Reflections on law enforcement training

The FBI would be an excellent agency to complete an investigation that would be unbiased, trustworththy, and have the full confidence of the public. von Leden's attempt to put a good face on an appalling incident and to say that a local agency can conduct a fair and impartial investigation is ludicrous. She herself has already made up her mind that the officers involved in this incident have done nothing wrong. There are far too many questions that need to be answered. The expectation that cops can investigate cops, especially at a local level where there is much personal interaction and loyalties between the agencies, is counterintuitive. A report from the WPD investigating the YCSD cannot have the objectivity necessary for public confidence in its findings, whether or not its findings are legitimate and honorable.

The author doesn't understand:

"I am confused why the people calling for an "independent investigation" are not willing to wait until the official investigation is complete."

It's called the first-mover advantage. Basically the fear is that if you believe there is an inherent problem with the initial investigation, those problems may be carried over into subsequent ones, especially if those subsequent ones merely review previous work rather than conduct their own investigation.

We can quibble on the validity of that view, but that is the view.

OK,

Use meth, pull a knife on a cop and attack him/her with it, get shot and killed - logical outcome for the actions taken by the criminal. If he had stopped and talked to the cops he would be here today, and probably not arrested at the time.

The officer offered a good explination of the investigation and a suggestion that everyone chill until the official investigation is complete - great advice.

The cops have my respect and admiration for the job they do - they put up with a lot of verbal and physical abuse and do it with a professional attitude and action for the most part. I have never had a bad interaction with a police officer in my 60 years, and I have acutally deserved worse than I received a time or two.

This writer say "Three officers trying to overpower someone attacking with a knife will result in one or more officers getting stabbed"
Well, we have to remember he was RUNNING away. They never tried to overpower him, they ran after him, when he turned with a knife(allegedly) they started shooting. She also says "Sheriff Prieto was under a lot of pressure from the public to provide information ASAP, and the details which later proved inaccurate would not change the basic facts of this case" I remember seeing him on T.V. around 3:00 that same day making statements of what happened and stating that he was confident his officers acted appropietly. To me it seemed he already had made up his mind as to their inocence. 30 minutes after the incident, NOBODY was pressuring him. He could have said something else to those reporters. I don't know what happened that day on the bridge, but i think that for the sake of those 3 officers, we DO need an independent investigation. If all we have is what the WPD investigated and they turn out to have done nothing wrong, some people will never stop blaming them and not only them, but they will look at these departments with no trust whatsoever. It's only fair for these officers for someone else to come in an investigate and clear them of any wrong doing. Their is nothing to fear if what they say went on that bridge is in fact what happened. I know some great officers of the law, and if these 3 officers are also great ones, then it's only fair for them.

"Use meth, pull a knife on a cop and attack him/her with it, get shot and killed - logical outcome for the actions taken by the criminal. If he had stopped and talked to the cops he would be here today, and probably not arrested at the time."

Why don't we first figure out that that is actually what happened before you that the officer's actions are justified.

My questions:

Did he know these were in fact police officers rather than gang members given they were undercover? Because if he didn't, he might have been justified at fleeing and then when cornered pulling a knife?

If he was so hyped up on meth, why was he able to pass a driver's license exam?

Why did three well trained police officers need to shoot a subject armed only with a four inch knife?

That is why we need an investigation into this.

Susan wrote:

This writer say "Three officers trying to overpower someone attacking with a knife will result in one or more officers getting stabbed"
Well, we have to remember he was RUNNING away. They never tried to overpower him, they ran after him, when he turned with a knife(allegedly) they started shooting. She also says "Sheriff Prieto was under a lot of pressure from the public to provide information ASAP, and the details which later proved inaccurate would not change the basic facts of this case" I remember seeing him on T.V. around 3:00 that same day making statements of what happened and stating that he was confident his officers acted appropietly. To me it seemed he already had made up his mind as to their inocence. 30 minutes after the incident, NOBODY was pressuring him. He could have said something else to those reporters. I don't know what happened that day on the bridge, but i think that for the sake of those 3 officers, we DO need an independent investigation. If all we have is what the WPD investigated and they turn out to have done nothing wrong, some people will never stop blaming them and not only them, but they will look at these departments with no trust whatsoever. It's only fair for these officers for someone else to come in an investigate and clear them of any wrong doing. Their is nothing to fear if what they say went on that bridge is in fact what happened. I know some great officers of the law, and if these 3 officers are also great ones, then it's only fair for them.

AMEN

Susan has it right wrote:

<quoted text>
AMEN

I don't think so. They catch up to this guy and he swings a knife at one of them. He got what he deserved. You desperately seeking susan types keep forgetting this guy was high on meth., was tattooed with 1 dot and 3 dots (Sureno), He was shot according to the Coroner in a position that showed him swinging the knife. Woodland PD, Department of Justice, District Attorney's Office, and a final review by the Attorney General's Office. What is left? Oh I know the FBI well it does not work that way c'mon people it does not work that way.

Susan wrote:

I don't know what happened that day on the bridge, but i think that for the sake of those 3 officers, we DO need an independent investigation. If all we have is what the WPD investigated and they turn out to have done nothing wrong, some people will never stop blaming them and not only them, but they will look at these departments with no trust whatsoever. It's only fair for these officers for someone else to come in an investigate and clear them of any wrong doing. Their is nothing to fear if what they say went on that bridge is in fact what happened. I know some great officers of the law, and if these 3 officers are also great ones, then it's only fair for them.

You are right, if the investigation by the six agencies that will work on this case by the time it is done find the officers were not in the wrong there will be some unhappy people. If 10 independant investigations said the Deputies didn't do anything wrong there will be unhappy people. Have you ever seen Myth Busters. No matter what those guys do there is always someone telling them they did it wrong. It's the same thing here.

Al Rojas could conduct an investigation and if he found the Deputies did nothing wrong someone will be unhappy and tell him he did it wrong. There are people that the only acceptable solution would be to have the Deputies put in prison. What do you say to those people.

We don't know what happened on the bridge that day. When the report is completed we will. All the calls for the independant investigation imply that our local law enforcement is incapable of doing their job honestly. I have a hard time believing that out of the six departments that will handle this case that not one person would blow the whistle if something didn't smell right.

Not So Fast Susan wrote:

<quoted text>I don't think so. They catch up to this guy and he swings a knife at one of them. He got what he deserved. You desperately seeking susan types keep forgetting this guy was high on meth., was tattooed with 1 dot and 3 dots (Sureno), He was shot according to the Coroner in a position that showed him swinging the knife. Woodland PD, Department of Justice, District Attorney's Office, and a final review by the Attorney General's Office. What is left? Oh I know the FBI well it does not work that way c'mon people it does not work that way.

Why did they stop him in the first place..remember(according to the WPD) he was NOT a gang member? If he ran,why chase him? He was on meth..did the officers know this? NO they didn't these are things AFTER the fact. What if it had happened to a person with a mental disablility? Their reaction could have been the same as this young man?(This is was worries me..these officers did not know his state of mind nor do they know the state of mind of ANYONE they approach..great reason for them to be prepared with stun guns,vests..etc).He had dots in his hands? Well did he get them a year ago 3 years ago 7 years ago? Tattoos don't go away. The DOJ did not do an investigation, they assisted. The Attorney General's office just REVIEWS what they receive.

Really wrote:

<quoted text>Why did they stop him in the first place..remember(according to the WPD) he was NOT a gang member? If he ran,why chase him? He was on meth..did the officers know this? NO they didn't these are things AFTER the fact. What if it had happened to a person with a mental disablility? Their reaction could have been the same as this young man?(This is was worries me..these officers did not know his state of mind nor do they know the state of mind of ANYONE they approach..great reason for them to be prepared with stun guns,vests..etc).He had dots in his hands? Well did he get them a year ago 3 years ago 7 years ago? Tattoos don't go away. The DOJ did not do an investigation, they assisted. The Attorney General's office just REVIEWS what they receive.

The Attorney Generals office through the Division of Bureau of Intelligence/Investigations are mandated to conduct an INVESTIGATION into all officer involved shootings in the State. This very newspaper reported that they had an investgation team on site at the scene collecting evidence.

David wrote:

The author doesn't understand:
"I am confused why the people calling for an "independent investigation" are not willing to wait until the official investigation is complete."
It's called the first-mover advantage. Basically the fear is that if you believe there is an inherent problem with the initial investigation, those problems may be carried over into subsequent ones, especially if those subsequent ones merely review previous work rather than conduct their own investigation.
We can quibble on the validity of that view, but that is the view.

The facts are the facts. Do you think the officers story will change if the FBI asks them the same questions? Do you think the toxicology report will look different if the FBI looks at it? Do you think the FBI will think the tatoos mean something different?

In the end, you and all other owe these three very good police officers an apology. They did their job and you have tried to crucify them for it.

Wow wrote:

<quoted text>
The facts are the facts. Do you think the officers story will change if the FBI asks them the same questions? Do you think the toxicology report will look different if the FBI looks at it? Do you think the FBI will think the tatoos mean something different?
In the end, you and all other owe these three very good police officers an apology. They did their job and you have tried to crucify them for it.

You obviously feel that the officer's did nothing wrong. Did you stop to think that you could be wrong. There are many questions about this incident that suggest that that cops may have acted improperly.........maybe you should await the results of the investigations. Then maybe you might have to apologize to all the posters that you think are wrong. Chill out, WOW.

Really wrote:

<quoted text>
The Attorney Generals office through the Division of Bureau of Intelligence/Investigations are mandated to conduct an INVESTIGATION into all officer involved shootings in the State. This very newspaper reported that they had an investgation team on site at the scene collecting evidence.

The Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence (BII) provides investigative assistance to law enforcement and sovereign governments in matters requiring the seizure of evidence, interviews of suspects, and other requests....ASSISTANCE.

Tax payer wrote:

<quoted text>
You are right, if the investigation by the six agencies that will work on this case by the time it is done find the officers were not in the wrong there will be some unhappy people. If 10 independant investigations said the Deputies didn't do anything wrong there will be unhappy people. Have you ever seen Myth Busters. No matter what those guys do there is always someone telling them they did it wrong. It's the same thing here.
Al Rojas could conduct an investigation and if he found the Deputies did nothing wrong someone will be unhappy and tell him he did it wrong. There are people that the only acceptable solution would be to have the Deputies put in prison. What do you say to those people.
We don't know what happened on the bridge that day. When the report is completed we will. All the calls for the independant investigation imply that our local law enforcement is incapable of doing their job honestly. I have a hard time believing that out of the six departments that will handle this case that not one person would blow the whistle if something didn't smell right.

I agree with you, there will always be unhappy people, whatever the result. Now, im sure there is some unhappy people that ANYONE is investigating this, they just wish that it would have been case closed from day one...they say "gang member, drug addict, swung a knife at an officer"...now does it mean that shouldn't have investigated? No, of course not, we as citizens of this county need to know what happened and if they acted approprietly. My issue is the relationship between the DA and the Sheriff's department(gang enforcement unit). That is my main reason for wanting an external investigation.

Really wrote:

<quoted text>The Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence (BII) provides investigative assistance to law enforcement and sovereign governments in matters requiring the seizure of evidence, interviews of suspects, and other requests....ASSISTANCE.

You obviously went to the DOJ site and posted a small portion of their mission statement...Why in the heck did you stop there? Was it because you did not like what you read further in the mission statement? Read the whole thing and you will clearly see the distinction between what they assist and what they INVESTIGATE. Here is the entire statement.

The Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence (BII) identifies major crime trends and initiates complex enforcement and investigative actions. Leadership, expertise, and investigative assistance is provided to law enforcement and sovereign governments in matters requiring the seizure of evidence, interviews of suspects, and other requests from foreign nations that may require investigative support. Investigating the "worst of the worst," including cases involving acts of terrorism, child exploitation, unsolved violent crimes, homicides, officer-involved shootings, and organized crime groups, BII also provides protection to witnesses and family members, conducts criminal investigative analysis, and provides unique forensic and intelligence services to local agencies and the Office of the Attorney General.

Really wrote:

<quoted text>Why did they stop him in the first place..remember(according to the WPD) he was NOT a gang member? If he ran,why chase him? He was on meth..did the officers know this? NO they didn't these are things AFTER the fact. What if it had happened to a person with a mental disablility? Their reaction could have been the same as this young man?(This is was worries me..these officers did not know his state of mind nor do they know the state of mind of ANYONE they approach..great reason for them to be prepared with stun guns,vests..etc).He had dots in his hands? Well did he get them a year ago 3 years ago 7 years ago? Tattoos don't go away. The DOJ did not do an investigation, they assisted. The Attorney General's office just REVIEWS what they receive.

They did not stop him. They made a consensul contact with him because they knew he was an associate of gang members. They can talk to anyone. They clearly identified themselves as law enforcement. He made movements that led them to believe he had drugs or a weapon on him AND then he fled from them.

When they caught up to him he turned and almost gutted one officer before he was stopped with lethal force.

Guess what, it turns out he was a sureno gang member. You do not wear the tatoo if you are not one.

Good job gang team. The county needs to fight this one all the way. These are good men who did the job all of us pay them to do. He killed himself when he attacked a cop with a knife.

Outside investigation wrote:

<quoted text>
You obviously feel that the officer's did nothing wrong. Did you stop to think that you could be wrong. There are many questions about this incident that suggest that that cops may have acted improperly.........maybe you should await the results of the investigations. Then maybe you might have to apologize to all the posters that you think are wrong. Chill out, WOW.

There are no facts that suggest the cops did anything wrong. There is bull_____ beign circulated by his family and fellow gang members. The cops story has always remained the same. Self defense.

Steve wrote:

<quoted text>I agree with you, there will always be unhappy people, whatever the result. Now, im sure there is some unhappy people that ANYONE is investigating this, they just wish that it would have been case closed from day one...they say "gang member, drug addict, swung a knife at an officer"...now does it mean that shouldn't have investigated? No, of course not, we as citizens of this county need to know what happened and if they acted approprietly. My issue is the relationship between the DA and the Sheriff's department(gang enforcement unit). That is my main reason for wanting an external investigation.

Wdld PD and the District attorney will tell you everything you need to know. Anyone wanting anything else is almost certainly dirty so they are projecting their own negative life style onto this isssue. clean up your own life and like the 99.9 % rest of Woodland residents you will trust in the people that protect you everyday.

Really wrote:

<quoted text>The Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence (BII) provides investigative assistance to law enforcement and sovereign governments in matters requiring the seizure of evidence, interviews of suspects, and other requests....ASSISTANCE.

That is the point wise guy. The feds would do the same. And to your earlier comment tattoos do come off and they can be covered. How hard is it to cover 1 and 3 dots. Remember according to all the papers this guy associated with validated Surenos. He just did not have enough to get validated. By the way nice family portrait of the family everybody dressed in their Sunday best and this guy is dressed in a Royal blue Troy Aikman jersey. SURENO

Troy Aikman=SURENO, crap, I where E Smith and who is that other guy...I have another one. I proudly love to wear my Cowboys Jersey's (on special occassions). You might catch me in a dress, slacks, jeans or jersey. Never thought that could be considered gang affiliated.

two cents richer now.