Website Selections

If You Have Access to a Large Audience - You May Want to Learn Facts Before Spouting Opinions

I am addressing the shooting of Philando Castile in Minnesota.  Yes, there is a video that was shot after the fact where Ms. Lavish "Diamond" Reynolds narrates a video while still sitting in the vehicle next to Castile after he has been shot.  I find it interesting that she calmly tells her story about what happened while Castile is dying next to her.  At this point, I will emphasize the word "story."

Let's look at what she said vs what the facts are:

Reynolds said in the video that the police stopped them for a busted tail light.  This is an outright lie.

The real fact is: The police stopped them because Castile matched the prescription of criminal that had robbed a convenience store.  Well, really he looked like one of the men that was caught on video robbing a convenience store in the same neighborhood. The police had been distributed still photos from the video the day before the traffic stop.

Here is what officer Yanez radioed in when making the stop:  “I’m going to stop a car. I’m going to check IDs. I have reason to pull it over. The two occupants look just like people that were involved in a robbery. The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose.” 

Reynolds says that Castile had a concealed carry permit on his left leg. This has yet to be proven. We know that the local county sheriff (Ramsey MN) did not issue one.  Beyond that, we only have the word of someone who could coldly narrate propaganda while her boyfriend is dying next to her.

Reynolds said the officer told Castile to get his ID.  This does not appear to be the case.  In her video - if you look closely - you can see a gun by his left leg.  You also hear Yanez say "I told him not to reach for it." "I told him to get his hand off it."

What I found most odd during this video is that Reynolds was completely calm whilst giving an intentional false narrative of what happened.  Maybe I am missing something, but that is awfully cold hearted,  One would wonder why she would do such a thing.  Remember what to follow folks.

Now, I am not saying Castile was one of the robbers.  I am saying he looked an awful lot like one of them.  Meanwhile - we know what was stolen in the robbery - cash and 2 cartons of Newport Cigarettes. 

From the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension's Facebook post:

"...Suspect #2: Black male, shoulder length dreadlocks (some had been pulled into a bun), green baseball cap, sunglasses, a small mustache and some chin hair, tan pants, tan shoes with white soles, and a green long sleeved jacket. The two are suspects in an armed robbery that occurred Saturday, July 2 around 7:30 p.m. at the Super USA at 2424 Larpenteur Avenue in Lauderdale. The suspects took cash from the register and cartons of Newport cigarettes."

Maybe it is coincidence, but look what kind of cigaretts you see in Reynolds hand in a video shot later.

All I am saying is - the false narrative or literally the false narration - has already been accepted by most of the media and everyone from President Obama to the governor of Minnesota.  I cannot yet say for sure the shooting was justified - but the pendelum sure has swung that way.

Stay safe!

Will Smith Killed - Road Rage, or a Planned Homicide?

New Orleans Saints own Will Smith was allegedly shot and killed by Cardell Hayes after a traffic accident.  Apparently Hayes rear ended the car that Smith was Driving.  Smith's wife was in the car.  She was also shot but was taken to the hospital for treatment.  Smith leaves behind his wife and 3 children.

Thiis has been reported as a "road rage" incident.  However, Hayes has a shady history, and was somehow supposedly workig security for the New Orleans Saints.  How a guy that had plead guilty in 2014 to the illegal carrying of a weapon and drug paraphernalia works security kind of has e baffled.

It is also interesting to note that Hayes had filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the NO PD.  It is interesting that former NOPD commander Billy Ceravolo was named specifically in that suit.  He was also seen together with Smith and Pierre Thomas earlier that same evening.

As of now, the NO PD is saying that Hayes and Smith did not know each other.

It all may be just circumstance, but it is hard to believe it is just circumstance.

Stay Safe!

Fisking a "Copblock" Video

I decided to fisk this "copblock" video.  The reason is that it is labeled "JSO SHERIFF ILLEGALLY DETAINS ME. I SET THEM STRAIGHT."

While this guy is probably quite proud of himself, he would have likely gone to jail if I was a the cop who had stopped him.

First here is the video:

Second, before you wish to argue - he is indeed the person that was stalking (he just allegedly has a license to do so - unbeknownst to the officer since the guy chose to act like a dickhead.)

 I guess neither the guy in the video nor the cops understand "reasonable suspicion."  Reasonable suspicion is a very low bar to clear.  This stop is exactly the classic example of what reasonable suspicion is.  The cops handled it poorly.

Let's look at reasonable suspicion.  Reasonable suspicion is commonly said to be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts", and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual.

Let's look at the reasonable suspicion in this incident:

There was a dispatched report of a vehicle that matches the description of the stopped one possibly stalking someone in the area.  These are specific and articulable facts.  Apparently the stop was made because the officer made the rational inference from the facts that this could indeed be the same vehicle as reported.  The driver is the specific individual connected to all of these facts.

When the cop stopped him, all he had to say is "The reason I stopped you, is that your vehicle matches the description of a vehicle that is reportedly involved in a crime in this area."  If the driver did anything remotely like the guy in the video, he then should have had the driver exit the vehicle (because if I am the cop, at this point the driver is affirming to me he is likely the potential criminal involved and therefore could possibly be a threat if he is indeed the criminal).  The officer should have checked him for weapons and then began his investigation.  He should have begun with questions the officer has a right to know. Questions like:

Is this your vehicle?
Do you have any weapons in the vehicle?
Have you been driving around this neighborhood for a while?

OK, before I continue, let me point out that the police officer does not have to say what crime he is investigating.  It is not the driver's right to know at his point, as a part of the investigation, the officer is determining if the potential criminal is probably the criminal (if he is probably the criminal - then he may arrest the guy).  How he reacts to the investigation itself can help determine if he is probably the guy committing the crime.

If the driver decides to be uncooperative, and not answer any questions, the officer could determine at this point, that based upon all the facts, this guy probably is the guy that has committed the crime.  He can proceed in a way that is appropriate.  Also note, that while the dickhead in the video has the right to not answer questions, the officer is not obligated in any way to justify his actions to the dickhead.

Well, stay safe - and don't make the mistake this guy did - he got away with it - but he could have gotten arrested and lost his license - trying to "prove a point" and he was wrong.

Understanding How to Assess Intelligence

OK,  I know when people see "intelligence" they think about spy agencies and whatnot. Well, most of what PIs deal with is intelligence.  Sometimes a PI will forget about assessing the intelligence "because the information is so good."  What I mean by that is, we learn something from a source that really could blow the case wide open.  We need to tread lightly, if we do not assess the intelligence.

OK, I have already over used "assess" so I will explain what I mean.  When we gather information, we need to weigh the quality of information we receive.  We really need to explain this if and when we pass this information on in our reports.  One line you should never see in a PIs report is "I learned that..." or "I discovered that..." at least not with an explanation of how it was learned/discovered.

You see, sometimes how you get the information is nearly as important as the information itself.  I am not saying you need to reveal your sources directly.  Example:  Let's say you run a report from one of the data companies.  The report shows that your person of interest resides at 123 Austin Street, Houston, TX.  Look at the report closely.  Does it show a driver's license using that address?  Can you find a second source through public records or even a Google search?  You should never just say "Well, Acme information service says he lives there."

Here is an example of what I mean.  I had to farm out a paper to be served out of state.  I gave them the information that I had.  I also explained where I received the information.  This included using "a friend of a friend on Facebook."  It also included jail booking records and what agency it was from.

If I just said "I have information he is at that address." without passing on how I got the information, the people receiving it have no idea how to assess the information.

This happens all the time.  What happens?  Someone telling me information without giving me an idea where it came from.  How do I know it happens?  I get something from someone almost every day this way.  What happens when I cannot confirm the information or deny it right away?  I have to pick up the phone or email and ask how did they get the information.

Save a step - pass on how you got the information.  You may have to say, "I have an informant I have used in the past that has been very reliable."  That is OK.  Or, "I learned it from the Ex."  Exes often keep closer tabs on the whereabouts of the ex than they did when they were together - go figure.

Weigh your intelligence, it will help you know how much time and effort to put in on what you are doing,   Sometimes you only have a sliver of information, and that is fine.  Just know how to use your resources wisely.

Stay safe!

The Story of True Hitmen

When I came across this story of true hitman, I read it very closely.  It had times and places I have been before, so it makes me really wonder if I ever came across this guy.  I do not remember having interactions with him, but there are a lot of things we had in common.

I worked in Iraq in 2005-2007 for DynCorp.  Apparently, Joseph Hunter had worked in Iraq for DynCorp (in a different capacity), then went to work for Triple Canopy.

Joseph Hunter allegedly ran a hitman operation that spanned the globe.  The case he got taken down for was around a murder for hire of a DEA agent and informant in Liberia.  I worked in Liberia for a while in 2008-2010.  It is just interesting how close, yet far I was from said people.

You can see the full story here.

Scams Scams Everywhere

Nothing to see here - Right?

With the Holiday season upon us, and with all the "offers" that are legit out there, don't besurprised to see a scam show up in your in box.

This one was so obvious, I just had to share.  I mean, why would I get an email from T-Mobile telling me to save with Sprint?

Seriously though, don't let your guard down.  Don't be lazy about what you check out.

Stay safe

Apple's Smart Marketing Statement that Means Nothing

Well, Apple is really good at marketing. Much better at marketing than any of there actual "innovations" or technology.  Even when they are behind technologically, they manage to convince an extremely large amount of people that their products and system is "superior" to their competitors.  Sometimes they are even so good at this, they convince even their competitors.

What am I talking about this time?  Well, Apple's protection of privacy for their customers. Here is what Apple claims:

“Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data,” the company wrote in the new privacy policy. “So it’s not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS 8.”

First of all, they imply some things that are not necessarily true.  If it were - if you ever forgot your password, Apple could not assist you restoring/resetting it.  They also imply that there is no way one could go through Apple (like the government) to gain access to your data (which also isn't true).

This all goes along with things like "Apple doesn't get viruses" or "Apple can't get hacked" which have both been proven wrong over the years, but folks still believe this.

If you ever plug your Apple into a computer (doesn't matter what kind) or use the cloud (of course Apple calls it iCloud) you are likely to be less secure than the users of the "other products" - even from the government.

I am not a computer geek, but all the ones I know confirmed this.