Category Archives: American Law Enforcement

Las Vegas pursuit of murder suspects

Posted on by

This is real world analysis from a law enforcement officer of 41 years who has worked for both federal and local LE agencies and, additionally, served as an EVOC instructor for 25+ years, an EVOC Sergeant, and as Rangemaster for a 2,000+ officer department.

Was it such a great video?

First, the story from KMPH.com:

BODY CAM: Officer returns fire at murder suspects during intense pursuit

Monday, July 16th 2018

LAS VEGAS (KSNV) — Body Cam footage released by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department shows an intense pursuit seen from the front seat of a Metro patrol car.

For roughly four minutes Officer William Umana was trying to stop a pair of suspected killers: Fidel Miranda and Rene Nunez.

During the chase, the pair fired at police 34 times. Umana is seen on camera shooting back while driving, blowing holes in his own windshield.

The pursuit eventually ends at Howard Hollingsworth Elementary School near Bruce & Fremont, where the suspects crashed their vehicle.

Miranda, police say, tried to reverse towards officers before he was shot and killed.

Nunez, meanwhile, ran away and tried to hide on school grounds.

He was caught and arrested.

“When you look at that video you get a clear picture of what officers were dealing with,” said Assistant Sheriff Tim Kelly. “In my opinion they showed bravery and heroics we come to expect from our officers.”

No doubt the stakes were high.

Police Miranda and Nunez were well-armed and suspected in a homicide from just two hours prior to the pursuit. They had reportedly shot and killed a man at a car wash at Eastern and Searles.

According to Sheriff Kelly, LVMPD policy allows officers to pursue and even fire at fleeing suspects if there is imminent danger to others.

“The officer could have backed off but he didn’t,” Sheriff Kelly said. “He stuck with it knowing what he was dealing with.”

Let’s check the video itself. And let’s consult the video in future reference.

In any pursuit event the adrenaline is running high. In a pursuit where officers realize the criticality is even higher due to the nature of the suspects involved — that is to say, they were believed to have been responsible for a murder two hours prior — things are ratcheted up perhaps geometrically.

That said, shooting through the window of one’s own unit is, at best, unreliable in these conditions and, at worst, potentially conducive to the exact results an officer doesn’t want. We’ll get into that.

First and foremost, there are two elements of any pursuit that must be considered:

  • Officer safety, and
  • Citizen safety

I place officer safety in the first position because, if officers are not safe or become injured they cannot readily carry out their mission of citizen safety. As I would tell my trainees when in Patrol as an FTO (Field Training Officer), the Hierarchy of Survival in a LE vehicle is this:

  1. LE Driver (if the driver isn’t safe the passenger and all others cannot be safe)
  2. LE Passenger (whose job it is to ably support the driver)
  3. Civilians
  4. Suspects

Civilians are in the third position because of reality. You can see my reasoning above. This conflicts with others who haven’t considered the reality of a law enforcement paradigm. Or what I used to call the “dynamics of the cockpit.”

Let’s examine the video.

Officer Umana first considers firing, left-handed, out the window as he is driving. This is his weak hand.

He subsequently fires five rounds right handed, through the windshield, in front of his face. Then six rounds two-handed, both hands off the steering wheel at high speed on a residential street. With no clear idea of his backstop.

Time for some scrutiny.

The first and primary complication involves Officer Umana firing through the windshield. This becomes a self-created problem of the senses. The first is auditory. Though it would appear that the firearm of choice in this vehicle is the Glock 17 in 9 mm, capping off a series of rounds within the confines of a Ford Explorer cockpit — though the window has been rolled down in possible anticipation of firing left-handed through it — is problematic at best. Even standing on an open range within a few feet of an individual firing a 9 mm handgun can be deafening with ear ringing occurring immediately.

Firing a 9 mm within such a limited space is also problematic because, of course, no officer carries earplugs nor can they anticipate when to insert them, if even they possessed them. Further, in terms of auditory issues, rolling down the left window also exposes the officer to the heightened sound of the siren — an issue unto itself: so-called “siren psychosis.” This was eliminated to a degree by removing sirens from the roofs of units and placing them on the front grill assembly years ago. There are also siren kill switches when vehicles are placed into PARK at the terminal point of pursuits, something police vehicle upfitters simply do now and officers don’t have to worry about. Still, during pursuits officers are trained to roll up all windows and turn up the radio.

But firing a handgun inside a tightly confined space like a vehicle is an auditory issue.

Then there is the visual issue. Fracturing the windshield directly within the line of sight to the vehicle ahead belonging to two murder suspects is problematic in terms of a clear and unimpeded view of some very bad guys. And your driving. And your analysis of surrounding conditions.

There is also the issue of potential interior glass spray or dust clouding the eyes. Windshields these days are of the safety variety and retain coherent laminated plastic layers to eliminate shard scattering. That said, it’s one serious chance taken. Let’s be honest. You can see glass fragments on his dash. With an open driver’s window and traveling at speed, all the fragments didn’t just settle calmly to the dash.

Though the officer is right-handed, he considers firing outside the rolled-down window with his left hand, then discards the idea.

He is starting to task-shed. That is to say, with time and stress, officers — and anyone else in a similar situation — tend to lose minor and detailed motor skills for major muscle groups. The brain tends to go a bit lizard.

You have to ask: what is the purpose for the shots fired through the windshield? In the mind of the officer, there is no other remedy to counteract the shots fired upon him. That’s the only conclusion I can draw, obviously not having spoken to Officer Umana.

The serious problem stemming from firing through any diagonal plane — a Ford Explorer windshield in this case — is the placement of any object between a fired bullet and its destination. The issue is that of deflection and accuracy. The issue is the windshield.

Let’s state the obvious: a .308 rifle round fired at a windshield (or through a windshield from the interior) will penetrate much more readily than a 9 mm round. In reverse, bullets fired towards vehicle windshields frequently skip because of the angle of the windshield vs the round trajectory (and distance or the loss of some energy) unless you’re talking about cars of the 1940s and 1950s. This video will illustrate reality.

The “sparks” you see in front of the police driver are rounds striking the safety glass of the windshield. Even in the 1980s and 1990s I was witness to skipping bullets fired at law enforcement vehicles by suspects.

Placing any object between a 9mm round and its intended target will have a deleterious effect upon accuracy. A slanted windshield will be placed into the “that’s not so good” category no matter the angle or directionality.

In the below video a professional trainer, Kyle Lamb (who does this for a living), shoots a S&W M&P Shield in 9 mm through a windshield towards a target to his right at a distance of about 10′ or so, from the driver’s seat.

Even in these quite contained, close and static circumstances the rounds do not hit where Lamb aims. That is because an object has come into the path of the bullets.

With four hash marks on his left arm, Officer Umana is potentially a 20-year veteran of LVMPD. (In my department each stripe indicated five years. When I retired, I had eight stripes. In some departments one hash mark equals three years.) This denotes what should be a good range of experience. I make this distinction between himself and a rookie officer in terms training, education and experience.

Here we see a situation where a suspect’s rounds deflect from the sufficiently-slanted windshield of a law enforcement vehicle — much to the benefit of the following officer.

The officer lucked out in terms of an SUV’s rear window vs, perhaps, another late year model sedan with a canted rear windshield.

This is now an appropriate time to talk about what cops call “background” or “backstop.” That is to say, what is it that rests beyond the flight path of the rounds fired? Law enforcement officers are trained to take into account their backstops — which should be taken into consideration when examining shoot/don’t shoot situations.

For example, when Officer Umana fired his first volley of rounds through his windshield, he passed a moving U-Haul truck on the left. When you see a moving U-Haul truck you know there are persons inside. This is in a residential area with much narrower streets where you can rest assured adults and children are going to be outside. That’s your backstop.

The officer approaches closely to the vehicle on its right. He fires seven rounds out the open window to his left.

His slide locked back empty after eighteen rounds, 17 in the magazine and 1 chambered. Some task shedding is in effect. He attempts to insert a new magazine backwards. Luckily he is not under fire. He realizes his mistake and re-orients the magazine. This is a training issue and can also be an issue of the placement of magazine pouch directionality on his Sam Browne. Horizontal, vertical, inside snap or outside snap.

Officer Umana racks his slide instead of dropping the slide as he was initially trained. But kudos to him for getting back in gear. It’s a minor quibble but indicative of stress.

At the pursuit terminus, the officer unleashes thirteen rounds, then one more, making it fourteen rounds. That’s a total of thirty-two rounds fired during his pursuit.

The video ends.

Officer Umana performed under duress. I’ve been there. I’ve been shot at numerous times and, once, returned fire. I’ve written about this previously some years ago because I lived to tell about it.

At first blush, a great ending. Taken in consideration, some issues in question.

I make this post not to berate or shame the officer in the video. I make this post to point out one incredibly important thing: law enforcement must learn from its mistakes. If we fail to learn from our mistakes we do the profession no good or those we strive to serve.

I don’t want the conduct observed in the video to become anything like common practice in law enforcement. I have delineated, in detail, my reasoning for this. I make these comments not as some uninvolved third party who simply thinks the video “looks cool.” I make these observations as an SME in both affected areas with the requisite training, education and experience to do so.

Let me stop for a moment and mention the scenario where an officer’s vehicle is static or disabled and an armed suspect — the threat — approaches from the front, perhaps even firing during approach. Under that situation you’ll do whatever you can, perhaps firing through the windshield. That’s a different event requiring different tactics and is a much more dire situation than Officer Umana faced if for no other reasons than those of distance, closure rate and lack of officer mobility or escape routes, cover or concealment.

Yes, there is no doubt that Officer William Umana was brave and resilient. Granted. Particularly in light of the fact that these were murder suspects and that they had been firing weapons back at his vehicle.

The driver of the suspect vehicle was shot and killed. The second suspect was subsequently caught. The situation was such that, at this point, I am unaware of any secondary issues with other persons injured during the pursuit or its aftermath.

Both luck and God were smiling down on the involved officers that day. Police 2, Bad Guys 0. As well it should be.

Perhaps you’re thinking I’m too harsh by submitting that Officer Umana’s decision to fire through his windshield under these circumstances wasn’t a good idea.

We take the wins where we can. But I state unequivocally that we shouldn’t make this a standard response.

I’m sure you can imagine a different reactive scenario had an uninvolved citizen been wounded or killed as a result of the pursuit.

Law enforcement doesn’t operate in a vacuum nor can it. As with any other profession there can be trends and patterns.

I’d submit this: more LE agencies need to consider what is called “Left Of Bang.”

World class athletes do it.

Considering the stakes, cops should be taught to do it also.

Finally: Officer Umana won. He utilized the tools and resources he believed he needed at the time he needed them.

I cannot, fundamentally, fault success. God bless him.

Warning to law enforcement: be careful.

Remember Gordon Graham.

BZ

 

 Share

The FBI can no longer be trusted

Posted on by

Not because of the bottom, but because of the top.

Trust me when I tell you that it pains me to write this, after having worked in the federal system, for the FBI and also as a sworn US Marshal. I spent the last 35 of my 41 years with local California law enforcement agencies. I retired in 2016.

James Comey was, to date, the worst FBI Director I’ve encountered, and I’ve seen a few. He took bias, political insertion, corruption and manipulation to a level even greater than that of J Edgar Hoover on his worst day because, quite frankly, Hoover didn’t have the intrusive technology available to him then that Comey and Wray have now at their fingertips.

The jury may be officially out on Christopher Wray but, in my opinion, he is well on his way towards another serious precipice when I noted him parsing weasel words before Congress.

He is not the droid the FBI is looking for. And droid he is.

It’s clear, in one recent example, that a case worked by the FBI regarding the Bundy prosecution in Nevada, which resulted in Judge Gloria Navarro declaring a mistrial, wasn’t on the up-and-up.

The decision to intervene came after U.S. District Chief Judge Gloria Navarro declared a mistrial over the government’s “willful failure to disclose information” to the defense, saying it would have been “impossible” for the four co-defendants to receive a fair trial.

Now, because of it, AG Sessions said it was time to find out why. From the WashingtonTimes.com:

AG Sessions orders examination of Bundy case after mistrial over prosecution bungling

by Valerie Richardson

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has stepped into the Bundy prosecution after Wednesday’s mistrial, ordering a third-party examination of the case in light of the latest government snafu.

“The Attorney General takes this issue very seriously and has personally directed that an expert in the Department’s discovery obligations be deployed to examine the case and advise as to the next steps,” said Ian D. Prior, principal deputy director of public affairs, in a late Wednesday statement.

The decision to intervene came after U.S. District Chief Judge Gloria Navarro declared a mistrial over the government’s “willful failure to disclose information” to the defense, saying it would have been “impossible” for the four co-defendants to receive a fair trial.

The FBI was involved in the case, yes, but their role in the judge’s decision is unclear yet, for me, causes questions demanding answers.

What goes around comes around. And it appears that 2016 is morphing into 2017 and then continuing into 2018. Senator Rand Paul is already calling for an investigation of Obama officials colluding against Trump. Yes. That would include former FBI Director James Comey.

The FBI does have a recent tick in the “win” column with regard to the San Francisco Pier 39 Muslim terror plot they halted. I have and must continue to emphasize: this is the massive difference between line level agents who do their jobs and the upper echelons who so readily make compromises for political purposes.

FBI thwarts Christmas terror plot in San Francisco

by Douglas Ernst

The Federal Bureau of Investigation says it has thwarted a Christmas terror attack in San Francisco by a suspect inspired by ISIS.

U.S. officials say the City by the Bay narrowly avoided a massacre inspired by 2015’s terror attack in San Bernardino and October’s rental-truck attack in Manhattan, which killed eight. Court documents say Everitt Aaron Jameson was arrested this week while prepping for a rampage at the city’s Pier 39.

The suspect was charged with attempting to supply support to a foreign terrorist organization.

A local ABC affiliate reported Friday that Mr. Jameson, a convert to Islam who referred to himself as Abdallah adu Everitt ibn Gordon, eyed the location because he “knew it was a heavily crowded area,” and that Christmas would be “the perfect day.”

The suspect had some weapons training due to a brief stint — a few months — in the Marine Corps.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, perhaps finally semi-cognizant of the testicles between his legs, the most simpering, limp-wristed AG I’ve seen (otherwise known as the AG Who Didn’t — have to reveal Russian talks), also ordered a DOJ review after Obama gave a terrorist group a pass so he could finalize his much-vaunted and much-West-bertraying Iranian cash deal, as I wrote about here.

Sessions orders DOJ review after report Obama administration gave Hezbollah a pass

by Alex Pappas

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is launching a review of a law enforcement initiative called Project Cassandra after an investigative report was published this week claiming the Obama administration gave a free pass to Hezbollah’s drug-trafficking and money-laundering operations to help ensure the Iran nuclear deal would stay on track.

The Justice Department said in a statement to Fox News that Sessions on Friday directed a review of prior Drug Enforcement Administration investigations “to evaluate allegations that certain matters were not properly prosecuted and to ensure all matters are appropriately handled.”

“While I am hopeful that there were no barriers constructed by the last administration to allowing DEA agents to fully bring all appropriate cases under Project Cassandra, this is a significant issue for the protection of Americans,” Sessions said in a written statement. “We will review these matters and give full support to investigations of violent drug trafficking organizations.”

The FBI provided surveillance. Or so it’s said. How effectively? What was their role? And how might it have been muted by Barack Hussein Obama or his 57-year-old lackey, the 6’8″ James Brien Comey? Will we know?

As we all recall, FBI Director Comey independently decided in July of 2016 that he would not recommend an indictment for Hillary Clinton or even the impaneling of a Grand Jury. DOJ under Lynch and Obama, corrupt as they are, pretended to be professional and placed the decision right back squarely at the feet of James Comey as in: “whatever he decides is good enough for us.”

“[AG Lynch] said…she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made…” –NYTimes July 1, 2016

Though, of course, the fix was already in. Any logical thinking human being knew the meeting between AG Lynch and Bill Clinton at the airport was 1) not coincidental, and 2) an agreement by Lynch to assure Bill Clinton that Hillary would not be indicted. Judicial Watch has rightly filed a FOIA request for all documents related to that meeting.

We already know that Comey drafted Hillary’s exoneration letter literally months before even having any member of the FBI conduct an interview with Hillary herself. We know that FBI Super Agent Peter Strzok — as vehemently anti-Trump as he was — was the one who actually drafted that letter. Strzok wangled Comey’s initial finding that Hillary Clinton had been “grossly negligent” in her handling of sensitive and classified government documents with the use of her private email server. Weasel words.

It was Strzok who actually “interviewed” Hillary Clinton days before Comey released his “findings” in July of 2016. The “interview” with Hillary was conducted “without the benefit of any recording devices or a sworn oath.” Imagine my chagrin.

But wait; there’s more.

Peter Strzok also oversaw the questioning of then-National Security Director Michael Flynn over his contacts with Russian officials during the post-election transition process. Flynn’s answers to Strzok’s questions were later found to rise to the level of criminal deception leading Flynn to a guilty plea agreement with the Mueller investigation.

Translated: Flynn agreed to wear a wire. As did others who pled under lesser charges. None of which rose to, well, a few dribbles of piss in a sclerotic bladder.

But wait; there’s more.

We’ve also learned that Strzok was a “key figure” with regard to the acceptance of and possible dissemination of the infamous Russian Dossier, a collection of unverified tales about Donald Trump that was paid for by the Clinton campaign. Strzok reportedly briefed the House Intelligence Committee on the dossier in December of 2016, just one month after the presidential election and in the middle of the transition process.

I connected all the dots here, to that point. Those dots were many, varied, complex, tightly interwoven and crafted like the careful dovetailing on a fine piece of furniture. But it all depended on one highly critical element that cannot be maintained perpetually: believing the lies. When one lie breaks and is discovered, there can be an eventual unraveling. The unraveling is what were are seeing now, from early 2017 to late 2017. I call it the Tip of the Obama Iceberg.

But wait. Not only did FBI Director refuse to recommend either an indictment or even a Grand Jury for Hillary Clinton in July, the FBI has destroyed evidence (the FBI agreement to destroy the laptops of Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson), the Clinton campaign has destroyed evidence (the cell phones smashed by staffers with hammers as well as wiping of Hillary’s private servers with BleachBit), and the interview of Hillary Rodham Clinton was a sham, there were no subpoenas, no evidence collected.

Notes released from the FBI (pages can be viewed here) indicate Hillary Clinton could not recall much information and provided little detail in the 3.5 hours she was interviewed. Agents asked few direct and pointed questions and few follow-up questions (for example, regarding her health claims, documentation, doctors’ notes, etc). The takeaway was a weak interview consisting of softballs and puffy clouds. Even then, Hillary Clinton revealed her ignorance.

Angelina Jolie was interviewed for four hours regarding child abuse claims against Brad Pitt. The former Secretary of State and presidential candidate is taken less seriously than an actress in Hollywood.

Besides James Comey being an absolute dumpster fire in terms of logic, ethics, Constitutional law, betrayal, corruption and political bias, there was also his Number Two Dude, Andrew McCabe.

Assistant Director Andrew McCabe, the number two man in the FBI, directly supervised and monitored the Hillary Clinton email investigation. From the WSJ.com:

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Mr. McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, received $467,500 in campaign funds in late 2015 from the political-action committee of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime ally of the Clintons and, until he was elected governor in November 2013, a Clinton Foundation board member.

In February of this year, Mr. McCabe ascended from the No. 3 position at the FBI to the deputy director post. When he assumed that role, officials say, he started overseeing the probe into Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server for government work when she was secretary of state.

FBI officials have said Mr. McCabe had no role in the Clinton email probe until he became deputy director, and by then his wife’s campaign was over.

But other Clinton-related investigations were under way within the FBI, and they have been the subject of internal debate for months, according to people familiar with the matter.

Does the federal government purposely hire people, pay them large salaries and install them into positions of massive power, who are not only blind to ethics but tone deaf as well?

Others further down the FBI chain of command, however, said agents were given a much starker instruction on the case: “Stand down.” When agents questioned why they weren’t allowed to take more aggressive steps, they said they were told the order had come from the deputy director—Mr. McCabe.

From the microsecond McCabe had any linkage to an investigation with Clinton, Democrats or the Foundation, via his wife, he should have immediately recused himself and assigned supervision to others, making the conflict of interest apparent to the director himself verbally and on paper.

Then on the 20th there was this, after McCabe was “grilled” for over seven hours.

McCabe draws blank on Democrats’ funding of Trump dossier, new subpoenas planned

by James Rosen

Congressional investigators tell Fox News that Tuesday’s seven-hour interrogation of Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe contained numerous conflicts with the testimony of previous witnesses, prompting the Republican majority staff of the House Intelligence Committee to decide to issue fresh subpoenas next week on Justice Department and FBI personnel.

While HPSCI staff would not confirm who will be summoned for testimony, all indications point to demoted DOJ official Bruce G. Ohr and FBI General Counsel James A. Baker, who accompanied McCabe, along with other lawyers, to Tuesday’s HPSCI session.

The issuance of a subpoena against the Justice Department’s top lawyer could provoke a new constitutional clash between the two branches, even worse than the months-long tug of war over documents and witnesses that has already led House Speaker Paul Ryan to accuse DOJ and FBI of “stonewalling” and HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., to threaten contempt-of-Congress citations against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray.

“It’s hard to know who’s telling us the truth,” said one House investigator after McCabe’s questioning.

This is the same conundrum faced by anyone watching someone speaking from DC.

Then from everything upon which any molecule could be drawn, from the WashingtonTimes.com:

Faced with libel lawsuit, dossier drafter Christopher Steele hedges on linking Trump to Russia

by Rowan Scarborough

Christopher Steele, the former British spy who fueled an ongoing investigation into President Trump’s administration, was a lot more confident of his charges when he wrote his now-notorious 2016 dossier than he is today in defending it in a libel lawsuit.

While Mr. Steele stated matter-of-factly in his dossier that collusion between Mr. Trump and the Russian government took place, he called it only “possible” months later in court filings. While he confidently referred to “trusted” sources inside the Kremlin, in court he referred to the dossier’s “limited intelligence.”

Now that Mr. Steele must defend those charges in a London courtroom, his confidence level has shifted down several notches.

Huh. Imagine that. But wait; what of the consistent lies of Peter Strzok in House testimony? What of Lisa Page refusing to appear?

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

There is so much more yet to be revealed. Just wait until we find the smoking guns — and we will — that lead to McCabe, Comey, Lynch and ultimately to Obama.

It’s there. Why?

Because “digital never dies.”

Trust me when I tell you it pains line level agents to know that their beloved FBI has been tainted with bias, partisanship, corruption and politics.

It sickens them in their hearts.

Worse yet, they realize just how long it will take to untarnish and resurrect the reputation of a once fine organization.

Further, unfortunately, I fear it will get much worse for the FBI when even more corruption and scandal is uncovered — as it will be.

BZ

 

 Share

Cop sings to little girl

Posted on by

This tears me apart. Brighton, Colorado Police Officer Nick Struck and a toddler.

From CNN.com in 2015:

Police officer soothes toddler with lullaby after deadly car crash

by Ann Colwell

(CNN)  When a paramedic handed police officer Nick Struck a weeping toddler soaked in gasoline at the scene of a deadly car crash in Brighton, Colorado, his fatherly instincts kicked in.

Struck did the same thing he does when his own 2-year-old daughter is upset. He began to softly sing “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star.”
Somewhere in one of the lullaby’s verses, a bystander snapped a photograph of Struck and the child. Her family’s white SUV lies upside down in the grassy field behind the two. A paramedic is seen treating another passenger in the background.
Struck, holding the barefoot girl on his hip, points at something outside the frame. The child holds the fingers of one hand in her mouth, and clings to Struck’s shoulder with the other.

The best interview is here.

Humanity. This is what it means to be human.

BZ

 

 Share