Law Enforcement / Profiling and Prejudice (Part 2)

Whether or not profiling is considered good or bad depends on how it is used.  Racial profiling has been defined by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional based on the ‘equal protection’ clause.  This means that law enforcement stopping someone for no other reason than their race is illegal – as it should be.

 

Regarding racial profiling some evidence has been developed based on statistics provided by police officers that it does exist, at least it would appear so to some.  Law enforcement personnel are required to note in their reports the race of the individual stopped or cited for traffic violations.  What does this mean?  Well, based on the percentage of a certain racial minority in a given jurisdiction, it appears that African Americans and Hispanics are stopped and/or cited more than Caucasians.  The percentage difference is not great, but is statistically significant.

What is never adequately explained in the research are the extenuating circumstances that led up to the traffic stop.  Did the police officer know prior to initiating the stop that the driver or passengers in a vehicle were minorities?  Are there certain cultural differences that are suspicious, but not necessarily criminal, that might trigger a police response?  Such as inordinately loud music on the car radio, strange modifications to vehicles like blacked out windows or graffiti, unusual driving patterns, drivers exchanging words or gestures with pedestrians, vehicle cruising slowly through a residential neighborhood at night and I could continue.

However, as they say ‘statistics can lie’ and often do when a particular group with a vested interest applies statistics.  But, of course, the elephant in the room that no one wishes to mention is that percentage-wise more crimes are committed by certain minority groups.

When I say minority groups, I mean this in the wider sense and I’m not necessarily saying people of color.  Young men and teenagers might be considered a minority group.  Caucasians within a certain ethnic group or with negative associations might be considered a minority.  Police know and understand these patterns and tend to act accordingly.

Behavioral profiling in criminal cases, although not new, is becoming a major trend in police agencies, including the FBI.  It is one more tool used to identify criminal suspects, particularly in the areas of ‘crime against person,’ such as sexual assault and murder.

Criminal profiling is as old as police work.  Many experienced police investigators use criminal profiling and call it intuition or instinct.  That is pretty much what the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit does except they have taken profiling to another level by using quantitative analysis, massive data and computers.  Does the BSU generally provide more accurate analysis or opinions than an experienced police investigator?  Maybe, but not always.  Much of what the BSU provides would be considered ‘common sense’ by a very experienced investigator.

There is nothing particularly mysterious about profiling.  We all do it every day as we pass people on the street or observe them in the check-out line.  It is a skill we all learn early on in life.  If you didn’t possess that skill, you would be a sorry individual indeed – bungling through life, having people continually take advantage of you, and would probably not survive to old age.  Do I exaggerate?  I don’t think so.  Do we sometimes make mistakes?  Yes.

True Nelson

Law Enforcement / Profiling and Prejudice

I’d like to discuss social bias, prejudice, bigotry; all the usual suspects that make up who we are and how we treat others.

I was reading an article in the Scientific American magazine (January 2014) about the unconscious mind and how it controls human behavior.  It would seem that the goal of overcoming prejudice against various minority groups is a nearly impossible goal for the majority of us.

One of their experiments found that “many people who say they have a positive attitude toward minority groups are astounded when social scientists reveal contradictions (in that belief) using a simple test.”

My first reservation about this simple test is that the word ‘social’ should never be considered an appropriate descriptive modifier for ‘scientist.’  But, that’s just a pet peeve of mine.  However, I should point out that my major in college was Social Sciences – very interesting, but not a subject area that one would normally describe as science.  I found that sociology and psychology were far easier than zoology.

The test in question involved two buttons and a computer screen.  The left button to be pressed indicated either ‘good or white.’  The right button to be pressed indicated either ‘bad or black.’  Various pictures were shown to include puppies, spiders, snakes, kittens and a series of faces of different races.

The same pictures, or variations thereof, were later shown to the same group of test takers.  However, the buttons were changed:  left button indicated good or black, right button indicated either bad or white.  Latent prejudice among the test-takers was proven / at least indicated because the test-takers took longer to press the appropriate button – apparently indicating they had more difficulty associating black with good.

The article did not reflect whether or not minority individuals fared better on this test than Caucasians.  Furthermore, it did not indicate that all children grow-up with a notion that white is generally and intrinsically good, versus black which is generally and intrinsically bad.  Example:  good cowboys tend to wear white and bad cowboys usually are dressed in black, good witches are white and bad witches are black, when mourning people traditionally wear black, etc.  Now, some might jump-in with ‘yes, that’s true and children are programed from a very early age.’  OK, perhaps, but that concept of white / good, black / bad goes back centuries.  And, the association was usually not associated with race.

I’m sorry, but I hate this kind of research.  It does no good, draws lines apparently based in science, and makes one feel hopeless that things will ever change.

Which brings me to another related subject, law enforcement profiling:  good or bad.

To be continued…

True Nelson

Robert Levinson / Ex-FBI / Captive of the Iranians

I’ve been thinking about Robert Levinson.  He is the retired FBI Agent who disappeared in 2007 on the Iranian Island of Kish.

Levinson, who was operating as a private investigator, was initially described, by government officials and his family, as investigating cigarette smuggling.  He was to meet with a potential 'source' of information on Kish.

Kish Island is located approximately 12 miles from the Iranian mainland and falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Iran.  It is considered to be a rather attractive tourist destination.  And, is relatively free-wheeling compared to mainland Iran.  The island is a money maker for Iran – hence the relaxation of the strict standards that ordinarily apply to Iranian citizens and visitors to their country.  Make no mistake, however, it is part of Iran - a country that cares little for Americans, particularly those Americans connected with American intelligence agencies.

As we now know, or at least what has been reported as accurate, Levinson was working as a contractor for the CIA.  Apparently, Levinson had been recruited by certain CIA Analysts, and was collecting information on the CIA’s behalf.  What is concerning is that his actions were not appropriate under CIA guidelines, and were apparently hidden from higher-ups in the CIA bureaucracy.  I tend not to believe that, but that is the official story – at least for now.  Several CIA employees were fired or disciplined.  All the fired employees seemed to immediately land on their feet – obtaining other government positions outside the CIA.

Regarding Levinson, personally, he was from reports within the Bureau, very well liked, and an outstanding Agent.  He had a wife and seven children.  Post retirement, he was trying to make extra money as a PI to help his seven children through college.

The CIA was paying him very well on a contractual basis.  His last contract with the CIA was worth $120,000.  Interestingly, the CIA gave Levinson’s family a $2.5 million annuity to keep, early on, Levinson’s actual purpose in going to Kish a secret.  So, Levinson’s family will be taken care of financially.  This is, as we all understand, small comfort to the family.

Should Levinson have gone to Kish?  Well, in retrospect, we all know the answer to that.  In this day and age, all any foreign government needs to do is run a basic Google search on an individual’s name; and, bingo, they know Levinson was a retired Agent.  That would be enough to pick him up and find out what he was really doing in Iran.  Under questioning, he would quickly reveal his purpose.  FBI Agents are not trained to thwart intense interrogation techniques.  Furthermore, the more professional CIA operatives apparently did not know Levinson was even in the region – and, of course, he had no backup.  He probably was not even missed for several days.

On a personal note, it’s been many years since I was an Agent; but I would not accept an assignment or attempt to ‘vacation’ in any number of present-day countries; particularly Iran and North Korea.  To voluntarily go there, as far as I’m concerned would be fool-hardy, if not downright stupid.  I assume that the FBI advises their current Agents of that; just as I was advised not to have FBI credentials in my possession if an airplane on which I was traveling was ever hijacked to Cuba.  That was the advice given in the ‘70’s.  As a supervisor once told me, “eat your credentials if you have to.”

I want to be very clear here.  I have deep sympathy for Levinson’s family.  In a perfect world, the Iranians would now have all the information they need; and would return Levinson if and when the US had admitted their error – which the CIA has done – sort of.  My advice to the President is that he has to stop playing Mr. Nice Guy.  Someone in the CIA high-up needs to be fired.  Perhaps, it should be the Director.  The President’s position should be, ‘I don’t care if you didn’t know.  It’s your job to know.  I want your resignation.’

But, as we are all discovering, President Obama couldn’t really do that.  If he had such staunch principals, he would have to also resign.

And, so it goes.  Robert Levinson may not be alive.  Nonetheless, the FBI is offering $1 million for his return.  It’s been approximately three years since his family has heard anything.  They continue to keep his name before the public; but hope is dimming.  Of course, the CIA and our government continues to play footsie.  It’s their nature.

True Nelson

Suicide Bombers' Motivation / The Myth of Martyrdom

I just finished a book that I’d like to recommend to my readers.  The book is The Myth of Martyrdom by Adam Lankford.  It is a thoroughly researched book on “suicide bombers, rampage shooters and other self-destructive killers.”  Lankford is a Criminal Justice professor at The University of Alabama.

What his research has documented would seem to be intuitive to the average American citizen.  However, Lankford has taken the time and made the effort to bring the evidence to the table – interesting.

Many have erroneously compared the courage or motivations of suicide bombers and mass killers with war heroes; that suicide bombers are the equivalent of the soldier that throws himself on a grenade to protect his comrades.  Far from it.  However, this is a fiction promoted by many liberal scholars, prominent apologists, as well as radical Islamists.

In fact, it is the radical handlers who use troubled individuals to do their unholy work.  Suicide bombers, according to Lankford’s research, demonstrate little courage in their actions, are almost always deeply depressed, isolated and have previously indicated suicidal tendencies.

In the Muslim faith, suicide is considered a ‘mortal sin’ – if that is the appropriate designation.  However, potential candidates who volunteer for bombing attacks are convinced by handlers that strapping explosives to their bodies and detonating the blast in some public place is a final-exit technicality, or loophole, that will allow them to escape a hellish afterlife.  The frosting on the cake is that they will be considered a martyr – at least in some circles.

As Lankford stated:  “Today, there are more than ninety million people around the world who believe that suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified.  Within the United States, more than 200,000 people share the exact same view.”

There must be tens of thousands of potential mass killers available for the proper grooming (manipulation).  A sobering thought, don't you think?

True Nelson

Dave’s Killer Bread Founder is back in the Slammer / Dave Dahl / Postscript

I visited ‘Dave’s Killer Bread’ bakery a couple of days back, and it appeared that it was business as usual.  I, too, bought some bread.

Later, I talked to a few people about how they felt about Dave’s scrap with the Washington County Sheriff’s deputies and most seemed rather blasé about the subject.  Oh, they considered it kind of serious, but no reason to stop buying his bread.  Most appeared to want to give Dave the benefit of the doubt.  One person said, ‘Well, if the CEO of Safeway had done the same thing, would you stop going to Safeway?’  My answer was, ‘No, I guess that wouldn’t stop me from going to Safeway – although, I don’t really go to Safeway that often; but that I get the point.’

But, the more I thought about it, the more I felt that the comparison of Safeway to Dave’s Killer Bread was something of a stretch.  Dave Dahl is an iconic figure with a compelling story who is tied closely to his product.  The CEO of Safeway, whoever that might be, is not.

Then my thought process was, if the public was not adequately concerned enough about Dave’s conduct to boycott or stop buying his product, what would it take?

What we know about Dave’s manic, out-of-control behavior is minimal – as far as his mental state or the causative factors are concerned.  We do know that, in the process, he wrecked two Sheriff’s patrol vehicles and injured three deputies.  Furthermore, he led them on a helter-skelter chase that theoretically endangered others in the public.

So, my question is what would it take?  Most would offer that there is no good answer.  It depends.  Yes, I know; but what is the proper answer for the typical, honest, hard-working Joe.  When would he or she say Dave’s conduct is bad enough that I will no longer buy a product with which he is so closely identified?

What if, instead of the above scenario, there was some other scenario?  He ran down and injured a young boy riding his bike.  He wrecked the car of a wounded veteran?  He publicly burned the American Flag?  He used words that were abusive towards minorities or gays?  He spit on one of his employees?  He beat-up his wife (actually I don’t know if he has a wife)?

I guess everyone has their priorities, their hot-button.  I am of the opinion that cops and deputies have a pretty rough job; a job that most in the public would not care to do, even be afraid to do.  I am of the opinion that when you harm someone in law enforcement it is very serious; and the consequences should also be serious.

Will the ‘system’ treat it seriously?  I don’t think so.  Will we ever know what precipitated Dave ‘wild ride’?  No, I don’t think we’ll get the whole story?  Will this all blow over and will it be business as usual at Dave’s Bakery?  Yes, I think that may very well be the case.  Will Dave be involved in something similar down the road, reminiscent of his current brush with the law?  I hope not, but I am doubtful.

True Nelson

Dave's Killer Bread Founder is back in the Slammer / Dave Dahl / Part 2

It often seems, after publishing a blog post, I have some additional thoughts, even second thoughts, about what I said.

A couple of additional comments are in order:

First, I think Dave Dahl’s bail was way too low, if the reported circumstances are accurate.  Bail was originally set at $250,000; but, subsequently, reduced to $20,000.  The $20,000 figure is chump change to Dahl, who kicked in a mere $2000 (10%) with a bail bondsman picking up the rest. The theory behind bail is that the judge should set a sum that would insure, within reason, a subsequent appearance by the defendant in court.  It’s meant to hurt a little – give the defendant some serious consequences if he decides to skip.  As far as Dahl is concerned, $20,000 won’t cut it.  He probably did more than $20,000 dollars in damage to the patrol cars and the required medical treatment for our deputies.

Furthermore, Dahl endangered lives as he attempted to escape capture.  Additionally, he is an x-felon – a wealthy one at that.  I’m not sure, but he might still be on parole status.  The judge should have kept the bail high to emphasize the serious nature of his offense; and the judge should have made it clear to Dahl that he (Judge Eric Butterfield) considered the matter serious – which he did not.

Steve Houze, Dahl’s attorney, stated to the judge that Dahl’s behavior was “clearly a mental health issue.”  My question would be; precipitated by what?  I think most of us could make a pretty good guess.  Houze even said that Dahl’s condition was “extremely fragile.”  Does anyone honestly buy that?  This guy survived fifteen years in the penitentiary.  Come on Steve, you make the guy sound like he’s Miss Prim.  I bet the boys in the joint didn’t consider him ‘fragile.’  Attorneys have such a way with words, don’t they?

True Nelson

Dave's Killer Bread Founder is back in the Slammer / Dave Dahl

I guess that I wasn’t really surprised.  The recidivism for x-cons, like Dave, is extremely high.

For those who haven’t heard, but are nonetheless familiar with ‘Dave’s Killer Bread;’ Dave Dahl, x-con, and co-founder of the aforementioned bread is in the slammer once again, at least temporarily.  He posted $20,000 bond and was released Friday.

Thursday night, Dahl was involved in some sort of manic episode, slamming his Cadillac Escalade into two Washington County Sheriff’s Office patrol vehicles and injuring three deputies.  The deputies were pursuing Dahl due to his reported dangerous, out-of-control and erratic behavior.  No, Dave didn’t kill anyone – at least this time.

Dahl had used his personal story of x-con goes straight and makes good as a selling point for his various bread products.  Incidentally, it’s very good bread.  I eat it on a regular basis.

Dahl served fifteen years in prison for illegal drugs and associated criminal activity.  When last released from prison, he joined his family business, became very successful on his own, and seemed to epitomize the redemption story of bad to good.  A story that is extremely rare particularly involving success at his level.  The public bought it and supported him and his product.

Whether or not we are seeing the end of Dave or his bread remains to be seen.  Information has not been released as to whether or not his ‘episode’ was a mental breakdown or drug related.  If it’s the latter, that will not bode well for the continued success of his iconic bread.  Dave’s Killer Bread has outside investors that may not want to continue with Dave as their front man.  And, I can’t blame them for that.

If Dave had a mental breakdown, I wish him well; and hope he gets the proper medical help.  If Dave was flying on drugs and endangering the lives of others, the company has a real problem.  The whole product theme and the product itself has just been thrown in the dumpster.

Dave Dahl has a very good lawyer, Stephen Houze.  The other defense attorneys in the Portland area must be getting very envious.  Steve seems to get all the high-rollers that get in trouble.

Will I continue to buy the bread?  Yes, I suppose.  However, Dave’s image and story are due for retirement.  Don’t you think?

What about you readers?  Any thoughts?

True Nelson