Sunday, June 19, 2016

10 REASONS COPS ARE DIFFERENT--and why no one wants to be one anymore

Following after my comments is a good summary of police work, written about 5 years ago.

Comes Obama interference and Ferguson.

What I see is:
--- Liberal pressure to make everyone equal. This is like they award grade schoolers a "Participation" trophy for showing up.
     My experience in law enforcement showed my that you have to have self-discipline as it         applies to emotional control and motivating one's self to stay in good physical; AND           mental health.

    The average person now, it seems, subscribes to the 60's phrase of "If it feels good-Do it".

--- They critics don''t like it that you appear cold and unfeeling. Yet, on the other hand, show some emotion and they will criticize you for that.

     My experience was that there are MANY people out there who will try to bluff you,    threaten you, into not taking any action on an observed violation of law. The result is you
 approach everyone with a presentation like the Terminator .
    Someone once asked my if I ever shot anyone in my 30+ year career. No. Why not?
  My answer was--If they are convinced before hand that they will be shot, they will not try to do something that would get them shot.
  But they Liberals want you to approach someone with a Dr Phil demeanor--which would tell them that you can be intimidated.

--- Liberals (and about 98% of attorneys are,, from my experience)  do not know one big fact of life. And this applies to international relations-- There are MANY people out there that that comply with only one thing: The prospect of a horrendous ass-kicking.  Touchy-Feely and "Negotiations" do not motivate them


1) Law enforcement officers are seen as authority figures. People deal with them differently and treat them differently, even when they are not working. When a problem occurs, everyone looks to the officer to "take charge," to "solve the problem." Some say the cop is never off duty. Even when the officer is not working there is a tendency to attack problems and take charge. Sometimes taking charge is not preferable, and can cause particular strains in our world where many people like to linger with problems, never really solving anything. Recognizing the difference between a "problem solving" situation, where action is desirable, and a more passive situation, where action may alienate others, is difficult for the cop.
2) They are isolated. The wearing of a badge, uniform and gun makes a law officer separate from society. This segregation leads to many psychological effects which research shows can create negative personality traits. For example, psychological research shows the wearing of a uniform will tend to make any person de-humanize people who are without a uniform. Just wearing a badge or a gun can cause people to act more aggressively. These are changes that could happen to anyone wearing a uniform, badge and gun, thus these factors are expected to operate in some way on the police officer. Many officers suggest there is a "role," or "mask" which they put on along with their uniform. Sometimes this role leaks into their personal lives and changes the course of their relationships and leisure time. 
3) Law enforcement officers work in a quasi-military, structured institution. There are mental health concerns associated with working within a "quasi-military structure" and other mental health concerns of working in an "institution." Military organizations require the sacrifice of the individual for the good of society. The "individual" is not a consideration; the "goal" of the group is paramount. In a military organization, the focus is on punishing the individual if he is not up to standards. It is a de-humanizing process to recognize that you are only valued as a part of a machine. The _institution' takes the same attitude, only a step further. In an institution, you are locked in a set process and the process is more important many times than, not only the individual, but also the goal. When an officer does a remarkable job of police work, perhaps even saves a life, he can still be reprimanded if he doesn't file the proper paperwork. The paperwork describing an action in many cases is more important to the institution than the action itself. Both the quasi-military nature of police work and the functioning within an institution combine for a mental health situation that is quite undesirable and very stressful.
4) Shift work is not normal. The "rotating shift" schedule is very taxing on an officer's life. Our bodies are adjusted on what is called "circadian schedules" which is a repetitive daily cycle. Our bodies like to have a regular eating time, sleeping time, waking time, etc. An officer doing shift work never gets a chance to stay on a schedule. This upsets his physical and mental balance in life. The changing work schedule also upsets the routine patterns that are needed in healthy marriage and family development. Strong marital and family development is based on rituals, like dinners together, "inside jokes," repeated activities, etc. The rotating shift worker has less chance to develop these rituals and his relationships suffer. This predisposes the officer's family to potential problems ranging from divorces, to children acting-out. 
5) Camaraderie can be a two edged sword. The law enforcement job nurtures a sense of teamwork and unity with co-workers, what was once called "esprit de corps." The fraternity helps the officer on the job feel secure about getting the needed support in dangerous situations. It also stimulates a sense of belonging that can create an "us and them" view of the world. This makes the law enforcement "clique" harder to leave when retiring and makes officers more protective of each other. It also makes it more difficult to accept someone within the fraternal organization leaving or being killed. This adds to the stress of an officer.
6) Even the stress is different. Officers have a different kind of stress in their jobs, called "burst stress." Burst stress means there is not always a steady stressor, but at times, there is an immediate "burst" from low stress to a high stress state. In other words, officers go from complete calm, to high activity and pressure in one "burst." The normal stress situation for most of the rest of the work force consists of a stress building process that can be either reduced or adapted to before it gets "out of control." This is not the case for the officer, because "out of control" can happen in seconds (see "A Cop's Story" for a good example of burst stress). The law enforcement job is reactive, not proactive. Officers cannot usually control entrance into most situations they face, unlike most people who get warnings. They have to react, not prevent problems. It is difficult to defend against burst stress.
7) The need to be in constant emotional control. Law enforcement officers have a job that requires extreme restraint under highly emotional circumstances. They are told when they are extremely excited, they have to act calm. They are told when they are nervous, they have to be in charge. They are taught to be stoic when emotional. They are to interact with the world in a role. The emotional constraint of the role takes tremendous mental energy, much more energy than expressing true emotions. When the energy drain is very strong, it may make the officer more prone to exhaustion outside of work, such as not wanting to participate in social or family life. This energy drain can also create a sense of job and social burnout. 
8) No gray areas. The law enforcement officer works in a fact-based world with everything compared to written law. Right and wrong is determined by a standard. They have a set way of going about gathering the proper evidence for the law and can justify their actions because they represent the "good and right side." In the real world, clear rights and wrongs are not as likely to occur. The newspapers are an opinion-based system, the court system is an opinion-based system and, needless to say, relationship decisions and proper parenting techniques are opinion-based systems. Adjusting from right and wrong, black-and-white systems, to opinion-based systems is very difficult and requires a complete change in mental attitude.
9) The "at work" world of the officer is very negative. He sees the bad part of society - the criminal, the abuser of the rules. This may skew the officer's opinions on the character of the average human being. It creates a cynicism, a critical view of the world. It is hard to adjust to trusting a fellow human being when so much of the day is spent with people who are not trustworthy. It is hard to believe in positive intentions of people, when the day is spent with people who are intending to hurt each other. This lack of trust can show up in the way the officer deals with people on a personal level, with neighbors, with a spouse. It can even show up in the way children are raised, as police parents may tend to be stricter in discipline and more careful with privilege.
10) Even the children are affected. The children of law enforcement officers have a more difficult adjustment. As a young child, the police officer parent is seen as holding a prestigious, desirable position. The young child and his friends look up to the police officer as a minor celebrity, a person of great respect. As a teen-ager, their parent is part of the authority of society. Since teens rebel against authority anyway, this can cause a double rebellion against the parent both in their role as caretaker and as a symbol of the authority of society. Frequently, the officer's child is either overly compliant because of the rules imposed, thus causing depressive problems or personality restriction, or the teen becomes overly rebellious of the rule-oriented parent - the best child or the worst. 

Sunday, June 5, 2016

The Five P's and caring about results

County Recorder Helen Purcell: 'I take full responsibility for what happened' in Arizona elections

Election officials are taking 'full responsibility' for the long lines and confusion Arizona voters experienced during Tuesday's presidential election.
"I would just like to reiterate again, I take full responsibility for what happened yesterday," Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell told the county's Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, a day after voters waited in hours-long lines--some up to 5 1/2 hours--to vote in Tuesday's presidential preference election.
"I made an error in judgment in planning this election," Purcell said.  "I should have had more polling places, and I am very sorry about that."
All day Tuesday, many polling booths in Maricopa County showed lines of voters snaked around buildings waiting hours-to cast their ballots.
There were 60 polling locations in Maricopa County. A dramatic decrease from the 200 during the 2012 presidential primary. Most elections have about 700.

San Jose Police Department Hoping "Retention Program" Slows Officer Retirement Rate
VIDEO at Link
The San Jose Police Department is proposing what some call a drastic measure to stem the flow of retirements. The plan is coming out as newly released police academy numbers reveal the department faces more problems recruiting new officers.
The number of San Jose police officers has dropped by several hundred over the past five years, mainly after a bitter pension fight with the city. Thursday, Mayor Chuck Reed and mayoral candidate Sam Liccardo both endorsed an “officer retention program” proposed by the police chief. The program, which NBC Bay Area first revealed last week, offers longtime cops a chance to retire but stay on the job. In essence, they can bank pension money while earning pay.
"We've certainly seen in other departments that this is something that is very popular with officers,” Liccardo said. “We'd expect that to be true here. Obviously, it needs to be negotiated at the bargaining table."
Police union president Jim Unland said similar plans have caused other cities major problems.
"To be concentrating their efforts on some political 'double-dipping' stunt, two months before the election, they need to be concentrating on what it's gonna take for us to recruit and retain new officers,” Unland said.
New police academy numbers show, for the second time this year, only 29 recruits in a class that fills 60. "Again, starting next year we'll see historic low staffing numbers in San Jose,” police union board member James Gonzales said.
The efforts to solve the staffing problem will get major tests soon as the city finds out just how many academy graduates stay on the force, as well as if or when the proposed officer retention program proposal goes before the full city council.
Tom Saggau, spokesman for the union, said changes in the city's rules granting disability retirement to officers injured in the line of duty who can no longer serve as cops are leading to a lack of qualified recruits.
Before the rules took effect, based on city policies after the passage in 2012 by city voters of the Measure B pension reform measure, police and city firefighters received "guaranteed" disability retirement when they were injured, but now they may have to take other jobs with the city unrelated to police work, Saggau said.
"Nowhere else in the state does that happen" aside from San Jose, Saggau said.
Recruits are bypassing San Jose for academies elsewhere, thinking that "if I get hurt, I may not get taken care of" and "do I really want to drop into the mosh pit or go to another city in California?" Saggau said.
"Twenty-nine in 60 in the tenth largest city in the country is pretty pathetic," Saggau said.
San Jose's police training facility used to have to turn away applicants until now, Saggau said. "No other police agency is having trouble recruiting."
The drop in recruits, coupled with 51 officer resignations in 2014, three pending resignations, 30 officer retirements and another 69 retirement applications pending, comes as the department is having a hard time responding to reports of serious crimes, which can take an average of 20 minutes in some parts of the city, according to Saggau.
"That is just bad for everybody," he said.
But David Vossbrink, spokesman for the City Manager's office, said while the union was right there are 29 recruits, the city had budgeted for only 45 trainees, not 60, as the capacity for the third academy authorized this year.
Vossbrink said it was not true that the city does not provide city police and firefighters with disability retirement if they are injured to such an extent they can no longer work for the force or at all for the city.
New regulations, however, do require that if an officer is injured and cannot continue as an officer but is able bodied enough to fill another position in city government, such as crime prevention, they are offered to work that new city job, Vossbrink said.
The tougher standards on disability retirement were put in force by the City Council after an auditor's report revealed San Jose's rate of disability retirement for police and fire employees "has been much, much higher" that other cities, to the point of abusing the retirement system, Vossbrink said.
"The union comes back with the same old trope here," Vossbrink said. He acknowledged that the city's police force, based on the approximately 400 officers lost in recent years, is "well under" the number that the city has committed funds to in its current budget and that it is a "challenge to fill vacancies."
"No one disputes that," Vossbrink said.
Other factors making it harder to recruit more cops is that San Jose's overall compensation package is "not as competitive as other agencies" and Mayor Chuck Reed has maintained that the POA "is actively encouraging" recruits not to apply to the academy and "encouraging officers to leave" the force, Vossbrink said.
The city itself sets higher standards than other cities for those it selects into the police academy, including the equivalent of a minimum of two years of college, because "our goal is to have a quality police force," he said. 

An evaluation from someone that was law enforcement:

Just my opinion ( I am retired LE). Anyone of ANY rank in LE that forgets that the absolute basic reason for LE existence is to protect life and property needs to find another job. ALL sworn officers have a DUTY to protect people and their property. As a former Marine Corps Officer, I was not obligated to follow any order that was either illegal or immoral. In fact, if someone senior to me ordered me to do something illegal or immoral, they were committing a crime and subject to arrest for doing it . Just my opinion, but when innocent civilians are being attacked and I have a riot stick, handgun, less lethal available and a bunch of my buddies around me, there is only ONE course of action - defend the innocent. Any mayor, police chief or any other elected official that doesn't understand what I just wrote needs to find a new job or profession. They disgrace those of us who have worn uniforms and/or badges.
One, I worked nights with a man who had flown F-4 Phantoms off a carrier and over Vietnam.  He said early on in his Navy Flight Training, he was introduced to the five P's: 
Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance
In the case of the Maricopa County (Around Phoenix AZ) Recorder, there were SEVEN presidential primaries before Arizona's. In ALL of them, turn-out was well over 100 per cent of any previous primaries.
SO, you reduce the number of Polling places from 200 to 60? 
In the case of San Jose, Trump has been to several locations in California prior to this. In each case, "Activists" AKA Thugs, showed up to create havoc. 

A crowd of anti-Trump demonstrators gathers in front
Consider the Following factors: 1. The City authorities knew where the rally would be. 2. They knew that those attending would have to park at a predictable location. (At least the Thugs figured it out and jumped the rally attenders going back to their cars) .
Logically, a Police planner would provide a protected access to and from the Rally from Parking. 
The Result: Officers in riot gear, standing with their backs to walls, not taking any action when observing a rally goer being assaulted.
There are two possible conclusions: 
1. The San Jose police leadership is incompetent 
2. Police personnel were ordered NOT to take any action against Thugs when they attacked Trump supporters 

Saturday, June 4, 2016

Gruff leaders

For a long time, my wife thought she could never vote for Trump.
"He's too gruff. He's abrasive.  He says bad things about people".

1971. It was another world. I made it to the California Highway Patrol Academy with 74 other men. (No women officers then) Those who had charge of us were known as Instructors,  Sergeants, or Duty Officers. Of all of them, one wanted to see me leave He never talked to me.  By his actions, I knew he wanted me to quit.
Other Instructors could be gruff, and they always said, "If you can't take it here, you will never make it out on the road" But, they coached you.

1974. I transfer to San Diego. There, the second Sgt in seniority, S-2, is Merle Bush.
Sgt Bush was a WWII veteran. He had joined the Coast Guard to defend our shores, but wound up driving LST's to beaches in the South Pacific.

If you did something stupid, he probably would call you by a derogatory name. If it was really stupid, you would get a royal ass-chewing. He might slap you up aside the head or bounce a pencil off your forehead
But, when it was over--it was over.

He was not "Warm and fuzzy" at all, but he would back you 100 per cent. He would stick up for you to the Lieutenants and the Captain.

Now, you have warm and sensitive Sergeants and Lieutenants. Most of them are climbing the promotion ladder. The biggest aspect about their relationship to you is that they will "throw you down" in a heartbeat to keep going up that ladder.
Should an incident occur, you will be interrogated. Nothing cross will be said to you.
Days to weeks later, you will be called in, asked to sit opposite that Sergeant, and asked  to sign a paper acknowledging that they have found that you made an error. That paper will go in your file- forever.

My wife finally realized that:
1. Trump gets things done.
2. I explained that Trump is in business, and in a similarity, he has to deal with may people
     As an officer, you learn that you must communicate with voice tone and body language to
     the people you contact that you are in charge.
     Being"Nice" tells many people that you are dealing from weakness

Sunday, May 1, 2016

Conflicting philosophies-- Ted Cruz

Yesterday, I was at the Arizona State Republican Convention. The purpose was to choose delegates for either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.

[ The outcome was an apparent rigging of a vote, whereby we delegates were told that we had to vote on a computer. We did--and while about 80% of the State Delegates there were for Trump, Cruz was awarded all the Delegates]

While waiting to vote, another Delegate asked who I was voting for. I told him--Trump.

He said, "Well, Ted Cruz is a good man. He is a good Christian".

I replied, "There is a conflict" . He asked "what is that?"  My answer was, " He says he is a good Christian--but he is an attorney. I never knew an attorney that could be a good Christian".

I started thinking about that on the way home.
The arrest of Jesus is a pivotal event recorded in the canonical gospels. The event ultimately leads, in the Gospel accounts, to Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus was arrested by the Temple guards of the Sanhedrin in the Garden of Gethsemane, shortly after the Last Supper (during which Jesus gave his final sermon), and immediately after the kiss of Judas, which is traditionally said to have been an act of betrayal.
The arrest led immediately to his trial before the Sanhedrin, during which they condemned him to death. In Christian theology, the events from the Last Supper until the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are referred to as the Passion.
In the New Testament, all four Gospels conclude with an extended narrative of Jesus' arrest, trial, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection. In each Gospel, these five events in the life of Jesus are treated with more intense detail than any other portion of that Gospel's narrative. Scholars note that the reader receives an almost hour-by-hour account of what is happening.
The Sanhedrin ( synedrion, "sitting together," hence "assembly" or "council") was an assembly of twenty-three to seventy-one men appointed in every city in the Land of Israel
In the Hebrew Bible, Mosesand the Israelites were commanded by God to establish courts of judges who were given full authority over the people of Israel, who were commanded by God to obey every word the judges instructed and every law they established. Judges in ancient Israel were the religious leaders and Teachers of the nation of Israel. The Mishnah arrives at the number twenty-three based on an exegetical derivation: it must be possible for a "community" to vote for both conviction and exoneration. The minimum size of a "community" is 10 men (10 vs 10). One more is required to achieve a majority (11 vs 10), but a simple majority cannot convict,[6] and so an additional judge is required (12 vs 10). Finally, a court should not have an even number of judges to prevent deadlocks; thus 23 (12 vs 10 and 1). This court dealt with only religious matters.

To become a Judge, you have to learn the law-- a lawyer.
As every police officer in the United States knows, judges are attorneys in robes. 
It was attorneys that that put Jesus on the Cross--defeating the popularity of Jesus and his message. 

It is an attorney that is trying to defeat Donald Trump and his renewed message of values that built these United States 

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Why I would never vote for Ted Cruz

If you followed any of my writing you would know that I was a law enforcer for over thirty years, then a private Investigator. In both cases, I dealt with prosecutors and defense attorneys.

A big factor is his body language and way of speaking that tells me--He is saying: I am the smartest man in the world--Bow down and listen when I speak.

In addition, I attended Law School for two years. No one there ever knew that I was  a law enforcer, just that I was a California State employee.

What I learned from all that time, and encountering hundreds of attorneys was that there were four that I would trust and respect.

First, attorneys seemed to have the line between right and wrong erased by the time they practice for about six months.

Serving justice is not the goal--winning the case is. If destroying someone to do that is involved--So be it. 

In California, attorneys would go to an agency where an officer or deputy worked--that had arrested his/her client and demand to view that  law enforcer's personnel record. That worked until Los Angeles County Sheriff Peter Pitchess challenged it. After the Court's decision an attorney had to be able to point to a specific incident to view that record.

Attorneys rationalize their corrupt tactics be declaring that all their efforts are to give their client the most vigorous representation possible.

This is evident about Cruz as he ignores results of elections and goes about gathering delegates by hook or by crook.

An early indicator of what he was about was the false statement he put out about Dr Ben Carson prior to the Iowa caucuses.

Personally, I think that attorneys are mainly actors. They put on a show of defying each other in court--then go for cocktails after, and pat each other on the back.

A trial is an effort by one attorney to put on a show to the uninformed jury while blocking his/her opposing attorney's show.  I say uninformed because I was the prosecutor's witness, and sat through jury selection. If you are a law enforcer, another attorney, a first responder, doctor, or nurse, you will NOT be selected. The ideal is a retired sociology teacher 

Sunday, March 20, 2016


These quotes are by the CIA, FBI and Secret Service.
Her actual words:
(1) "Where is the God damn flag? I want the God damn fucking flag up every morning at fucking sunrise". Hillary to staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day 1991. From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 244
(2) “Fuck off! It's enough I have to see you shit-kickers every day! I'm not going to talk to you, too! Just do your Goddamn job and keep your mouth shut." Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good Morning." From the book "America Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p.90
(3) "If you want to remain on this detail, get your fucking ass over here and grab those bags!" Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident. From the book "The First Partner" p. 259
(4) "Stay the fuck back, stay the fuck back away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just fucking do as I say, Okay!!?" Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail. From the book "Unlimited Access" by Clinton ’s FBI Agent-in-Charge, Gary Aldridge, p.139
(5) "Where's the miserable cock sucker?" (otherwise known as “Bill Clinton”) Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer. From the book "The Truth about Hillary" by Edward Klein, p. 5
(6) "You fucking idiot" Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event. From the book "Crossfire" ~pg. 84
(7) "Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those fucking sunglasses! We need to go back! Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One. From the book " Dereliction of Duty" p. 71-72
(8) "Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can't fuck her here!!" Hillary to Gov. Bill Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female. From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 243
There it is, chapter and page.......the real Hillary!
Additionally, when she walked around the White House, NO ONE was permitted to look her in the eye, they all had to lower their heads with their eyes towards the ground whenever she walked by. Clearly she is a class act—NOT!
This ill-tempered, violent, loud-mouth, hateful and abusive woman wants to be your next President, and have total control as Commander in Chief of our Military, the very Military for which she has shown incredible disdain throughout her public life .
Remember her most vile comment about Benghazi: “what difference at this point does it make?”
Now it will be clear why the crew of "Marine One" helicopter nick-named the craft, "Broomstick ONE"!

Thursday, February 18, 2016


FEB 19, 1977 

   I go to work, with a start time of 1300 hours. One other officer and I work the "Overlap" shift out of the Oceanside California Highway Patrol Office.  We get our uniforms on and are ready to be driving out at 1300, where the Officers of the regular shifts [ 1400, 2200, and 0600] have Briefing( Sgt hands out papers to you, tells you what is going on) -- and are driving out at 45 minutes later. 
   As I am getting my uniform on, a Sergeant walks up to me and says, "Dave, you are going to be the Afternoon Officer-in-Charge today --we  are having a Staff Meeting" MEANS-- All the Sergeants, the two two Lieutenants , and the Captain are in a meeting. Everything that happens today is your responsibility. 
    I drive out in my 1996 Chev Caprice Patrol car, it is raining.  As I get on I-5 south, there is a high speed motorcycle (MC) using the fast two lanes. I give chase ( Not advised in rain) . The MCs' speed is 90 mph. 
    The MC 's rider stops in the center divider. It is  man. He is asked for a driver's license. Ne bluntly says,"It is suspended". 
    AS I am writing the citation, Dispatch advises there is a pursuit coming south from San Juan Capistrano (Oh, Joy...anything that goes is YOUR fault) 
    Since MC rider has no license, I have to impound the MC. I call a tow, write a storage form, tow truck comes, and takes rider and MC off I-5. 
    Now, Dispatch advises that the pursuit coming south went off in San Clemente -- BUT-- there is another one coming south on I-15 from Temecula. I start to go to my assigned Beat Area south of me on I-5. I do not get but about four miles, and Dispatch advises that pursuit is now coming west on State Route 78. 
    I turn back to north. Following the radio traffic, I intend to try to block the pursued car as it comes to the west end of Highway 78 over
 I-5. What occurs then is from a news video, taken from a news helicopter.

At the crash, we (There were two officers from the chase and a third that arrived after. Meanwhile, it had stopped raining, and I took off my yellow rain slicker. I would find out later that the Media was looking all over for the officer in a rain coat to get a statement. 

We find that the ONLY one seriously hurt is the man that we had been pursuing. He was not seat belted, and had been propelled onto the rear window ledge. We would find out later that he had not been drinking at all, but was a mental case.  He lived in Palm Desert, California. His wife had died 4 days before. He had gone out the next day and bought this car he was driving. On this this day, he had gone into a bank in Palm Desert. The staff felt that he was acting suspiciously and called Riverside County Sheriff. When the Deputy walked in, our suspect ran to his new car and fled, with the deputy pursuing. 

The man from the white Jeep was walking and talking, but swore he had been going south. 
The man from the pickup was not hurt. 
The young lady from the maroon car was on the phone and did not get out. She was not hurt. 

Our Public Affairs Officer, Rick Sablan,  ran up to me after coming to the site, and said,"Don't say nothing to the news, Dave--They have you on film". 

Later--all the Sergeants, the Lieutenants and the Captain came to the scene. We were about an hour into the investigation, and one Lieutenant came to me and said, " Go Home Dave--We will see you tomorrow." 

For four days, the Media camped in front of the office, hoping to interview me.  A lieutenant apprehended one perusing out "Picture Board" , trying to see what I looked like, and had him removed from the building. 

The ONLY one who supported me was the Border Division Public Affairs Officer, Phil Konstantine. He stated that "I know Officer Hollenbeck, and I now he follows policy and took appropriate action". 
EVERYONE else had an "I'd Uh"  
One Sergeant declared, "When I saw him coming, I'd uh rammed him from the side". (PROBLEM-Center barrier ends there and he would have been pushed into opposing traffic--then its MY fault)

Another officer said, " I'd uh broke his window and pulled him out". ( PROBLEM--He weighed 240 pounds. Years before, I had tried to pull out a 120 pound man on I-5 in San Diego. He gripped the steering when, hit the gas and dragged me a hundred yards) 

The wife of the man in the White Jeep tried to sue. It got to the first hearing. After both parties had testified, the judge asked the plaintiff's attorney, "What can you show me that the officer DID to cause this crash?"  The attorney could not point  to anything. The judge dismissed it 

About three weeks after the crash, PAO Rick Sablan caught me at my patrol car just before I went out on the road. He says, "The Media is still asking for something from you about that pursuit and crash."

I told him," Well, the Oceanside Police has not been here to interrogate me and neither has the San Diego Sheriff o District Attorney, or the FBI ( Civil Rights violation) . The Department ( CHP) has not even talked to me about it. So, I guess I did everything right". 

Tuesday, October 20, 2015


The Bush Family is closed connected to MEXICO. 
GHW BUsh had oil holdings in Mexico.
Jeb's wife  was born in Mexico, was an Illegal Alien in California.She is now affiliated with La Raza.

GW Bush proved several times during his tenure that he did not want to aggressively enforce immigration laws. Any time a Democrat protested a mode of enforcement, he halted that mode 

IF G W Bush had really wanted to enforce immigration, he would have found that the TWENTY hijackers that effected the 9-11 attacks had ALL overstayed VISAs and were here then ILLEGALLY .

AGAIN, TRUMP has brought out something that was embarrassing to the Powers-That-BE, but was known by several in this country. 
It was a practice that was not accepted by any person that obeyed the law.

READ ON DOWN. You will see what I mean


By IAN HANCHETT19 Oct 2015313
MSNBC’s “Hardball” host Chris Matthews praised Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump former Florida Governor Jeb Bush for bringing up George W. Bush in relation to 9/11 and Trump “awakened us all to the fact that Jeb said something that just isn’t true. His brother did not keep us safe” on Monday.
Matthews said, “What strikes me about the campaign so far is that it took a political newcomer, Donald Trump, to say something we already knew, but nobody had said before, that President George W. Bush did not keep us safe in the eight years he was president of the united states. he didn’t keep us safe, or the people on those planes — those four planes safe that day. he didn’t keep safe — those men and women forced to choose between jumping from 100-story roof and being killed by the smoke and fire. And he didn’t keep safe the hundreds of firefighters killed that day doing their courageous duty.

 So, why did his brother make such a claim? Why did Jeb tell the audience in a republican debate last week, and to great and expected applause his brother ‘kept us safe.’ He said because he knew he could get — not only get away from it, but could trigger a wild cheer for it, because he knew the country had been told to not look at what steps were taken and not taken in the hours, days, weeks, months before September 11th, 2001. We’ve been told not to look at the casualties we’ve taken in Iraq, a war that had nothing to do with 9/11, except that, our president and his strong-minded advisors had used 9/11 to justify war they wanted for their own reasons. 
Well, the partisans of President George W. Bush say we can’t say this, any of it. His brother Jeb says that only those in the country’s margins even think this. Really?”
He continued, “But the Bushes and their partisans can charge Hillary Clinton for what happened in a remote building in war-torn north Africa, miles, 400 miles, from the capital of that country. 
Let’s put those two events together for just a moment, mentally. One [on] 9/11/2001, the other, on the same date in 2012, New York City, the United States’ financial center is hit by two jetliners. The center of our military command and control, located in Washington, DC is hit by another. Still, a fourth plane is downed by courageous passengers on a course to the capitol. 
All after warning was given to the president that, quote, ‘Bin Laden determined to attack in the US.’ We were hit here in our country, the homeland as the ideologues have gotten us to call it now by a concerted, highly coordinated attack, using airliners, and our training, and no one is to blame. But when an outpost 400 miles from the capital city, in a north African country, with nothing approaching a normal security situation, while then, Hillary Clinton, back in the United States is painted as the villain, as if it was she, who left the window open that night.”
Matthews then stated, “Again, I want to thank Trump and Jeb of course, for finally getting this one out in the open, by throwing out the red meat, by saying, he ‘kept us safe.” Jeb let us know what we knew already, that actually, W didn’t keep us safe, did he?”
He also argued, “I am not a big fan of Donald Trump on many occasions, on many fronts, but he woke — I think he woke open this campaign. He awakened us all to the fact that Jeb said something that just isn’t true. His brother did not keep us safe.”
Matthews also stated, later in the segment, “the Democrats never had the stones to go out and challenge George W. and say, ‘Look buddy, don’t talk about what a warrior king you are. you left the door open.’ Because they probably felt that would be un-nice. Trump isn’t un-nice. He’s willing to be tough, especially when the guy running against him has really, the stupidity to say, my brother ‘kept us safe’ in face of 9/11.”
Later, in his closing, Matthews said that if Hillary Clinton is to blame for Benghazi, George W. Bush is to blame for 9/11.
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett


From 1998 to 2001, the Army Intelligence and Special Operations Command (AISOC) conducted a highly classified intelligence-gathering endeavor known as Able Danger. Its mission was to investigate the terrorist threat posed by al Qaeda, both inside the United States and abroad. By 1999, Able Danger had identified, by name, four of the future 9/11 hijackers -- including the ringleader, Mohammed Atta – as members of an al Qaeda cell based in Brooklyn, New York. But the AISOC never informed the FBI about the activities of these suspects, thus leaving them free to continue plotting and preparing for the 9/11 attacks with impunity.

On August 15, 2005, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, the first member of Able Danger to speak publicly about his role in the operation, told the press about Able Danger’s findings and detailed the policies that had caused the crucial intelligence to go unheeded. Shaffer explained that when Able Danger had tried to arrange a series of meetings in 2000 with the Washington field office of the FBI to share its information about Atta, military lawyers intervened and canceled the meetings, citing fear of controversy “if Able Danger was portrayed as a military operation that had violated the privacy of civilians who were legally in the United States." At the root of this fear was a clearly defined prohibition against inter-agency intelligence-sharing in terror investigations. This prohibition, commonly referred to as the “wall” blocking such communications, dated back to the Carter administration's 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was enacted to defuse allegations of FBI espionage abuses.

In 1995, while America’s intelligence agencies were still investigating al Qaeda's 1993 terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center, the Clinton administration strengthened FISA to a degree that was unprecedented. Specifically, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick called for increased restrictions on information-sharing between intelligence (CIA) and law-enforcement (FBI) agencies. In a 1995 memo to then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, titled “Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations,” Gorelick wrote the following:รข€¨

“We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.”
It should be noted that when Gorelick penned the aforementioned memo, President Clinton was extremely worried about ongoing FBI and CIA investigations into illegal Chinese contributions that had been made to his presidential campaign. Both the FBI and the CIA were churning up evidence damaging to the Democratic Party, its fundraisers, the Chinese, and ultimately the Clinton administration itself. It was also a period when the FBI had begun to systematically investigate weapons-technology theft by foreign powers, most notably Russia and China. Had FBI agents been able to confirm China's theft of such technology -- or its transfer of that technology to nations like Pakistan, Iran and Syria -- Clinton would have been forced by law and international treaty to react (and to thereby jeopardize the future flow of Chinese money into his political coffers).

Gorelick's 1995 memo emphasized Presidential Decision Directive 24 (PDD 24), which Clinton had signed the previous year. PDD 24 placed intelligence-gathering under the direct control of the President’s National Security Council, and ultimately the White House, through a four-level, top-down chain of command set up to stifle information-sharing and cooperation between intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. From the moment the directive was implemented, suchinformation-sharing became a bureaucratic nightmare over which the President himself had final authority. Consequently, information lethal to Clinton and the Democratic Party languished inside the Justice Department, trapped behind PDD 24 and Gorelick’s “wall.”

The implications of this policy were enormous. Mary Jo White, a New York attorney and an experienced al Qaeda prosecutor, vehemently objected to the barrier Gorelick had erected between agencies. In a letter to Gorelick and Attorney General Janet Reno, White noted: “The most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating.” White also wrote a second letter in which she warned that Gorelick's policy “could cost lives.”

Testifying before the 9/11 Commission in April of 2004, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft made his own observations about how the “wall” had greatly hindered terrorism investigations:

“In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall. When the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists. At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, 'Whatever has happened to this – someday someone will die – and wall or not – the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain problems.'’’ 
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate set about to craft legislation that would provide the government with new tools for combating terrorist threats facing America. As a result of these efforts, on October 26, 2001 the USA Patriot Act was passed, finally authorizing criminal investigators and intelligence agencies to cooperate on international terrorism cases.