A warning from police:
On Wednesday, February 4, at approximately 1:15 pm, an 11-year-old female Sycamore School student was possibly followed home from school by a male subject. The subject is described as Hispanic, 20-30 years old, 5 foot 10 inches tall, wearing a camouflaged patterned shirt. The suspect stayed 20 feet behind her and did not speak to her.
If you have children, please remind them not to speak to strangers and report any similar suspicious activity immediately to the Claremont Police Department.
Showing posts with label Police Department. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Police Department. Show all posts
Monday, February 9, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Pit bull shooting
After a Claremont Police Officer shot and killed a pit bull last week, I got to thinking if pit bulls really are more dangerous than other canine breeds or if they just have a "bad rap", as the pet owner argued.
Deanne Anderson, the dog's owner, told me, "If she was a Golden Retriever, they wouldn't have shot her."
She may very well be right. But police and witnesses did say that the dog charged at the officer. This was following attacks on 2 other dogs and their owners in Memorial Park.
In the dog's defense, nobody or their dogs were injured by the "attacks," for lack of a better word. Not a scratch or a puncture wound.
It sounded to me like Anderson's dogs were out for a joy stroll in the park, rather than on the prowl for victims, saliva dripping from their exposed teeth. Being adolescent dogs (a 3-year-old and a 2-years-old), the 2 were showing the smaller dogs in the park who's boss, as some dogs tend to do.
I don't want to downplay the severity of the incident, or the fear that the victims legitimately experienced. Two big pit bulls on the loose can certainly be intimidating, especially when they are trying to bite your dog. "They seemed ferocious," one witness said.
But back to the question, are pit bulls more dangerous than other breeds?
According to this New Yorker article, pit bulls have historically been bred for dogfighting and therefore have higher levels of aggression and a lower tolerance for pain.
"Most dogs fight as a last resort, when staring and growling fail. A pit bull is willing to fight with little or no provocation," the article states.
But the article goes, "When we say that pit bulls are dangerous, we are making a generalization, just as insurance companies use generalizations when they charge young men more for car insurance than the rest of us (even though many young men are perfectly good drivers)..."
The article concludes that, "The strongest connection [for bad dog behavior] of all, though, is between the trait of dog viciousness and certain kinds of dog owners. In about a quarter of fatal dog-bite cases, the dog owners were previously involved in illegal fighting. The dogs that bite people are, in many cases, socially isolated because their owners are socially isolated, and they are vicious because they have owners who want a vicious dog."
"The junk-yard German shepherd—which looks as if it would rip your throat out—and the German-shepherd guide dog are the same breed. But they are not the same dog, because they have owners with different intentions."
The article also discusses government reactions to pit bull attacks and how profiling pit bulls can relate to profiling terrorists.
Back to Claremont and the Memorial Park incident. Anderson is clearly a loving dog owner who was crushed to learn her pet was killed in such a violent way.
I am certain she did not raise her dogs to be nasty, and both she and her neighbor told me the female Harley was the good natured one of her 2 dogs.
Is there any way this could have been avoided? The police officer had a taser gun on his belt along with the pistol. Why not just taser the dog? Or if need be, shoot the dog once, rather than 4 times. I would think a single pistol shot would immobilize the dog without ending her life.
I don't want to be too critical of the officer, who was forced to make a split second decision with his own safety at risk. But as an animal lover myself, I wish there was some way the killing could have been avoided, while making sure the dogs did no further harm to others.
Any thoughts?
Deanne Anderson, the dog's owner, told me, "If she was a Golden Retriever, they wouldn't have shot her."
She may very well be right. But police and witnesses did say that the dog charged at the officer. This was following attacks on 2 other dogs and their owners in Memorial Park.
In the dog's defense, nobody or their dogs were injured by the "attacks," for lack of a better word. Not a scratch or a puncture wound.
It sounded to me like Anderson's dogs were out for a joy stroll in the park, rather than on the prowl for victims, saliva dripping from their exposed teeth. Being adolescent dogs (a 3-year-old and a 2-years-old), the 2 were showing the smaller dogs in the park who's boss, as some dogs tend to do.
I don't want to downplay the severity of the incident, or the fear that the victims legitimately experienced. Two big pit bulls on the loose can certainly be intimidating, especially when they are trying to bite your dog. "They seemed ferocious," one witness said.
But back to the question, are pit bulls more dangerous than other breeds?
According to this New Yorker article, pit bulls have historically been bred for dogfighting and therefore have higher levels of aggression and a lower tolerance for pain.
"Most dogs fight as a last resort, when staring and growling fail. A pit bull is willing to fight with little or no provocation," the article states.
But the article goes, "When we say that pit bulls are dangerous, we are making a generalization, just as insurance companies use generalizations when they charge young men more for car insurance than the rest of us (even though many young men are perfectly good drivers)..."
The article concludes that, "The strongest connection [for bad dog behavior] of all, though, is between the trait of dog viciousness and certain kinds of dog owners. In about a quarter of fatal dog-bite cases, the dog owners were previously involved in illegal fighting. The dogs that bite people are, in many cases, socially isolated because their owners are socially isolated, and they are vicious because they have owners who want a vicious dog."
"The junk-yard German shepherd—which looks as if it would rip your throat out—and the German-shepherd guide dog are the same breed. But they are not the same dog, because they have owners with different intentions."
The article also discusses government reactions to pit bull attacks and how profiling pit bulls can relate to profiling terrorists.
Back to Claremont and the Memorial Park incident. Anderson is clearly a loving dog owner who was crushed to learn her pet was killed in such a violent way.
I am certain she did not raise her dogs to be nasty, and both she and her neighbor told me the female Harley was the good natured one of her 2 dogs.
Is there any way this could have been avoided? The police officer had a taser gun on his belt along with the pistol. Why not just taser the dog? Or if need be, shoot the dog once, rather than 4 times. I would think a single pistol shot would immobilize the dog without ending her life.
I don't want to be too critical of the officer, who was forced to make a split second decision with his own safety at risk. But as an animal lover myself, I wish there was some way the killing could have been avoided, while making sure the dogs did no further harm to others.
Any thoughts?
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Reflections on the Landrum shooting
Reporting on the 10 year anniversary of the Landrum shooting was in some way a very difficult story to cover.
The incident was so emotional and disturbing for a community that always seems to strive for perfection.
One reason the Landrum incident was so distressing was that the event exposed some of the hidden imperfections within the city that nobody wanted to acknowledge or even knew existed. Imperfections like transparency in government and how city leaders should respond when faced with a real crisis.
The fact is, nobody truly knows what happened that night 10 years ago, except Officers Kent Jacks and Hany Hanna, who were involved the shooting. Everyone else was just caught up in the aftermath.
I interviewed Karen Rosenthal, who was not mayor when the incident happened but was throughout much of the aftermath. As the voice of the city, Rosenthal was certainly in a difficult position and struggled with being thrown into that role during the crisis.
Rosenthal cried while I interviewed her. Her emotions, which still exist today, personify how lasting an impact the incident had on the community, and all the raw emotions that it invoked.
The greatest criticism of Rosenthal throughout the aftermath was for being insensitive to Landrum and his family and making public statements about his character and personal life that many felt were irrelevant.
Does it matter that he fathered 2 children to 2 different women at the age of 18, as she brought up during our interview? Even going so far as to call him a “rapist, by the legal definition” because the women were underage.
I don’t think so. The young man died under circumstance that could possibly have been avoided. His personal life, aside from any criminal record that he may have had, should not be judged or criticized.
By bringing up these points in public and in statements to the media, along with her "dripping contempt she showed for protesters at public meetings", as one observer noted, Rosenthal made herself appear callous, and likely cost her another term on the council.
When Glenn Southard named the officers Employees of the Year award and released the criminal record of Obee Landrum, he displayed his intent to take an extremely defensive stance over the issue. This did not sit well with those close to him and observers in the community.
With all the poor decisions that he made during the crisis, it calls to question his decision-making abilities on other, less important issues. The city of Claremont may very well be better off without him.
As far as the police, it's hard to say if racial profiling was ever an unwritten policy or a regular practice. Councilmember Sam Pedroza once said after doing a ride-along with police that he felt it was more profiling based on the type of car rather than who was inside.
Regardless, "perception often makes something a reality", as another observer noted. And there was certainly the perception in the community that racial profiling was a very real thing amongst the police. The Police Department was forced to react to that perception and made positive steps to re-building its standing in the community.
Has the city moved on? Yes. Is Claremont a better place? I certainly think so.
Claremont’s civil society rallied to improve on its weaknesses. Let’s hope that if another crisis hits this city, that we will respond better in the future.
The incident was so emotional and disturbing for a community that always seems to strive for perfection.
One reason the Landrum incident was so distressing was that the event exposed some of the hidden imperfections within the city that nobody wanted to acknowledge or even knew existed. Imperfections like transparency in government and how city leaders should respond when faced with a real crisis.
The fact is, nobody truly knows what happened that night 10 years ago, except Officers Kent Jacks and Hany Hanna, who were involved the shooting. Everyone else was just caught up in the aftermath.
I interviewed Karen Rosenthal, who was not mayor when the incident happened but was throughout much of the aftermath. As the voice of the city, Rosenthal was certainly in a difficult position and struggled with being thrown into that role during the crisis.
Rosenthal cried while I interviewed her. Her emotions, which still exist today, personify how lasting an impact the incident had on the community, and all the raw emotions that it invoked.
The greatest criticism of Rosenthal throughout the aftermath was for being insensitive to Landrum and his family and making public statements about his character and personal life that many felt were irrelevant.
Does it matter that he fathered 2 children to 2 different women at the age of 18, as she brought up during our interview? Even going so far as to call him a “rapist, by the legal definition” because the women were underage.
I don’t think so. The young man died under circumstance that could possibly have been avoided. His personal life, aside from any criminal record that he may have had, should not be judged or criticized.
By bringing up these points in public and in statements to the media, along with her "dripping contempt she showed for protesters at public meetings", as one observer noted, Rosenthal made herself appear callous, and likely cost her another term on the council.
When Glenn Southard named the officers Employees of the Year award and released the criminal record of Obee Landrum, he displayed his intent to take an extremely defensive stance over the issue. This did not sit well with those close to him and observers in the community.
With all the poor decisions that he made during the crisis, it calls to question his decision-making abilities on other, less important issues. The city of Claremont may very well be better off without him.
As far as the police, it's hard to say if racial profiling was ever an unwritten policy or a regular practice. Councilmember Sam Pedroza once said after doing a ride-along with police that he felt it was more profiling based on the type of car rather than who was inside.
Regardless, "perception often makes something a reality", as another observer noted. And there was certainly the perception in the community that racial profiling was a very real thing amongst the police. The Police Department was forced to react to that perception and made positive steps to re-building its standing in the community.
Has the city moved on? Yes. Is Claremont a better place? I certainly think so.
Claremont’s civil society rallied to improve on its weaknesses. Let’s hope that if another crisis hits this city, that we will respond better in the future.
Watch out for scams
Scam warning to all homeowners. I've received a couple communications about a scam from a company called Property Tax Reassessment. A letter sent out to homes by the company details your assessed property value and the amount that could be saved in property tax annually.
The Los Angeles based company is asking residents to send in $179 as a service fee to complete a property tax reassessment. Don't send them your money! The County Assessor's Office will provide this service for free.
Also, this warning from the Claremont Police Department:
In November, 2008, a 79-year-old Claremont resident received a telephone call from a person claiming to be her grandson. The caller told the resident that he had been arrested for a DUI traffic collision in Canada and needed to have $5,000 wired to bail him out. He asked her not to tell his parents as he wanted to do so in person after release. He gave her instructions on how to go to a WalMart, deposit the funds, and obtain a wire transfer reference number. He called her later and obtained the reference number which allowed him to get the funds. The caller's voice was not inconsistent with her grandson and she believed it was him.
The caller telephoned the resident again stating he needed an additional $3,500 to pay a passenger in the car for lost wages to avoid a lawsuit. The resident made a second wire transfer as requested. Her grandson spoke to her a few days later and it was discovered to be a scam.
Claremont residents have also been victim to the "Canadian Lottery" scam. In this one the caller states they are a Canadian Lottery official, that the victim has won a large amount of money, usually several hundred thousand dollars or more, and that they need only pay the taxes to have the money delivered to them. Again the victim is asked to wire several thousand dollars to Canada. If the victim falls for the initial scam a frequent follow up is that the messenger with the money is stuck at the US border and needs a sum of money wired to cover US Customs charges.
The callers on these scams are very good at what they do and sound very convincing. It is sometimes difficult for the police to convince victims that they been victimized as they are sure that the next wire transfer will result in the big payoff. Any time you are called and asked to wire money out of the country you should be very suspicious. If you are asked not to tell someone about the situation or told that time is of the essence it should further alert you to a possible scam. If you are ever in doubt don't send the money. If you are tempted to send money call your local law enforcement agency for advice or how to detect a scam. They may already be aware of the one you are about to be a victim of and be able to save you a lot of money.
The Los Angeles based company is asking residents to send in $179 as a service fee to complete a property tax reassessment. Don't send them your money! The County Assessor's Office will provide this service for free.
Also, this warning from the Claremont Police Department:
In November, 2008, a 79-year-old Claremont resident received a telephone call from a person claiming to be her grandson. The caller told the resident that he had been arrested for a DUI traffic collision in Canada and needed to have $5,000 wired to bail him out. He asked her not to tell his parents as he wanted to do so in person after release. He gave her instructions on how to go to a WalMart, deposit the funds, and obtain a wire transfer reference number. He called her later and obtained the reference number which allowed him to get the funds. The caller's voice was not inconsistent with her grandson and she believed it was him.
The caller telephoned the resident again stating he needed an additional $3,500 to pay a passenger in the car for lost wages to avoid a lawsuit. The resident made a second wire transfer as requested. Her grandson spoke to her a few days later and it was discovered to be a scam.
Claremont residents have also been victim to the "Canadian Lottery" scam. In this one the caller states they are a Canadian Lottery official, that the victim has won a large amount of money, usually several hundred thousand dollars or more, and that they need only pay the taxes to have the money delivered to them. Again the victim is asked to wire several thousand dollars to Canada. If the victim falls for the initial scam a frequent follow up is that the messenger with the money is stuck at the US border and needs a sum of money wired to cover US Customs charges.
The callers on these scams are very good at what they do and sound very convincing. It is sometimes difficult for the police to convince victims that they been victimized as they are sure that the next wire transfer will result in the big payoff. Any time you are called and asked to wire money out of the country you should be very suspicious. If you are asked not to tell someone about the situation or told that time is of the essence it should further alert you to a possible scam. If you are ever in doubt don't send the money. If you are tempted to send money call your local law enforcement agency for advice or how to detect a scam. They may already be aware of the one you are about to be a victim of and be able to save you a lot of money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
