Crimewise Op-Ed

Introduction

As a Security Management Consultant who also provides Expert Witness Services, I know that writing a Blog can be a perilous undertaking.  Anyone who does expert witness work  quickly - and sometimes painfully - learns that anything they write for publication "can and will be used against them in a court of law."  Impeaching opposing Experts with their own words is a tactic enthusiastically pursued by good attorneys.  Fortunately there is an easy way to fend off impeachment.  When an Expert's writings, teachings, and testimony are accurate, truthful, and consistent it is difficult to discredit them.

So, with all that said, Crimewise Op-Ed is born.  I will strive to remain as accurate, truthful, and consistent as humanly possible while addressing issues that interest me and, I hope, you.  I am a security professional, so most of what is discussed here will be security or crime related.  However, I do have varied interests. So, from time to time my writings may stray into other realms. I have not set a publishing schedule.  I'll write when the mood strikes.

For more information about me and the services I provide, please visit my website at: www.crimewise.com

Thank you.

California: Guns and Distrust

"We can save lives by getting guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.”  --Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg

Senator Steinberg’s statement is correct, but his methods are very wrong.

Senator Steinberg and the Super Majority Democrat Legislature believe that millions of peaceful law-abiding Californians who responsibly and safely own guns and ammunition of every size and type just can’t be trusted.

The Democrat Legislature’s proposed draconian firearm ban and confiscation scheme will do little to address real crime but would turn millions of law-abiding Californians into felons for mere possession of a rifle that they may have safely owned for many years.  Senator Steinberg thinks they can’t be trusted with it anymore.

Californians would become felony repeat offenders for possessing ammunition magazines that they may have safely owned for many years.  Senator Steinberg thinks they can’t be trusted with them anymore. 

Californians would become third strike felons for possessing ammunition that is proven to be reliable and effective for self-defense.  Senator Steinberg thinks they can’t be trusted with it anymore. 

In order to purchase the politically correct ammunition Senator Steinberg will allow – until he can figure out a way to ban that too - Californians will have to pay a special tax and submit to a background check.  Not only does Senator Steinberg think they can’t be trusted, he’s found another way to pick their pockets. 

As a final insult, for receiving the blessing of Senator Steinberg and the Democrat Legislators to own any firearm at all, Californians will have to register with the State…like sex offenders!

Senator Steinberg and the Democrat Legislators apparently distrust all Californians.  Consequently, the civil liberties and property rights of every current and future gun owner are under vicious and unrelenting attack.

Meanwhile, there are tens of thousands of felons with illegal firearms throughout the State.  If Senator Steinberg was truly concerned about “getting guns out of the hands of people who should not have them,” California would be vigorously enforcing existing laws to get the illegal guns out of their hands.  The emphasis should be controlling criminals; not disarming their potential victims. The Democrat Legislature would rather create new laws to turn millions of responsible gun owners who will never commit a crime into instant felons. 

The sad truth is this totalitarian attack on the rights and freedoms of Californians by Senator Steinberg and the Democrat Legislators isn’t really about saving lives.  It isn’t about getting guns out of the hands of criminals.  And, it certainly isn’t about common sense.  It is about discrimination, control, hypocrisy, and ideology. 

It is about discrimination because Senator Steinberg’s gun control scheme bans safe inexpensive firearms and imposes punitive taxes and fees on virtually every aspect of firearm ownership.  It is intentionally calculated to make legal ownership of a firearm for self-defense prohibitively expensive.  This leaves millions of law-abiding low income (often minority) Californians – the segment of our population most vulnerable to crime victimization and least likely to have adequate police protection – defenseless against well-armed criminals who have no regard for- and undoubtedly appreciate - Senator Steinberg’s misguided law. 

It is about control because Senator Steinberg and Democrat Legislators will use the law to promote their political agenda by committing the awesome power of the State to demonize and disarm peaceful law-abiding Californians.

It is about hypocrisy because while most Californians are denied suitable firearms to defend their families and homes, Sacramento’s Political Elite get special treatment.  They enjoy the privilege of having police and security personnel armed with advanced, military grade weapons, high capacity magazines, and hollow point ammunition serve as their personal bodyguards…at taxpayer expense.

But mostly, it is about an ideology that fervently believes the State and the Political Elite who run it have a right and a duty to dictate every aspect of California life.  To stay in power, Senator Steinberg and the Democrat Legislators need dependent and compliant Californians.  They view individuals who think for themselves, provide for themselves, and defend themselves with disdain, distrust, and fear. 

Today, Sacramento’s target is the rights and freedoms of gun owners.  There is no telling who will be tomorrow’s target.  It could be you. 

It is Senator Steinberg and his Super Majority who can’t be trusted.

Acid, not Glitter

The video clip of a gay activist throwing glitter at Republican Presidential Candidate Michelle Bachmann during her speech at the 2011 Right Online conference in Minneapolis is very troubling.  Where was Congresswoman Bachmann’s security detail? 

It was only harmless glitter this time, but that’s not the point.  The Congresswoman is a high profile and polarizing political figure.  That a woman with an object in her hand could so obviously and easily approach the dais unchallenged while the Congresswoman was speaking reflects quite poorly on those charged with her safety.  What if the woman had been a better shot and the projectile was acid instead of glitter?  What if the attacker had a gun?  Remember Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords?

A similar attack happened recently to Republican Presidential Candidate Tim Pawlanty during a book signing in San Francisco.  Again, women carrying containers of glitter were allowed to approach close enough to douse the former Minnesota Governor before security personnel could act.

Back in May Republican Presidential Candidate and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and his wife where "glittered" at a speaking engagement.

Fortunately, these glitter attacks were all harmless.  That might not be the case next time.  For anyone in the public eye effective proactive security can be quite literally a matter of life and death.

Background Checks

A question from a reader:

Q: I would like to know how I can get a background check on someone, if it's possible to do this myself. This is very important to me.

My response:

“Background check” means different things to different people.  What do you want to know?  Why do you want to know?  Your answers to those questions will determine whether an effective background check is possible.

There are hundreds of online sources that claim to provide background checks.  Unfortunately most can’t be trusted to provide accurate and timely information.  When you rely on unverified information to make important decisions about a person you not only risk making the wrong decision, you could also find yourself being sued or prosecuted.

Privacy is important.  Examining some areas of a person’s background requires their written consent.  Without it you can’t get the information you want.  Even when the desired information is a public record, accurate and complete data can be hard to obtain.  For instance, criminal conviction history is a public record.  Unfortunately, there is no central criminal history database available to the public.  To do a complete criminal history check in California you would have to go to every county in the state to check their records.  You would then have to confirm that their information is correct.  Official records often contain errors.  Without verifying and crosschecking the data you can’t be certain of it validity.  If the person has lived in other states the difficulty grows exponentially.  Just figuring out where to look for records is a daunting task even for professionals.  It is an impossible task for the average person.  Some online sources claim to have accurate data from every county in the country.  Be very skeptical of those claims.

Competent background investigators check their information against multiple trusted sources and do independent verifications before giving you a report.  Without such diligence, background information is worthless.

If you have a legitimate need to do a background investigation on someone, contact a licensed private investigator who specializes in this kind of work.  These investigators have accurate and timely background information sources that aren’t available to the average person.  They also understand the sometimes complicated legal issues that surround background investigations.  They know what FCRA, EEOC, FEHC and HIPAA stand for, do you?  If you don’t, trying to do a background check on your own could subject you to civil penalties and criminal prosecution under various state and federal laws.  Be careful when hiring an investigator.  Unless they are properly licensed, insured and specialize in doing background investigations - and can prove it - don't hire them.

If, as you say, the results of a background check are important to you, I strongly recommend that you retain a professional investigator to acquire the information you need.

Don't Believe Everything You See On CSI Las Vegas, Miami, NY, etc.

A question from a reader:

Q: Teenagers threw rocks through my picture windows doing about $1000 worth of damage. The rocks have been recovered. They are smooth but do not have a "glass finish". We are about 80% sure we know who did it. Of course, they deny being the vandals. My police dept. is not interested in helping us.

They said that fingerprints could not be taken from the rocks (they never examined the rocks). I want to stop this vandalism and hold the culprits responsible for the damage. Can fingerprints be taken from the rocks?

My response:

A: Don't be too hard on your Police Department. They know from experience that the likelihood of lifting identifiable fingerprints from a rock - at least with the technology available to most local law enforcement agencies - is virtually zero. There is equipment at some larger crime labs that could do the job, but it's generally not available for solving relatively minor vandalism cases.  I'm sure $1,000 doesn't seem minor to you but when seen as part of the bigger crime picture, it is.

Even if law enforcement was able to lift a print from the rock, problems remain. First and foremost is the issue of who supplied the print. There has to already be a comparison print on file somewhere to get a match. Since the person you suspect is a juvenile, chances are his or her fingerprints are not on file and mere suspicion is probably not enough to bring them in and take their prints. Even if there is a comparison print on file, the time and cost to locate and match it may not be justified.

And finally, even if you could lift a print and match it to someone, the chances of successfully prosecuting them are slim. A good defense attorney would argue that his client had a habit of picking up rocks as they innocently walked along the streets. They would argue that their client's prints are on lots of rocks but some other person threw this particular rock and their prints just were not found.  That could create reasonable doubt, and convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Without a credible witness you could never prove that your suspect was the rock thrower. District Attorneys get re-elected based - at least in part - on the number of cases their office successfully prosecutes. They don't prosecute cases they know they can't win...and they shouldn't.  Prosecutions are expensive and the DA is obligated to spend public money responsibly.  Same goes for the police.  They have to expend their limited resources where they will be most effective.

Unfortunately, while they are certainly entertaining, the various CSI TV shows and their TV crime fighter counterparts present an unrealistic picture of real life crime scene investigation.  Much of the technology used by our TV heros either doesn't exist as it is portrayed, or is so exotic and expensive that only a very few major crime labs have it.  As such, demand vastly outstrips availability and serious crimes get priority.

If this is an ongoing problem I recommend you install video surveillance equipment to document the crimes. Give them pictures of your vandals in action and I think you will find your police department to be much more responsive.

Article Reprint: Crime Free By Design

"Crime will kill a business district. Fortunately there is a planning tool that can both prevent crime and increase the perception of safety. That tool is Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design or CPTED. Anyone tasked with the development or redevelopment of a business district or downtown area should be familiar with the CPTED principles.

The CPTED goal is the elimination of crime by removing opportunities for criminal activity while encouraging legitimate use of an area. The success of CPTED stems from the manner in which crime prevention concepts are integrated into the architectural and streetscape design process."

Click here to go to Experts.com to read the complete reprint of this article which was originally published in the California Downtown Association's Newsletter.

Q: I am purchasing a new home. What should I look for to provide the best security for my family?

This question was submitted to me through the Ventura County Star Newspaper's "Ask the Experts" feature.  My answer was published on March 14, 2011.

A: There are several factors that contribute to the security of a home. You don't say whether you already own the home or are currently looking. If you are still looking, I recommend you research the crime rates in the neighborhoods that interest you.

Also look at the local police department. What is their level of professionalism? Do they have an active crime prevention program? Are they supported by the community? What is their average response time to emergency calls? Are they understaffed? Are they progressive, employing state of the art equipment?

Once you find the right location, look at the crime resistance characteristics of the building and property. Start at the curb and work your way in. Is the house easy to find (street numbers) if police or fire units need to locate it in a hurry? Are the house and grounds well lit at night? Is landscaping maintained in such a way that it allows good visibility around the house? Are there places in the bushes where a criminal could hide? Do trees and shrubs hide doors and windows giving burglars privacy during a break in? Are all exterior doors of solid construction and equipped with quality deadbolt locks? Are sliding doors and windows equipped with adequate locking devices? Are garage doors equipped with high quality automatic openers? Does the house have – or should you consider installing - an intrusion alarm? Do some research to find out if an alarm system will significantly enhance your level of security. Usually it will, but not everyone's lifestyle, and finances are compatible with an alarm system.

Talk to the neighbors. Is there an organized neighborhood watch? Vigilant neighbors are a superb crime prevention tool. Your local police department will probably be able to provide some assistance in this area.

Obviously, there is no one size fits all answer to your question. While they have some things in common, what applies to a tract home may not be applicable to a condominium or sufficient for an estate property. Most local police departments have a crime prevention unit that offers free home security advice. Contact your local department and see what they can do for you. You can also educate yourself using the internet. Do a search on “home crime prevention” or “residential crime prevention.”

Finally, in some situations such as homes in rural or other isolated areas, or when executive residential or estate homes are involved, the advice of an independent security consultant may be useful in achieving the maximum level of protection.

Should We Shoot Them? Exploring the wisdom of confronting armed robbers in a Casino.

LAS VEGAS:  Last Thursday morning the Rio Hotel Casino was robbed of $33,000 in gaming chips by a wig and fake moustache wearing gunman.  According to newspaper and TV accounts, thanks to a comedy of errors beginning with the gunman arriving at, and escaping from, the Rio in a taxi owned and driven by a not too bright partner in crime, he and his accomplices were quickly identified.  The accomplices were arrested.  The gunman is still outstanding – for now.

The story of how badly the gunman and his friends seem to have mismanaged their crime is interesting.  But even more interesting – and puzzling - to me was the scorn and insults directed at Rio security personnel for letting the gunman walk out of the casino unchallenged.

I don’t know how many – if any – armed security officers the Rio has.  I do know most of their uniformed personnel are not armed.  Unless they are as dumb as the gunman and his friends, I’m pretty sure none of the Rio detractors would expect unarmed security officers to confront an armed robber.  Maybe the critics think that security personnel should all be armed.  That is an ongoing debate with good arguments on all sides.  Perhaps we can explore the issue here sometime; but not today.

Today, just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that there were armed security personnel on duty at the Rio during the robbery.  Should they have confronted the gunman?

What would be gained from a confrontation?  The gunman stole $33,000 in chips.  That represents a lot of money to most people.  I say “represents” because chips aren’t money.  They are just colorful plastic discs.  Even if actual cash was stolen, $33,000 is chump change to a casino that can see even greater sums change hands with a single roll of the dice.  If there were no risk involved, the best case outcome from a confrontation would have the chips recovered and the bad guy in handcuffs.  But there is always risk.

Now consider the worst case outcome; a shootout on the casino floor.  Even if security ultimately prevailed and the gunman was killed or captured, the potential for disaster is immense.  With bullets flying, guests and staff alike are in mortal danger.  Beyond the devastating tragedy of someone being shot, there would be serious consequences for the casino.  Corporate liability exposure for an avoidable shooting is monumental and damage to the casino’s image could be irreparable.

The choice isn’t difficult.  Unless a gunman is actively shooting people, let him walk.  Odds are he’ll eventually be caught anyway.  The safety of guests and staff is paramount.  Based on the information available, it appears to me that Rio security personnel acted professionally and responsibly.  They made the correct choice.