be applied to their general population – depending upon other countries to do the heavy lifting in world affairs.  France sometimes talks a good game, but militarily they are a non-entity.  And, without doubt, their citizenry reflects that characteristic.  France is what in global affairs would be considered a 'soft target.’  Is ISIS aware of that?  Of course.  Yes, I recognize that it is not inconceivable that a French citizen could have rushed Ayoub El-Khazzani, but that French person would be, in my opinion, an anomaly.

Regarding Iraq and Afghanistan and the conflicts there, France was considered a U.S. ally; but in name only - an ally in the sense that if you are about to be in a fight, France would be happy to hold your coat.

In support of the French militarily some may cite the First Indochina War (1946–1954) where France fought a war in which they sustained casualties in the tens of thousands – a monumental sacrifice in an, unfortunately, losing cause.  However, most are not aware that the vast majority of those casualties were from France’s colonies and were largely made up of Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Laotian, Cambodian, and Vietnamese forces.  Metropolitan or actual French soldiers were generally excused and/or prohibited from combat due to the lack of public support for the war.  Yes, there were some French professional soldiers in the conflict, but they were by far in the minority.

Now, what about guns?  My second theory:

To be continued…

True Nelson

Alek Skarlatos, Spencer Stone & Anthony Sadler / You Make Us Proud to be Americans

“Europe's media is still abuzz with the extraordinary story of three Americans who tackled a suspected terrorist on Friday on a train in Northern France. The question being asked is this: Were they displaying a distinctly American can-do spirit?” (Bloomberg View)

True’s comment:  Well, maybe.  But, “can-do spirit” “distinctly American;” what does that mean?

All of us proud Americans have heard the back-story.  Sunday, French President Francis Hollade awarded the Legion of Honor to three, young American men (Alek Skarlatos, Spencer Stone, and Anthony Sadler) for subduing a 26-year-old Moroccan, would-be terrorist, who was apparently intent on killing an untold number of passengers on a French commuter train.

Skarlatos and Stone are members of the American military; and Sadler is a friend of theirs and a college student.  The award they received from the French government and any subsequent adulation is, in my opinion, justly deserved.  These three are remarkable young men - saving countless lives.

The would-be terrorist, Ayoub El-Khazzani, claimed that he had earlier found the AK-47 and other weapons in a French park and simply wanted to rob the train’s passengers.  This explanation / alibi is so incredibly unlikely that it is kind of funny.  Hopefully, the French authorities will sit on him until he squeaks.  Some others are involved – almost certainly.

Of interest (food for thought - at least for me) was a comment, by a former British Army colonel, writing in the United Kingdom's Daily Telegraph, who declared: "It's an American thing. I salute it."  He was referring, I imagine, to the courage displayed by these young men.  And, there is no denying that a great deal of courage was involved.

Nonetheless, it caused me to wonder why it was principally Americans, and not French citizens, that reacted first and most decisively.  Perhaps, it was simply chance.  But, there must have been many French passengers in the immediate area.

I don’t believe that Americans are necessarily more courageous than the French.  Culturally speaking, I suppose some cultures are more aggressive and impulsive.  That said, the American culture is about as diverse as any in the world.  So, “It’s an American thing, I salute it” doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense.  What is it about this “American thing?”

I’ve got a theory.

To be continued…

True Nelson

True's Miscellany / August 2015 / Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton & Cecil the Lion

I think I might have writers’ block.  I know it’s presumptuous to say that.  I ain’t no for real writer.  Yes, I know I even stole that thought from Joe Buck (Midnight Cowboy) – cleverer his:  “I ain’t no for real cowboy.”

It’s not that I don’t have things that I think about.  Like what, you might inquire?  Well…

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton leading in the poles of their respective political parties – God help us.

The brutal rape and murder of a California woman, Marilyn Pharis, by illegal immigrants; Victor Aureliano Martinez and Jose Fernando Villagomez:  sanctuary cities, political correctness gone crazy, stupid and thoughtless politicians and law enforcement personnel – disgusting, horrific, unconscionable, preventable.  And who will take responsibility?  No one.

Ferguson, Missouri:  What more can be said?  Hopeless.

Nuclear treaty with the Iranians (whoops not a treaty), agreement, I guess.  Does anyone believe the Iranians will honor the agreement?  Are we that stupid?  Well, not us – just the people who represent us.

National debt in excess of 18 trillion, getting bigger all the time.  Who will pay this back?  Our children and grandchildren.  Moreover, what fools are actually loaning the United States money to squander on all the things this country really doesn’t need.

Cecil the Lion.  I don’t know why anyone would want to be a ‘trophy’ hunter.  Is this due to perceived sexual inadequacy?  Well, heck, that same motivation is undoubtedly in play with many of our politicians and CEOs (Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump).

No, that was not Joe Buck’s problem.  "I am one helluva stud."

What else?  Let’s see.  I was sitting on the patio last evening.  It was nearing eight o’clock.  The honey bees were still working among some purple flowers.  I was wondering when they were allowed to go home.  Where is home?  How far is it?  And what do they do when they get there.  More importantly, are our concerns more important than the honey bee?  Doubtful.  His (or I should say more precisely her) life is fairly basic.  You work, you eat, you socialize and you die.  Are we so different?

Shakespeare, the genius; his plays have lost some relevance over the years (1564 to 1616).  Did you know that he was reportedly 6’4” (although disputable)?  He must have been one tall dude, and what was he fed as a child?  The average male was approximately 5'5".

Watching a Shakespeare play is kind of like watching paint dry, but noisier.  Sorry, just my opinion.  There is, nonetheless, a certain snob appeal.  Yes, I’ve actually seen a couple of his plays.  He is, however, eternally quotable.  One of my favorites – the only quote of his that I bothered to memorize.  On the meaning of life:

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.       Macbeth

True Nelson

Police Profiling / Oregon Statute HB2002; and my thoughts...

Police ‘profiling’ is the issue du jour in legal circles these days.  Oregon State’s Legislators, knowing little or nothing about the subject of ‘profiling’ – as it relates to the law enforcement mission – have decided a law is required – HB 2002.

We should understand that ‘profiling’ is something that each of us do, almost daily.  It’s a human trait.  You walk down the street.  You size up someone coming toward you, and adjust your behavior accordingly.  That’s ‘profiling.’  For police, ‘profiling’ can become an effective deterrent to crime – not to mention a survival skill that will carry them through their shift.

Now, our Oregon Legislators feel, in a vague sort of way, that ‘profiling’ is probably a naughty thing for police to be doing.  And, in some instances I agree that police can abuse it.  However, when those abuses do occur, they need to be corrected by administrators within the department.  If supervisory personnel are unable to correct the problem, they should be held accountable.

However, our Legislators feel they should codify the ‘profiling’ issue.  And, as they might opine in describing the urgency, ‘Something is better than nothing even if nothing is the result of our attempt at something.’  OK, yes, of course, why didn’t I think of that?

I don’t want your eyes to glaze over, but you really ought to read the following; and attempt to imagine explaining this recently enacted law (without smirking you understand) to a new recruit at the police academy.

This is how our legislators (in their infinite, superior wisdom and expensive, nonetheless questionable, legal training) define profiling and what our law enforcement officers are supposed to comply with:

“Profiling means that a law enforcement agency or a law enforcement officer:

 In conducting a routine or spontaneous investigatory activity or in determining the

scope, substance or duration of the routine or spontaneous investigatory activity, relies on

age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, language, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation,

religion, homelessness or mental disability to select an individual for or subject the

individual to the routine or spontaneous investigatory activity, except that using a specific

suspect description related to a criminal incident or suspected criminal activity is not profiling;

Or

 In conducting an investigatory activity in connection with an investigation, relies on

age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, language, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation,

religion, homelessness or mental disability as an identifying characteristic or circumstance

of an individual, unless credible information relevant to the locality or time frame

links the individual to an identified criminal incident or criminal activity.

And

Routine or spontaneous investigatory activity includes an interview, a detention, a

traffic stop, a pedestrian stop, a frisk or other type of bodily search and a search of personal

or real property.”

As you can see by the above wording, the Law does not clearly define what ‘profiling,’ actually is – only painting with a broad brush, hoping to impart the general gist of the idea.  Seems to me that a police officer won’t be able to talk to practically anyone while on duty – at least no one actually needing to be talked to.

In other words, as I read the law, a police officer interviewing an obviously mentally deranged individual, or a wandering homeless person, is involved in ‘profiling’ and should therefore be disciplined for this professional transgression.  Gee, and I always thought that used to be called good police work.

Oh, I suppose the law enforcement officer is free to chit chat with a passing young attractive woman, or in some instances a young attractive man, as long as the person is of an equivalent race and ethnic origin; and, of course, has the same sexual orientation as the officer - and providing said officer’s intentions are strictly social.

So, what does this all mean?  Well, basically, it means that any experienced, savvy cop will not be doing much of anything proactive to protect the public.  Why should they?

PS:  Oh yes, one other thing:  The Oregon Association Chiefs of Police (OACP) actually have endorsed and support the new law on ‘profiling.’  So, what am I to make of that?  Actually, I expect the Chiefs recognize the inanity of the new law – and consider it little more than ‘eye wash’ for the public.

True Nelson

Donald Trump, Game of Thrones and the Wall

Well, Donald Trump seems to be gaining ground in the Presidential poles.  It’s unfortunate, but he does have a certain appeal for many.  What is it about him that attracts supporters?  It’s basic and understandable.  He is perceived as a ‘can do’ personality.

The issue of the day is his proposed ‘impenetrable wall’ between Mexico and the United States, to prevent the flood of illegal immigrants.  Many, including myself, agree with him that the illegal immigration problem is a significant issue that needs to be addressed.

The ‘wall’ sounds good – to some – but it wouldn’t work.  Or, let’s just say it isn't particularly practical and wouldn’t solve the problem.  Most of my career has involved security issues, security measures and facility protection.

Here is what would work:

• Of course, the border needs to be clearly delineated; and there needs to be some significant fencing and warning signs along the entire border – which, I am almost certain currently exists.  There should be no possibility that someone could inadvertently wander across the border and claim ignorance.  This is just common sense.
• But here is the real answer that politicians resist for their own stealth reasons.  It is time that this country issued National Identity Cards and developed a system for employers to easily check for citizenship or legal residence. Furthermore, those who employ non-legal residents would be subject to sizeable fines.  For major corporations and those entities who obviously should know better, the fines should be enough to really get their attention.
• Mexico should be required to pay U.S. costs for the incarceration of ‘illegals’ who commit crimes within the U.S. and / or Mexico must accept and incarcerate the criminals themselves.
• Other ‘illegals’ (non-criminals) found within the U.S. should be compassionately treated, the matter properly adjudicated, and necessary appropriate action taken – some allowed to stay under certain circumstances – some required to return to Mexico.

So, why won’t the above be enacted?  I will put it to you plain and simple.  Actually, I don’t really have to tell you, because most of you know this already.  Regarding our politicians:

Democrats want the ‘cheap’ votes.

Republicans want the ‘cheap’ labor.

True Nelson