Saturday, March 3, 2018

Sheriff Scott Israel CNN Interview

     
                                              "Amazing Leadership"


Law Enforcement professionals in the United States are under appreciated and under paid.

The men and women in law enforcement, by and large, choose this profession in a way that says, "law enforcement chose me."

Where politicians become entangled with law enforcement, corruption exists.

From interfering with hiring standards to redefining " to refusal to enforce laws, political narrative harms the reputations of the men and women who protect and serve.

For example, had Scott Israel's office arrested the school shooting suspect, and been prosecuted, he would not have been able to obtain a firearm legally.  This is a contextual point to consider when analyzing the Sheriff's responses, including tangents.

Why wasn't the suspect arrested?

How many times was 911 called on him?



In the wake of the Florida school shooting, allegations of scandal have arisen alleging that Scott Israel has polarized, via politicizing his office, rank and file. When someone in law enforcement conducts himself or herself in an unseemly manner, unjust broad strokes of condemnation are often the result.

Media Reports 

Reports indicate that Israel entered into agreements to not arrest students who commit crimes depending upon race, along with "stand down" orders that have emboldened crime and led to organized crime (gang) activity within the school.  This was done, it is alleged, to cause the school's record to improve, allowing for more funding. 

A recent report now suggests that the 3 responding officers who arrived were told that they could not enter the building unless they had body cameras on.  This, too, is against the instinct to save lives in an emergency situation. 

Security guard and football coach, Aaron Fies used his body as a human shield, dying in his attempt to save students. This is an instinct for parents, and something law enforcement and emergency response teams are trained to do.  As we saw in New York City's 911 Islamic terrorist attack, firefighters disregarded their own safety and paid with their lives.  

Police are trained to "protect and serve", and regularly risk their lives, according to both specific training and personality traits:  it is who they are.  

When corruption is noted at the top, the impact upon morale is dominated by cynicism.  When leadership is seen as self serving, the opposite of "sacrifice", the cynicism leads rank and file to question their own call to duty.  

The message of cynicism is the same in any organization:  only the "unsophisticated" will "foolishly" risk life and limb.  

This is against the instincts that bring men and women into law enforcement as a career. 

Statement Analysis and Psycho-linguisitic Profiling

Is Sheriff Scott Israel honest?

Statement Analysis seeks to answer this question. It is easy to dismiss him as some have, with mental health generalizations.  This is not useful in understanding what happened and why it happened.

New reports now increase the number of calls made to 911 in which callers specifically identified:

a. the suspect
b. the threat
c. the means (weapons)
d. the suspect's personality (volatile)
e. some cited his history of violence.

With Sheriff Israel's political decision not to arrest those who commit crimes at the school, the school shooter was free to return to murder.  The school was labeled a "gun free zone", which may serve criminal purposes in helping to identify "soft targets." 

What does his language tell us about his background, experiences, motive and dominant priority traits? 

Psycho-linguistic Profiling seeks to identify these elements. 


As politicians seek to exploit the victims and portray the high school kids as political experts we have learned over, perhaps as many as 42 specific times where  intervention was indicated:  the killer should have been arrested, and the weapons removed.  Another report tells us that a deputy sought to share information with social services but was ordered not to via Scott Israel's political directives.  A single arrest of the suspect could have prevented the murders of 17.


Sheriff Scott Israel in a CNN staged (scripted media event got a standing ovation for stating that no 18 year old should be able to purchase an automatic rifle.  CNN did not report that this was already illegal and perhaps, the Sheriff did not know this, either.

This type of political grandstanding plays gives us insight into what Broward County deputies may experience, day to day, in their duties. 


Sheriff' Israel's department did not intervene in at what was reportedly to be at  least 18 reports that the shooter was dangerous and amassing weapons.  The number is currently 42 reports; awaiting update. 

The FBI did not forward a specific tip and owned its mistake.  With the FBI, we never learn of the hundreds, if not thousands, of interventions where lives were saved by its follow up of tips in a preventive manner.  We will never know, for example, how an Islamist terrorist may have been shocked to learn that he was under surveillance by the FBI, and how this may have changed his mind. This mistake was lethal, but there was no excuse making or diversion by the FBI.  

Unlike the FBI statement, Scott Israel stated that he has provided "amazing leadership" to his deputies.  This followed his blaming of the officer who did not enter the building to stop the killer. 

The Good Guy Principle in Analysis 

Virtue Signaling in issues where no such contrary view exists, is often a signal of projected guilt.  Corrupt leaders will openly sermonize no different than a drug addict will lecture others on the ethics of sobriety while under the influence. The theme is the thread of thought.  Like murderer Scott Peterson's "glorious marriage" statement (after killing his wife and unborn son), we sometimes see this in Facebook marital posts where divorce is suggested by the high level public praise. 
In the negative, President Nixon offered what he was not:  "I am not a crook."

Former Director of the FBI James Comey went through a period of tweeting on ethics as the abuses of FISA court and the surveillance of Americans from a paid political dossier.  The projection was quickly noted by Americans.  When Susan Rice's "note to self" used the unnecessary (and repeated) "by the book" statement, it was akin to mob boss John Gotti speaking to the revealed surveillance recording saying, "just to be clear; we don't steal or do anything illegal, right guys?"

The key to understanding "Virtue Signaling" is found in the principle of Statement Analysis regarding "unnecessary information" deemed elevated in importance.  

"Amazing Leadership" is our "Good Guy" Principle, telling us to the contrary. 

When a mother calls herself a "great mother", we often find a direct link to child protective services. 

When one has the need to portray himself as the "good guy", we often find tangible evidence that the need to persuade is do to illegal or illicit behavior.

Rule of the Negative

That which is reported in the negative is to be elevated in importance by the analyst.  Simply put, human nature responds stronger to "thou shalt not" than "thou shalt."

When something is offered (not as a direct response) in the negative, what one is not doing, not saying, not thinking, it is very important information.

Pronouns

Pronouns don't lie.

When does Scott Israel speak strongly, with "I", for himself, and when does he speak with less strength ("we") employing "others" into his response?

When is "we" appropriate weakness and when is it inappropriate weakness?

Tangents:

Is the question avoided?

Note passivity.  Is it appropriately used?  Is it used to divorce himself from responsibility?



             What do you find within his answers?


BRANDON HUFF, SENIOR, MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS HIGH SCHOOL: 

The school resource officer was behind a stairwell wall just standing there, and he had his gun drawn. And he was just pointing it at the building. 
And you could -- shots started going off inside. You could hear them going off over and over. And he was just talking on the radio, and he never did anything for four minutes. And he's the only one with a gun. He's wearing a bulletproof vest. And all -- he has all that, while school security guards, you know, coaches pretty much, were running in shielding kids. 


(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Sheriff, how do you respond to this student? 

BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFF SCOTT ISRAEL: Oh, what the student said, our video and audio and all the witness statements we have taken corroborates that. 
That's what I saw. And when I saw that, I was disgusted. I was just demoralized with the performance of former Deputy Peterson. And that's why I called him in and suspended him without pay, as we were going to move towards termination. And he resigned. 

TAPPER: Did he tell you why he didn't go in? 

ISRAEL: He did not. 

TAPPER: I'm also told by sources in Coral Springs that Coral Springs police who arrived at the scene saw that three other Broward deputies were standing behind cars, not having gone into the building. What can you tell me about that? 

ISRAEL: Well, let me perfectly clear.

Our investigation to this point shows that, during this horrific attack, while this killer was inside the school, there was only one law enforcement person, period, and that was former Deputy Scot Peterson. 

Coral Springs arrived. A group of Coral Springs officers went in within, I think, about four minutes, we're projecting, after the killer left the campus. 
The -- I understand that they're going to give statements to us regarding the other three, four, five deputies. At this point, we have no reason to believe that any one acted incorrectly or correctly. That's what an investigation is. 
Everybody's entitled to their own opinion, but nobody's entitled to their own set of facts. 
We do know, Jake, that Deputy Peterson at the time uttered -- he disseminated information over the police radio. We don't know why those deputies -- what those deputies heard. Perhaps they did something by what they heard from Peterson.
And that will be, you know, outlined in interviews. We will get to the truth. But, at this point, one deputy was remiss, dereliction of duty, and he's now no longer with this agency. And that's Peterson. 

TAPPER: And you're saying -- you're saying that because, during the time that the shooter was in the school, you say Peterson was the only one there.
But that's not -- that wasn't known at the time. You know that now because of security cameras. You saw when he left the school.

ISRAEL: Correct.

TAPPER: This is after the fact.
But when did your deputies, not Peterson, but the others, when did they arrive on the scene, because Coral Springs sources say, when Coral Springs arrived, there were Broward deputies there in addition to Peterson. 

ISRAEL: And I don't dispute that, but that is an active investigation. We have not taken statements yet from the Coral Springs officers.
We found out, I believe, five or six days ago from their police chief that he told one of our colonels about the -- about the information. We're going to be taking statements from those Coral Springs police officers.
Then we're going to be speaking with our deputies. If any deputies are alleged to have dereliction of duty, we will look into that. We don't know what the deputies heard on the radio. Coral Springs and the Broward Sheriff's Office, we have different radio systems. 
So, we don't know what one was hearing vis-a-vis what the other was hearing. All I can tell you is, we will investigate every action of our deputies, of their supervisors. And if they did things right, we will move forward. And if they did things wrong, I will take care of business in a disciplinary matter, like I did with Peterson. 

TAPPER: And just so people watching at home understand, even after the shooter left the school, there was a period of time where nobody was going into the school, no law enforcement officers. People were bleeding out.
The question -- nobody knew that the shooter had left the school, so officers needed to go in. One of the things that we have heard -- and I don't know if this is true or not -- I can -- hope you can shed light on it -- is that there might have been a stand-down order, somebody on the radio telling Broward deputies not to enter this school until a SWAT team arrived.

What can you tell us about that?

ISRAEL: I can't tell you anything about that. I haven't heard that. 
As I said, we feverishly are dissecting. It's a voluminous investigation. We're taking hundreds and hundreds of statements. And, right now, Jake, the focus of this agency is on the successful prosecution of the killer. 
So, we're doing that. Our detectives have worked tirelessly. We will investigate all aspects of this case. We will look at all the actions or inactions of every single deputy and leader on our agency, sergeants, lieutenants, captains. And we will make some decisions. 
But, right now, all I can tell you is, during the killing, there was -- while the killer was on campus with this horrific killing, there was one deputy, one armed person within proximity of that school. And that was Peterson. 
Everything else is fluid. And, as I said, we will get to the truth. But, right now, people could have conjecture, people could act on rumors, and people have -- you know, everybody has the right to their own opinion, but nobody has the right to their own set of facts. 

TAPPER: Have you listened to the...

ISRAEL: The facts will come out. 

TAPPER: Have you listened to the radio recordings?

ISRAEL: I'm not, but the investigators are, of course.

TAPPER: OK. But you haven't. You have not heard them, though?

(CROSSTALK) 
ISRAEL: No.

But what they're doing now is, they're marrying up the audio with the visual. And I was told that one of the -- one of Peterson's utterances on the radio, I think one or two times, he actually says shots fired. 
So, you would have to assume at that time every person who heard that transmission is pushing as fast as they can, code three, as we call it, to the school, to the school. Identify the threat. Neutralize the target. Take the killer out. 
There comes a point in time later that Peterson makes a transmission that would almost lead one to believe that he's talking about perimeters. 
So, if I know my school resource deputy is talking about perimeter positions, it's absolutely safe to assume, incorrectly, if that's what actually happened, it's absolutely safe to assume that, if a person there is talking about perimeter, that perhaps he sees the killer leaving, and -- and you're going to a perimeter position to catch the killer.
But I don't know what was in the mind of the other deputies. I don't know what was in the mind of Peterson. This is why we investigate. All I can tell you is that...

TAPPER: Right.

ISRAEL: ... from the time I heard about this, I did what needed to be done with former Deputy Peterson. 

TAPPER: But, Sheriff, the Thursday -- the day after the horrific incident, at a vigil, the city manager for Coral Springs confronted you in public.
And one of the things he confronted you about, sources tell me, is the idea that your deputies did not go into the school while children inside were bleeding out.

ISRAEL: That's absolutely untrue. 

We had a conversation. We were out in public. The only two people who could have heard the conversation were myself and the city manager. It was a conversation. I'm not going to share that conversation. It was very short. 
The city manager and I have spoken numerous times. We have met. He's a great city manager. He does a great job with Coral Springs. 

TAPPER: OK.

ISRAEL: We have got a great relationship. And it was just two guys having a conversation. 

TAPPER: One of the questions about the response by Broward is whether this was policy to set up a perimeter, instead of going in. 
Earlier this week, you seemed to suggest that your deputies are trained to arrive and not immediately go into the site of the shooting, but rather to create a staging area. 
Listen to yourself a few days ago talking about what you learned from the Fort Lauderdale Airport shooting 13 months ago. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ISRAEL: One of the key lessons we learned from the airport was the phenomenon of self-dispatching and not allowing deputies and police officers from all over the tri-county area to just arrive haphazardly.
And we had staging areas and people who came, went to a staging area. And they were inserted into the position in a commonsense way, and everybody had a job to do. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: See, that seems to -- that sounds to a lot of people like the opposite of what police forces learned after Columbine, which is, when you arrive, you don't wait; you run in.

(CROSSTALK)

ISRAEL: I'm glad you asked that question. 

Please note "Ingratiation Factor" here. The desire to show unity and a positive emotion often indicates the opposite.

Note he uses the interviewer's name:


Jake, you're completely talking apples and oranges. 


And I'm glad you brought that up. 


Note the repetition of the emotion. 


When we have a horrific incident of any magnitude, and the incident is over, and people are arriving to help, and we know we have five, 10, 12 hours of work to do, we have our deputies, police officers, firefighters go to staging areas, so we can insert them in a clear and concise manner into the scenario, into the event. 
An active shooter is completely different. As people were coming to the airport, we didn't have an active shooter. He was already in custody 72 seconds after the event. 


Note the present tense verb usage avoids commitment to the event:

This is an active shooter. We push to the entry, to the killer. We get in, and we take out the threat. Completely different set of circumstances. 



TAPPER: OK.

Sheriff, when did you find out that Deputy Peterson had not gone into the building? How soon after the shooting did you know that?

ISRAEL: Not for days. We -- our investigators looked...

Note the need to, as Sheriff, use the pronoun "we" rather than "I":  "We" were not asked this question.  Leaders use the pronoun "I" during contextual responsibility.

TAPPER: How many days?

ISRAEL: I'm not sure.

TAPPER: Because you spent much of the Wednesday night town hall on CNN, with the entire Stoneman Douglas community, students and teachers and parents, attacking the NRA, saying that police need more powers, more money to prevent future tragedies. 
You didn't disclose any of this to the crowd then, the Stoneman Douglas High School community. Did you know it then? Did you know it Wednesday night?

ISRAEL: It was spoken about during that -- earlier during that day. 
I'm not on a timeline for TV or any news show. We need to get it right. We need to get it accurate. We're talking about people's lives. We're talking about a community. We need to corroborate, we need to verify.
And once we did the next day, and I looked at the tape, and I was 100 percent certain that it happened the way I was told about the investigators initially told me -- told about, I didn't even release it right that second.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: You didn't look at the video? One week after the shooting, you hadn't looked at the video yet?

ISRAEL: I looked at the video as soon as our investigators -- it wasn't my job to look at the video. It was investigators' job to look at the video. 
I'm still sheriffing this county. There were many things to do. We have investigators, homicide investigators, internal affairs investigators dissecting it. And when they felt there was a video that -- ready for my view, that I might take action on one of our deputies, I looked at the video. 
And let me add this, Jake. Once I saw the video, the first order I gave was for our detectives to notify the families that the -- of the -- those lost, the families. Yesterday, today and tomorrow, the families come first. And I wanted to make sure the families knew what happened and what was about to happen before we released...

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: The families were at the CNN town hall, sir. Sir, the families were at the CNN town hall. And you could've disclosed to them...

ISRAEL: That's not the -- that's not -- I couldn't disclose it then, because there was no corroboration, Jake. There was no confirmation. 
We needed to dot I's and cross T's. And I certainly would not disclose it to a family at a town hall. Not every family was there. One of the families, one -- Mr. Pollack had gone to Washington, D.C.

TAPPER: All right.

ISRAEL: That's not the way you do things, over a news camera. You do it individually. You meet privately with families. You have compassion. You don't do it at a public forum. And we weren't ready to do it anyway.

TAPPER: Right. But your tone -- your tone at the public forum, sir -- your tone at the public forum was rather belligerent towards the NRA.
And you were talking about needing more police protection -- I mean, more police funding and more police powers, and yet you knew...

ISRAEL: That's not...

TAPPER: No, it's not -- that wasn't your tone?

ISRAEL: That's not true. Jake, that's not true at all. 
I wasn't belligerent towards the NRA. I took a passionate stance, as I always have, about commonsense gun reform and expanding police ability throughout our country when we come in contact with someone mentally ill to take them to a facility.

Context:  he told the cheering crowd that automatic rifle should be legal; something already illegal.

Note:  the number of calls that identified the suspect's mental health is likely to be very high.

TAPPER: OK.

ISRAEL: To take guns away from them.

There was no belligerence at all. And I completely disagree with you.


The blaming of an organization is noted.  The analyst seeks to learn why the need to blame an organization.

As the information has come out, almost daily, the need to divert blame becomes acute.


TAPPER: A medical -- let's talk about the response. 
A medical first-responder told local news station WSVN that medical personnel were asking to go into the school, but law enforcement wouldn't let them. He told WSVN -- quote -- "Everything I was trained on mass casualty events says they did the wrong thing. You don't want wait for the scene to be cleared. You go in immediately, armed, retrieve the victims. You can't leave the victims laying there."
What's your response to that, sir?

ISRAEL: I agree with that. That's very accurate. 
That is how -- this is what you do. 


Here, the specific event is, again, avoided via the use of the second person, "you."

He did not say, "that is what we did."

He continues with the hypothetical rather than the actions taken:


Once the killer leaves the scene of a mass casualty, it's still an active killer scene. There are people wounded, people that could -- lives could be saved. 

Here he introduces something important.  He says he is to be "allowed to introduce" something.  This makes the information sensitive.  Has there been any limitation placed upon him by the Interviewer to this point?  If not, why the need to state it as such?

Next note "unnecessary information" as not only elevated in importance, but in smaller context, it follows the avoidance of simply reporting what they did:

And let me say this. Coral springs police, Broward sheriff's deputies, we did carry people out there. These deputies and these -- and the Coral Springs police officers are credited with savings quite a few lives by getting people medical attention. So, we did. 

TAPPER: But did you prevent medical people from going inside? 


(this is a yes or no question:  he can simply say "no", and let it stand on its own, or he can follow it, if it needs strengthening:


ISRAEL: No. 

This is a strong response, but he does not let it stand on its own merit:


Once the scene -- once the scene is -- medical people wouldn't go inside until you're sure that they're not going to get killed inside. We have -- what we do is we tell...

a.  Note the use of passive voice which seeks to avoid responsibility
b.  Note the elevation of sensitivity in the repetition

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: But this person told WSVN -- this person told WSVN he wanted to go in, this medical personnel, emergency first-responder wanted to go in and wasn't allowed to.

Here we expect him to say "that is not true."  Instead he resorts to the element of "time", which gives insight into his personality:

This is an accomplished liar.


ISRAEL: Jake, I'm hearing that for the first time. If you know who the person is, please have him contact me or the Broward Sheriff's Office, and we will interview him, we will take statements from him.
And if that's true, that's certainly something we will look into, but I'm hearing this for the first time. 


This is a signal of a habitual liar.  The issue is contrary to protect and serve; the needless refusal to save lives.

His response is directed away from the assertion, and embraces the element of "time" rather than the truth.

He immediately diverts, introduces a new element (time) and without hesitation, offers himself as the "good guy", willing to help, even though he used the pronoun "we", suggesting, "call me and you will get someone else."

This is a "strong diversion" that comes with much successful practice.


TAPPER: OK. WSVN will get back to you, I'm sure. 
Let's talk about the missed red flags. We now know at least 18 calls were made to the Broward County Sheriff's Office related to the shooter prior to the shooting. Let's talk about them.
In February 2016, your office received a call that the shooter made a threat on Instagram to shoot up a school. One of your deputies responded and, according to your records released, the information was forwarded to Deputy Peterson at the school. 
What, if anything, was done with that information? 

What happens when one is caught?

Lying causes internal stress and it will, psychologically, cause the subject to immediately seek "comfort."

This comfort is often in the setting of being in a "crowd"; that is, somehow a small pawn in a large, full chess set, rather than chief.  This is why noting pronouns is critical:


ISRAEL: I'm not sure if anything was done with that information. 
I do know as far as notifying the person or notifying either Palm Beach Sheriff's Office or one of the local jurisdictions, depending on where the killer was living at the time.
But Peterson did, I think, report Cruz to DCF, if I'm not mistaken. He did get -- receive medicine. He did get medical treatment. And, as I said, of those 18 calls, two of those calls are being -- 16 of them, we believe, were handled exactly the way they should. Two of them, we're not sure if our deputies did everything they could have or should have. 

That's not to say they didn't. That's not to say they did. 


the latest count of 911 calls is in excess of 40.  



The focus upon number, and the words surrounding numbers, is noted, as is self censoring.

This is where untrained believe deception exists because it sounds awkward from one who speaks fluently or coherently.  It sounds awkward because it is not coming from experiential memory, or this memory is disrupted due to deception.


(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Which are the two that you're looking in to?

ISRAEL: One was the call from a woman in Massachusetts. And the other one escapes me right now. But we're looking into those two calls. 
We will absolutely find out what we did or what we didn't do and -- as I said in a press conference a few days ago, and we will handle that accordingly. 

Of the many personal and detailed calls, he moves (in language) to one very far, geographically, from the scene.  This is a need to psychologically distance himself, just as we see in plural pronoun use where singular is indicated, as well as in the employment of passive voice.

(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: One of them, in September 2016...
(CROSSTALK)

ISRAEL: But let's not -- but hold on one second, Jake. 

He is not on the same team as the Interviewer.  This is, via the pronoun "us" a signal of the need to be on the "good guy" team:  Ingratiation Factor

TAPPER: Yes.

ISRAEL: Let's not forget the whole crux of this is giving law enforcement, giving deputies, giving police officers, not only in Broward County, but in Florida and around the nation, expanded power to be able to do something more than just write a report. 
That's the whole reason I went on CNN for the town hall meeting. 

The analyst now understands an alternative motive for appearing on CNN town hall meeting exists in the subject's choice of wording. 

Note "expanded power" is not "only in Broward County" where he instituted the Obama era stand down policy on arresting minority males for violent crimes. 




(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: Sir, isn't making a threat against a school a crime?

ISRAEL: Not if the person doesn't have the ability to carry it out. 
You could say, a nonspecific threat, I'm going to go to a school. It's not a crime. We need it to be a crime, or at least we need to be able to say, if a person makes a nonspecific threat with -- what an assault is, is a threat, coupled with the apparent ability to carry it out. 
If the person doesn't have the apparent ability to carry it out, it's not a crime. 

Context:  this is a Sheriff who had a suspect kill 17 people in a school.



(CROSSTALK)


TAPPER: Well, in September 2016, the shooter indicated he wanted to buy a gun.
Deputy Peterson knew about that. He initiated the report. The school launched a threat assessment. At this point, you have somebody saying that they're going to shoot up a school and somebody with a gun. That's not enough? 

Scott Israel had, at the time of this interview, a lengthy list of the threats and the reported but non-adusticated crimes committed by killer.  Here he moves from the facts to a new topic: politics.

The need for diversion is acute and it is due to deception.  The killer should have been arrested many times.

Virtue Signaling is the unnecessary statement of morality.  That is it unnecessary is key to understanding it in analysis.

"I am against elder abuse."

Is there anyone advocating for the abuse of the elderly?

In an open statement, it  has proven consistently to be projection of guilt.

When a Hollywood actress goes to extreme over an inappropriate joke, or inappropriate language, we learn she enabled and protected a rapist.  This is why VS is important for analysis and for investigators.

It is a linguistic display of a  a man killing his wife, reporting her missing and showing up to "lead the search" for her. 

note how far off topic he is able to go and how he is presenting himself as the "good guy", indicating his awareness to the contrary:

ISRAEL: That's not enough. And that's what we're trying to change. 
We're trying to change the law, so we can either arrest that person, or, more importantly, get that person to a medical facility, because if you arrest the person, there's going to be a time where they get out of jail anyway. 
We want to get people medical help for mental illnesses, continual medical help. And then when they get out of the medical facility and a doctor says they're better, that doesn't mean they're better. That means they're rehabbing. 
We want to be able to take their guns away from them for a long, long period of time. And that's what the governor is going to be -- Governor Scott is going to be introducing his proposal. I have read it. And it's a giant, giant step in the right direction. And we're hoping that...


This is insight into his dominant personality traits and why "amazing leadership" was cited.



TAPPER: Well, Sheriff, how about this? How about this?

In November, the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office, not your office, but a neighboring office, responded to a call from a woman who had taken the shooter in and his brother after the death of their mother. She told police that the shooter had gotten into a physical fight with her son and threatened to go get his gun and come back. 
She also said he had used guns to threaten people before and had put a gun to others' heads in the past. That's a crime. Were you aware of that incident?

ISRAEL: No, I wasn't aware of that incident.
But putting a -- if a person had a gun put to their head, and they were the victim of that type of incident, that's an aggravated assault. That's an absolute felony. That is a crime.
And a person should be arrested for that. I don't know if the victim wanted to cooperate. I don't -- it was in Palm Beach County. I don't know the nuances and the specifics of the case. But that absolutely is a crime. 


TAPPER: On November 30, fewer than three months ago, your office received a call saying from a tipster explicitly saying that Cruz could be a -- quote -- "school shooter in the making."
According to notes released on that call, no report was even initiated. At this point, sir, do you understand how the public, seeing red flag after red flag after red flag, warning after warning after warning, they hear that your office didn't even initiate a report when they got a call saying that this guy could be a school shooter in the making? 
How could there not even be a report on this one?



(how many SA indicators can you spot in this next sentence? I have only highlighted a few with underlying:


ISRAEL: Well, if that's accurate, Jake, there needed to be a report. And that's what we're looking into, that a report needed to be completed, it needed to be forwarded to our either homeland security or violent crimes unit, and they would've followed up on it. 


(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: That's from your notes. That's from notes released by your office. I'm not making this up. This is from Broward...


(note what the IR stated in the negative as increased importance.  Note what it produced:  halting and self censoring.

It was a very sensitive question/statement which produced a very sensitive response:

ISRAEL: No. 
And that's -- and that's what -- that's -- the officer who handled that is on restrictive duty. And we are -- that's an active internal investigation. And we are looking in to it. 
I can't tell you -- I can't predict how an investigation is going, but we have -- I have exercised my due diligence. I have led this county proudly, as I always have. We have restricted that deputy as we look in to it. 
Deputies make mistakes. Police officers make mistakes. We all make mistakes. But it's not the responsibility of the general or the president, if you have a deserter. You look into this. We're looking into this aggressively. And we will take care of it, and justice will be served. 

He is not mentally unstable as some pundits have suggested. 
His words do not sure organic mental illness, such as one who cannot separate reality from fantasy.  

1.  Deputites make mistakes
2.  Police officers make mistakes 
3.  We make mistakes
4.  We all make mistakes 

Note the order. 

On a simple Employment Analysis, this subject would be deemed "very low in personal responsibility."  

This is not lost on the interviewer:  




TAPPER: Are you really not taking any responsibility for the multiple red flags that were brought to the attention of the Broward Sheriff's Office about this shooter before the incident, whether it was people near him, close to him calling the police...

(CROSSTALK)


ISRAEL: Jake, I can only -- Jake, I can only take responsibility for what I knew about. I exercised my due diligence. 
I have given amazing leadership to this agency.


TAPPER: Amazing leadership?


ISRAEL: I have worked -- yes, Jake. 
There's a lot of things we have done throughout this -- this is -- you don't measure a person's leadership by a deputy not going into a -- these deputies received the training they needed. They received the equipment.


Although a lengthy analysis would be needed:  This is a statement that indicates investigations into the Sheriff may show not only scandal, but criminal acts on his part, personally. He is not a "police officer" but one who is separate from law enforcement. This is very likely a self awareness of him being, as he said, "a lion" with others only "sheep."  He is aware of his status as a political leader.

He is not "insane" but very likely investigators are going to uncover many layers of corruption.

As the deputies begin to leak information to the media, whistle blowers (anonymous letter writers) may increase.



TAPPER: Maybe you measure somebody's leadership by whether or not they protect the community. 
In this case, you have listed 23 incidents before the shooting involving the shooter, and still nothing was done to keep guns out of his hands, to make sure that the school was protected, to make sure you were keeping an eye on him.

ISRAEL: Jake...

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Your deputy at the school failed.
I don't understand how you can sit there and claim amazing leadership.

ISRAEL: Jake, on 16 of those cases, our deputies did everything right. Our deputies have done amazing things. 
We have taken this -- in the five years I have been sheriff, we have taken the Broward Sheriff's Office to a new level. I have worked with some of the bravest people I have ever met. 
One person -- at this point, one person didn't do what he should have done. It's horrific. The victims here, the families, I pray for them every night. It makes me sick to my stomach that we had a deputy that didn't go in, because I know, if I was there, if I was on the wall, I would have been the first in, along with so many of the other people. 


It is important to note that at the time of the interview, Tapper did not know of how many calls where made, the stand down orders on minority male students, or the confirmation of the Attorney General's claim of deception from his office.



TAPPER: I think there are a lot of people, sir, who think that there are a lot of mistakes, other than that one deputy. 
But let me ask you something else. A lot of people in the community have noted that the Broward County School Board entered into an agreement when you were sheriff in 2013 to pursue the -- quote -- "least punitive means of discipline" against students. 
This new policy encouraged warnings, consultations with parents and programs on conflict resolution, instead of arresting students for crimes. 
Were there not incidents committed by the shooter as a student had this new policy not been in place that otherwise he would have been arrested for and not able to legally buy a gun? 


Here is the wording that indicates self awareness as a politician and not a "cop."  Law Enforcement professionals reading this will say "he is not a cop" the moment he blamed another for his orders, but it is found within his own wording and his own verbalized perception of his standing and his work that we find his belief system.

ISRAEL: What you're referring to is the PROMISE Program.
And it's giving the school -- the school has the ability under certain circumstances not to call the police, not to get the police involved on misdemeanor offenses and take care of it within the school. It's an excellent program. 
It's helping many, many people. What this program does is not put a person at 14, 15, 16 years old into the criminal justice system.

He has suspended the laws he was sworn to enforce.  His title is "law enforcement" while he addresses "we are trying to make laws" and here he cites what was later found to be:

stand down orders, even on violent crime, which has emboldened crime, put deputies at risk and put teachers in harms way.

This was a loss to society but a gain to politicians and school administrators who needed federal dollars.

Even the criminal, excused for his age, is not held accountable.

This leads to other questions including:

"Are there any other laws you suspend?"

"Are you the sole arbitrator of which laws should not be followed?"

"Without personal consequence, we have the increase of violence, how is the perpetrator "helped"?

There is a strong correlation between his "low personal responsibility" profile and the sacrifice of laws for personal gain,.

This is behind the statement above regarding finding criminal activities within Sheriff Scott Israel's political leadership.



TAPPER: What if he should be in the criminal justice system? What if he does something violent to a student? What if he takes bullets to school? What if he takes knives to schools? What if he threatens the lives of fellow students?

ISRAEL: Then he goes to jail. That's not applicable in the PROMISE Program.


TAPPER: That's not what happened. But that's not what happened with the shooter.

ISRAEL: If -- Jake, you're telling me that the shooter took knives to school or bullets to school, and police knew about it? 

TAPPER: I don't know if police knew about it. 

ISRAEL: No. Well, police...

TAPPER: I know that the agreement that you entered into with the school allowed the school to give this kid excuse after excuse after excuse, while, obviously...

ISRAEL: Not for bullets, not for bullets, not for guns, not for knives, not for felonies, not for anything like that. These are infractions within the school, small amounts of marijuana, some misdemeanors. 
You're absolutely exacerbating it. That's not...


(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: There are at teachers at the school had been told, if you see Cruz come on campus with a backpack, let me know. 
Does that not indicate that there is something seriously awry with the PROMISE Program if these teachers are being told, watch out for this kid, and you don't know about it? 



ISRAEL: We don't know that that has anything to do with the PROMISE Program. I didn't hear about this until after the fact. I have heard about this information about a week ago. I do know about it. I don't know who the teacher was. It hasn't been corroborated, but that has nothing to do with the PROMISE Program. 
I can't, nor can any other Broward sheriff's deputy, handle anything or act upon something you don't know about it. There's no malfeasance or misfeasance if you don't know about something. 



TAPPER: He asked a question at the town hall of you. So, you can find him if you want.
I have one last question for you, sir. Florida State Representative Bill Hager from Boca sent a letter to the governor of Florida, Rick Scott, yesterday asking him to remove you for negligence of duty and incompetence. 
Here's what he wrote -- quote -- "An investigation by Sheriff Israel into the unfathomable inaction of these deputies will do nothing to bring back the 17 victims. The sheriff was fully aware of the threat this individual presented to community and chose to ignore it."
What is your response? And will you resign?

ISRAEL:  It was a shameful -- of course I won't resign. It was a shameful letter. It was politically motivated.
I never met that man. He doesn't know anything about me. And the letter was full of misinformation. I wrote a letter back to the governor. I talked about all the mistakes that Hager in his letter. It was a shameful, politically motivated letter that had no facts.
And of course I won't resign. 

TAPPER: The last question, sir. Do you think that if the Broward Sheriff's Office had done things differently, this shooting might not have happened?

ISRAEL: Listen, ifs and buts and candy and nuts, O.J. Simpson would still be in the record books.


this caused pundits to question his sanity.  I find someone very skillful at manipulation and tangents.  This is a pathological liar.



TAPPER: I don't know what that means.

There's 17 dead people, and there's a whole long list of things your department could have been done differently.





Note the skill employed to move the conversation away from 17 dead in Florida, both topically and geographically:

ISRAEL: How could -- listen, that's what after-action reports are. That's for -- lessons-learned reports are for. 
We -- I have entered into conversation with Chuck Wexler of the Police Executive Research Forum. They will be coming to town to do an independent after-action lessons-learned report.
We understand everything wasn't done perfectly. And if it happened in Los Angeles or Chicago or any other city, every person wouldn't have perform perfectly. That's not what happens. 
Yes, if Scot Peterson went into -- do I believe in Scot Peterson went into that building, there was a chance he could have neutralized the killer and saved lives? Yes, I believe that.
But as far as anything else done at this point, I can't say that. 

TAPPER: Well, we hope you get to the bottom of it.


Here is a very powerful insight into his personality, found in one short statement worded as a question:

ISRAEL: And I might say it -- what is that?


Analysts should carefully consider the above question as providing deep insight into the experiences and priorities of the subject.

TAPPER: We hope you get to the bottom of it, sir. There are a lot of people wondering about a lot of questions.

ISRAEL: We will. We will. We will. We will.
And there's no timeline on it, other than to work as fast as we can. But we want to get it right. We want to get it accurate. When we come to the public, we want accurate information. And we're not going to push forward to meet the timeline of a show or a newscast. 

TAPPER: All right. I appreciate it.

ISRAEL: Thank you.

TAPPER: And our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Parkland and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. 
Thank you for being here and answering my questions, sir. 
ISRAEL: You bet. Thank you for having me on.


Analysis Conclusion:


Investigators, including the potential for federal investigators, are likely to find corruption, including criminal actives, within Scott Israel.

He shows a strong skillset at self promotion, a comfort with lying that is habitual or pathological, and a need to divert blame away that far exceeds the event of the shooting.

He is deceptive in his answers, but it is within this deception that we see the projected guilt in need of concealment that invites investigators to "come and see" what they will find.


This is guilt that far exceeds the failures to protect citizens from violent criminals. It is a covering of self that the subject indicates is unrelated to the Florida shooting.

The Florida shooting is the conduit into which investigative information will be found, and the subject is acutely aware of it at the time of the interview.

This is not someone protecting his job in the light of failure.

This is someone fighting for his life.

The motivation for the fight is corruption.

The Elite 

The subject sees himself as an "elite" in which the common rules of society do not apply, nor does he expect the common person to "get" him; that is, understand him.

This is where some claim "delusional" rather than acknowledging the ego driven narcissistic world view he holds.

When the rules do not apply to self, the criminal acts increase with time.  This is then highlighted by one under suspicion literally lecturing others on such things as ethics.  In analysis we often call it "sermonizing", and its degree of depth as well as contextual setting (unnecessary) speak to level of protected guilt.

The subject is then questioned as to the "outlandish" nature of accusing others, but often does not understand their own projection.  Those operating on "faux morality" (relativism) where the laws of society do not apply, show a desensitization process (via language) that will sometimes rival disassociation identity disorder descriptions.

Our subject's "obvious" is indication of such. What is "obvious" to him, he expects others to see where it is not only not accepted without question, but most unexpected.

26 comments:

Bayou belle said...

When a common layperson like myself can see that after watching Sheriff Israel on tv that he is a corrupt, insensitive , untruthful, egomaniac who should not even be in charge of a houseplant ....I seriously question the powers that be that put him in office and keep him there!!!!! Good grief!!Gut feeling domestic violence issues in his personal life....can’t imagine being his wife. Thanks for the analysis Peter...excellent.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFF ISRAEL (context-being questioned about Deputy Peterson not going in): "....And that's why I called him in and suspended him without pay, as we were going to move towards termination. And he resigned."

TAPPER: "Did he tell you why he didn't go in?"

ISRAEL: "He did not."

-What's missing from the conversation when Sheriff Israel "called him in and suspended him without pay"? It's found in the Interviewer's question and Sheriff Israel's answer. The Interviewer didn't ask why Deputy Peterson said he didn't go in; he asked if the Deputy had told the Sheriff why he didn't go in...leaving the Sheriff room to lie by omission. Sheriff Israel, seeing the crack in the question wiggled through it. Does anyone really believe that under normal circumstances, if a deputy refused to enter because there was a shooter, that the sheriff would not be demanding to know why (much less ask why)? Does anyone believe for one second that that question would not be asked? Does anyone believe that said deputy would be allowed to get away with "not telling" or not answering the question of why? Sheriff Israel is careful not to say that he asked/questioned Deputy Peterson why he didn't enter the building immediately. He's also careful to avoid the complete response "He did not tell me why.". I believe Sheriff Israel-Deputy Peterson did not tell Sheriff Israel why he did not enter the building immediately. Neither did Sheriff Israel ask because the sheriff had no need to; he already knew why. Given Sheriff Israel's very public scapegoating of Deputy Peterson, had the sheriff asked Deputy Peterson why he didn't enter the building immediately, the sheriff would have "shared" that moment on CNN because it would have made him look good as the authority figure.

Reading Peter's analysis, there's no doubt in my mind that Deputy Peterson's been made the fall guy and hung out to dry by Sheriff Israel. At the very least (and I do mean the very least), the sheriff's created a department in which officers are regularly expected to arbitrarily enforce laws, leaving the individual officer in no man's land- risking either his superior officer's ire, his personal safety (or that of others), or risking not being perceived as a team player (putting himself at risk of his fellow officer's not having his back). This sheriff is a dangerous kind of "law enforcement" officer. His responses should serve as a warning to those under him: the only back he has is his own and the rest of them may find themselves stabbed in theirs. There should never be a "them" and "me" mentality from a Sheriff or Chief of Police, when it comes to the people serving under their authority.

General P. Malaise said...


TAPPER: "Did he tell you why he didn't go in?"

ISRAEL: "He did not."


maybe Israel didn't ask him why because he knew why. the deputy may have been on orders not to go in. suspending him and allowing him to resign (I would like to know what kind of going away package he received) might have been to buy his silence.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

If 17 people weren't dead and hundreds traumatized, it would be almost comical to hear Sheriff Israel keep actively redirecting the Interviewer back to Deputy Peterson (12 times by name and 1 "the one person who..."). His desperation and overt attempts to control the interview (and the interviewer with his repeated "team-building" use of Jake's name on sensitive questions) are nearly palpable. The interviewer was having none of it, had done his homework well, and came prepared to do battle.

The attempts by Sheriff Israel to "disarm" the interviewer (calling him by name whenever the questions became too sensitive), denote the contempt the sheriff had for the interviewer. It was patronizing and foolish on his part, as it only further served to spur the interviewer on rather than dissuade him. It belies someone very practiced at manipulating, who assumes he'll be believed, and evidences a need to control people, the situation, and information. All of which are inconsistent with being "perfectly clear" and actually "investigating all aspects of this case".

Foolsfeedonfolly said...


TAPPER: This is after the fact.
But when did your deputies, not Peterson, but the others, when did they arrive on the scene, because Coral Springs sources say, when Coral Springs arrived, there were Broward deputies there in addition to Peterson.

ISRAEL: And I don't dispute that, but that is an active investigation. We have not taken statements yet from the Coral Springs officers.
We found out, I believe, five or six days ago from their police chief that he told one of our colonels about the -- about the information. We're going to be taking statements from those Coral Springs police officers.
Then we're going to be speaking with our deputies. If any deputies are alleged to have dereliction of duty, we will look into that. We don't know what the deputies heard on the radio. Coral Springs and the Broward Sheriff's Office, we have different radio systems.
So, we don't know what one was hearing vis-a-vis what the other was hearing. All I can tell you is, we will investigate every action of our deputies, of their supervisors. And if they did things right, we will move forward. And if they did things wrong, I will take care of business in a disciplinary matter, like I did with Peterson.
____________________________________________________________
The Sheriff's response here is extremely awkward and seems to indicate a very bad relationship with the Coral Springs police department, particularly between sheriff Israel and the Coral Springs police chief (lack of proper introduction and name of the police chief; marked absence of any camaraderie as fellow law enforcement officers or even familiarity). "We found out"- who is we? Followed by "the police chief (nameless) told one of our colonels about the information...", clearly the Sheriff and the police chief aren't even on professional courtesy terms, with the police chief initiating contact with someone of lesser rank on a major matter. Note the Sheriff's "whitewashing"- the very serious allegation is reduced to "the information". I doubt any parent of a victim or the coach's family find it "information". Sheriff Israel did not want to talk about those allegations.

Hey Jude said...

Thanks for the analysis, Peter.

---

I got that he was avoiding saying a lot, shifting responsibility, and probably lying about his 'conversation' with the city manager.
——


Israel: “Well, let be perfectly clear”
Sheriff Israel goes on to not be perfectly clear in answering the question about his three deputies not going into the school - he avoids identifying them as his own deputies, just ‘other deputies’. He gives out that there were more than three deputies who did not go in, possibly five. He says “we have no reason to believe anyone acted incorrectly *or* correctly. That’s what an investigation is.” - yet he also suggests that they did, rather than did not do, something, “perhaps they did something by what they heard from Peterson” - that leaves open the possibility that what they ‘heard’ could differ from what Scot Peterson said. If they stayed outside, they did not do something so much as not: the Sheriff makes it sound as if the deputies did actually do something rather than choose, or take instruction, to not do something - go in.

He breaks off from what he was going to say regarding what Peterson uttered: “We do know, Jake, that Deputy Peterson at the time uttered - he disseminated information over the radio.”
Again, he breaks off, and changes course, “We don’t know why those deputies - what those deputies heard.” Sheriff Israel avoids saying what he knows was uttered by Peterson, and instead of continuing with the why of “why those deputies…” didn’t go in, shifts attention to what they heard from the (disgraced) Peterson as the possible reason. It is an attempt to shift responsibility or accountability to the deputy who resigned and was dismissed.

On the question of whether there was a stand-down order there is a long tangential discourse, leading again to Peterson as “the one armed person within proximity of that school”.

“Everything else is fluid.” Astonishing that the question of whether there was a stand down-order is ‘fluid’ - along with everything excepting Peterson’s dereliction of duty. If that is so, one might reasonably question if Deputy Peterson was under a stand-down order, or some type of prior instruction to not confront an active shooter.

On the ‘conversation’ between Sheriff Israel and the city manager for Coral Springs, Israel obfuscates - it is not immediately clear what he is addressing, “the idea that your deputies did not go into the school while children inside were bleeding out” or that he was confronted.

“That’s absolutely untrue.
We had a conversation….I’m not going to share that conversation. It was very short….He’s a great city manager. He does a great job with Coral Springs”

Tapper: Okay

Yet he persists: “We have a great relationship. And it was just two guys having a conversation.”

It seems expected, in saying,“That’s absolutely untrue”, that he would be addressing the claim his deputies did not go into the school - or maybe both claims at the same time. Not so, he wants rather to impress upon the interviewer and audience that he had a ‘conversation’ with the city manager, that he was not confronted, and what a great city manager and great job he does, and even how they have a great relationship - “And it was just two guys having a conversation.” It is as if to suggest that because they have ‘a great relationship’ and were ‘just two guys having a conversation’ that such a loaded question could not have been put to him by the great city manager, whose name he does not mention. He does not actually say the question was not put to him by the city manager. It became evident to him that only the city manager could have been the source, yet he still says there was no ‘confrontation’, and he speaks in a very ingratiating manner, as if to appeal to the city manager, who might be listening/watching. As he doesn’t deny it, it is quite likely that he was asked that question by the city manager, with whom he might not have so great of a relationship as he claims.

Continued

Hey Jude said...

From that, one might take that the sheriff is not above misrepresenting others and trying to railroad them into agreeing with his version of events.

Tapper:….Did you know it then? Did you know it Wednesday night?

Israel: It was spoken about during that - earlier during that day. I’m not on a timeline for TV or any news show. We need to get it right. We need to get it accurate….

“it was spoken about” is a passive response - he avoids saying that he had spoken about it earlier in the same day he appeared on CNN, blaming the NRA, and saying that the police needed more powers and resources. He says he’s not on a timeline for TV - that which is spoken in the negative increases it's significance - he no doubt was on a timeline for what he would say on CNN - in the circumstances, it is very unlikely that what he would and would not say had been considered more than a little.

Israel: I looked at the video as soon as our investigators - it wasn’t my job to look at the video.

Again, he doesn’t continue with what he began to say - it’s likely he saw the video before he appeared on CNN.

—-

“There’s no malfeasance or misfeasance if you don’t know about something.”

Is that the mission statement of the PROMISE program?


——
“Listen, if and buts and candy and nuts, OJ Simpson would still be in the record books.” -

I don’t know what that means except it is inappropriate and trivialising, with total avoidance of the question.

Hey Jude said...

correction - '...it is very *likely that what he would and would not say had been considered more than a little.'

___

What does it mean when someone in authority says something so astoundingly 'wrong', unprofessional, out of place and unexpected, as that 'if and buts and candy and nuts' line?

ima.grandma said...

Politicians often seek to exploit the highly persuasive power of metaphors.  It is ultra disrespectful to respond to criticism with an attempt at a humorous retort to be used as an escape clause. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, then we’d never go hungry. Excuses and reasons for exercising bad judgement are cheap and plentiful. 

His comment is similar to his previous egregious response to complaints:

 "Lions Don't Care About the Opinions of Sheep"

It has a much more predatory and superiority meaning. The meaning behind the quote is that he's not threatened by his prey or those beneath him on the food chain, no matter how many their numbers are: because he is superior and will master them.  He has underestimated the inquiring sheep's desire for the truth. 

...bringing to mind the old joke:
Democracy = two lions and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Liberty = two lions and a a well-armed sheep...

Hey Jude said...

Thsnks, Ima - I don't know 'if ifs and buts were candy and nuts' - I just knew it sounded very wrong in that context.

ima.grandma said...

Jude, I don't think that's how he meant it; that's my interpretation from the phrase's origination. I think he probably referred to it from the time a football commentator broadcasting with Howard Cosell in the early 70's said it . As to why he said it and how he expected to benefit from it. Simple summary of my thoughts are: He's a belligerent asshole. Period. I also think of his wife's existence under tyrannical rule.

New England Water Blog said...

Is this teen lying about her affair with the sheriff?

http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/sheriff-scott-israel-accused-of-affair-with-17-year-old-girl

Anonymous said...

It's simple: They've opted for policy to prevent their officers from ever being held accountable and rely, instead, on the Baker Act for all intervention.

Is there really a law that prevents them from doing their jobs? Really?!!!!!

It is for that very reason other police officers tormented one of their own state troopers-Donna Watts-when she denied orders and chased down a speeding police officer that was doing in excess of 100 mph, weaving in and out of traffic, endangering the lives of many civilians. For her fine service she was terrorized in return as she didn't conform to the status quo.The officers even went so far as to dump human feces on other state troopers vehicles as if it was a gang war. Truly disgusting behavior.

They merely hope they can pay off media with enough tall tales that their transgressions will be overlooked.

Bobcat said...

What do you find within his answers?

A person in a position of responsibility who refuses to accept responsibility.


how many SA indicators can you spot in this next sentence? I have only highlighted a few with underlying:

Q:At this point, sir, do you understand how the public, seeing red flag after red flag after red flag, warning after warning after warning, they hear that your office didn't even initiate a report when they got a call saying that this guy could be a school shooter in the making? How could there not even be a report on this one?

A: ISRAEL: Well, if that's accurate, Jake, there needed to be a report. [ ] And that's what we're looking into, that a report needed to be completed, it needed to be forwarded to our either homeland security or violent crimes unit, and they would've followed up on it.


1) He doesn't answer the questions posed, making them sensitive.
2) Repetition of "report" and "needed to be"
3) Missing information between “there needed to be a report” and “And...”
4) “We’re” looking into. – A true leader would own this failure with strong “I” language. Here he hides.

He refuses to answer the questions posed, taking no responsibility for the failures. He only states that “we” are looking into how procedures “needed to be” and “would have” been done. He does not address or take leadership or ownership for the failures of his office. At this point, he should know where the failure(s) were and be reassuring the public that steps have been taken to remedy them, and owning the tragedy.

Bobcat said...

The refusal to accept responsibility is strong in Indianapolis as well. See Kevin Murray and John Layton.

https://www.indianapolismonthly.com/news-opinion/marion-county-jail-intake-facility-bad-rap/

http://fox59.com/2017/08/14/marion-county-sheriffs-office-to-stop-providing-important-services-to-local-police-close-apc/

http://fox59.com/2017/10/09/mayors-office-calls-for-audit-of-marion-county-sheriffs-office/

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger Bobcat said...
What do you find within his answers?

Bobcat I agree the word "needed" is super sensitive, I would guess he is involved in the lack of a report.

A: ISRAEL: Well, if that's accurate, Jake, there needed to be a report. [ ] And that's what we're looking into, that a report needed to be completed, it needed to be forwarded to our either homeland security or violent crimes unit, and they would've followed up on it.

a) "well" slowing down the pace to give himself time to think.

b) "if that's accurate" distancing from the question, subtle attempt to insinuate that it may not be true that there were warnings.

c) "Jake" trying to be familiar while being both chiding and insincere. as well as slowing the pace as the question has has rattled him.

d) "there needed to be a report" passive language often associated with concealing identity or responsibility. (I go with both in this case).

e) "And that's what we're looking into," sentence starting with "and" indicating missing information between "and" and previous sentence.

f) "And that's what we're looking into," the question was directed at him and he should have the knowledge (since he is in the responsible position) to answer with "I" yet he hides behind "we".

g) "And that's what we're looking into," passive language.

h) "we're looking into, that a report needed to be completed," diversion tactic, the question was why is there no report, sheriff answers with only looking into "that a report needed to be completed". not if there is one or even should be one. but putting the question "did it need a report?"

i) "it needed to be forwarded to our either homeland security or violent crimes unit," this seems a bit incongruent as the previous sentence was looking into whether it needed a report and now the report which isn't defined as needed, needs to be forwarded.

j) "it needed to be forwarded to our either homeland security or violent crimes unit" "to our" "..our" is out of place. "either" is out of place. he is under high stress. very sensitive material and he is stumbling at trying to make it congruent when he knows it isn't. did he mean "either our violent crimes unit or homeland security"? most people would understand his department should have handled it and notified homeland security. he knows that. if homeland security was given the notice they would have contacted the local LE to have their input and possible asked them to follow up on it.

k) " and they would've followed up on it." like I said above. it was his responsibility to do the reporting and follow up. he is shirking responsibility on all counts. he is a failure at professional responsibility.

CONCLUSION: almost every word screams sensitivity. the complete denial of responsibility indicates he is hiding information. I would not be surprised to learn he is actively involved in hiding or burying the report or he is the main reason no report was made. days after the incident this should have been completed.


ima.grandma said...

We found out, I believe, five or six days ago from their police chief that he told one of our colonels about the -- about the information. We're going to be taking statements from those Coral Springs police officers.Then we're going to be speaking with our deputies. If any deputies are (alleged) to have dereliction of duty, we will look into that. We don't know what the deputies heard on the radio. Coral Springs and the Broward Sheriff's Office, we have different radio systems. So, we don't know what one was hearing vis-a-vis what the other was hearing. All I can tell you is, we will investigate every action of our deputies, of their supervisors.  And if they did things right, we will move forward. And if they did things wrong, I will take care of business in a disciplinary matter, like I did with Peterson.

Although "we":
Found out
Are going to be taking statements
Are going to be speaking
Will look into that
Don't know
Have different radio systems
Don't know
Will investigate
Will move forward

"I will take care of business in a disciplinary matter, like I did with Peterson."

Israel  changes the "we" which dominates his prefaced statements to "I" when he then glorifies his authority taking ownership.  

Bobcat said...

OT: Regarding all of the church "leaders" that surrounded Amanda Blackburn. For all his jabbering about leadership and leading a family and leading leadership this leadership that ... Davey has avoided taking responsibility for leaving an unlocked door on the morning of 11/10/15. Or anything else that was done or neglected to be done to Amanda. His "leadership" is incongruous. He gathers followers, but he is not worthy of following. He is a false leader.

Anonymous said...

Colonel Nathan Jessup owned his leadership.

Anonymous said...

Can you analyze the 911 call that Adam Shacknai made when he found Rebecca Zahau’s body and also the 911 call her sister Xena made when they found Max Shacknai’s body? I don’t know if the 911 call about Max is available (I only saw one sentence of it ‘don’t open the door’j but Adam’s 911 call is on YouTube.

Thanks.

Habundia Awareness said...

“and he never did anything for four minutes”

“A group of Coral Springs officers went in within, I think, about four minutes”

So it was of no ‘big deal’ that those officers went in ‘within/about’ 4 minutes, but when Peterson was waiting for 4 minutes he got suspended because of “dereliction of duty”?

“Our investigation to this point shows”

“At this point, we have no reason to believe that any one acted incorrectly or correctly. That's what an investigation is.”

So why was Peterson then put on inactive immediately? If the investigation was still active and there was ‘no reason to believe that any one acted incorrectly or correctly’? Isn’t that the same as a suspect who’s being handled as a perpetrator, while not being convicted yet because investigation is still active?

So after five or six days he (the Sheriff) still knows NOTHING (except that Peterson was the only one there) , he only saw a video that was made ‘ready for him to view’

Although Coral Springs police has said there were 3 other officers behind cars, yet after five or six days they had not yet taken statements of those officers. ‘Then we are going to be speaking with our deputies’. So without a closed investigation only one person was already thrown under the buss (Peterson)

It would be interesting to look into the relationship these two had, I bet it wasn’t a good one.

“All I can tell you is, we will investigate every action of our deputies, of their supervisors. And if they did things right, we will move forward. And if they did things wrong, I will take care of business in a disciplinary matter, like I did with Peterson.”

Here it shows how he himself is not being investigated for his contribution to the whole case, as being the Sherriff and failed in doing what he should have done. For instance at least having knowledge of this case.

After five or six days he knows nothing about this case.
“We're taking hundreds and hundreds of statements.”

Yet 5/6 days along they haven’t taken any statement of his own team and those of Coral Springs officers……..so who did they yet spoke with for getting statements when they are taking ‘hundreds and hundreds’ of statements?

“everybody has the right to their own opinion, but nobody has the right to their own set of facts” (used twice within this interview)
Though he is entitled to ‘have the right to his own set of facts’? Dismiss a colleague while facts are not yet known to the fullest (active investigation)

“Have you listened to the radio recordings?”

“I'm not, but the investigators are, of course”

“So, if I know my school resource deputy is talking about perimeter positions, it's absolutely safe to assume, incorrectly, if that's what actually happened, it's absolutely safe to assume that, if a person there is talking about perimeter, that perhaps he sees the killer leaving, and -- and you're going to a perimeter position to catch the killer.”

It’s absolutely safe to assume (twice)……that ‘perhaps’ he sees the killer leaving……so how can something be ‘absolutely safe to assume’ that ‘perhaps’ the person sees the killer leaving? Then you wouldn’t be able to ‘absolutely assume’ anything I would think if something is ‘perhaps’ happening/going on/seen.

Continued

Habundia Awareness said...

As been said by others…….the Sheriff never asked Peterson his reason for not acting. (I would think it would be normal for an officer to not rush into a scene he doesn’t have any knowledge over even if this means people will get hurt by it….it would be of nobody’s benefit if an officer was killed because he ran in the scene like a headless chicken would it?……if an officer is running into a scene he has no knowledge of on his own wouldn’t that be ignorant? Unsafe and dangerous for everyone involved? Wouldn’t it be the norm to wait for backup even if that means delay of action? Officers are hired to ‘protect and safe’…….not to be killed on duty by acting like morons and rush into a scene with no knowledge. Being killed while trying to safe victims doesn’t seem like a good tactic to catch a killer. Although if there were 3, 4 or 5 officers at the scene (like Coral Spring officers said) then it would be ‘dereliction of duty’ and would not only be a ‘Peterson problem’.

“An active shooter is completely different. As people were coming to the airport, we didn't have an active shooter. He was already in custody 72 seconds after the event.”

So who exactly took the ‘active’ shooter into custody 72 seconds after the event? Wasn’t that done by someone who had this duty? Or did some passenger took him into custody?

When was Peterson send away without payment? If the sheriff didn’t know ‘for days’ what had happened? Was he send away before or after he had found out Peterson had not gone into the building?

Wednesday night the sheriff was talking with CNN, the next day he looked at the tape so that would have been a Thursday. Yet Peterson was already ‘no longer with this agency’

“I'm still sheriffing this county. There were many things to do.”

I get that a job like that isn’t just handling one case, but at that time would there have been anything that would have been of more importance then the death of 17 people by one shooter? I would think a sheriff would want to know everything that he could know about this case (especially when he’s going out in the public talking about it)

“I wasn't belligerent towards the NRA. I took a passionate stance, as I always have, about commonsense gun reform and expanding police ability throughout our country when we come in contact with someone mentally ill to take them to a facility.”

He wanted ‘expanding police ability’ (what does that mean to him?)
More officers? More weapons? Less rules on how to act/react? Yet before the ‘still active investigation’ is ongoing he puts one of the officers of duty (who then resigns); I really wonder what Peterson himself has to say about this. It’s like the sheriff wants to look like Peterson took ownership of his failure by resigning……but was this the real reason? Or could it be that he maybe resigned for different reasons, when he was ‘send home without payment’, and maybe decided he not wanted to work any longer at this agency because he wasn’t treated in the right way (found guilty before investigation was finished). Also how would he have known that the shooter was ‘someone mentally ill’? At that point he only had seen a video ‘when they ‘felt’ there was a video that – ‘ready for me to view’
Could that video have been edited? Where did this video come from? Security cams from the school? Body-cams from the officers? What exactly was shown on the video?

Continued

Habundia Awareness said...

“Once he saw the video, his first order was….”
Yet he ‘couldn’t disclose it to the families, because there was no corroboration”

So why was that order then submitted? If there wasn’t corroboration yet, what made him then decide to ‘first order’ detectives to notify the families?

“Note: the number of calls that identified the suspect's mental health is likely to be very high.“

Wasn’t he not yet aware of all the calls that were made at the time he did this interview? You said 40……..he was talking about 18 and he already had acknowledged he didn’t know any real facts at the time of that interview so he could have only been assuming the killer had mental health problems, as he didn’t seem aware of what actually was said in those calls, only that ‘we believe’ were handled exactly the way they should, except for 2, which were still in investigation modus, like all the rest. (although I think anyone who starts using a gun has some mental problems anyways), but the kind of mental health problems that is referred to by this sheriff seems like a different kind, the kind that can be diagnosed by a licensed professional, not by some sheriff who doesn’t even have a clue about what exactly is going on in a mass shooting in his district more than a week after the fact!

“To take guns away from them.”

As if those who are not a loud to have guns, can’t get access to a gun to use it for a crime? As if that doesn’t happen!

“Once the killer leaves the scene of a mass casualty, it's still an active killer scene.”

Didn’t he say before that at the Airport shooting the shooter was in custody 72 seconds after the event that it wasn’t any longer an active killer scene because the killer had been in custody? And how can a killer leave a scene if he agrees on ‘you go in immediately, armed, retrieve the victims’? A killer leaving a scene to my opinion is to say the killer is on the loose, on the run, got away without being arrested. If being arrested he couldn’t have left the scene, then he would have been taken from the scene, in custody.
Was it because no one got in the killer could leave the scene there it was said that the video had shown the killer had left the scene after the shooting.

“and the Coral Springs police officers are credited with savings quite a few lives by getting people medical attention”

Was this because they got in first and didn’t wait until there was certainty about the situation (which seems like that was what Broward’s deputies did, as they were taught to do, with the ‘stand down’ order)

“I'm hearing that for the first time”

Again this shows how little he’s aware of anything relating to this case, more than a week later (not sure how long after the shooting this interview was done)

Continued

Habundia Awareness said...

“I'm not sure if anything was done with that information”

Again he knows nothing! Then he knows he ‘receive medicine’ so how did he get that information if he knows nothing else except for that one thing?

The woman who called from Massachusetts (which he wants us to believe was to far that one from there couldn’t know more than his office could know being on the scene, or going to the scene), while it could be a good possibility that someone within the school had contacted this woman to tell what was happening, for her to contact the authorities? Maybe someone was thinking they would die and called a loved one or something?

“I said in a press conference a few days ago”

Was this the CNN appearance? Or another setting? Was this before or after CNN if it wasn’t CNN? And what did he said on that press conference? Had he already spoken individually with the families of those who were shot during the shooting? Though he said he only appeared on CNN to talk about ‘commonsense gun reform and expanding police ability throughout our country when we come in contact with someone mentally ill to take them to a facility and legalize automatic rifles’ and do more than just write a report.

Is it really that they can do nothing else then ‘just write a report’? Or was it they could have done quite more then only write a report and let it sit in the computer (which other agencies have no access to I assume?) What about informing as many people possible of the particular person, so maybe if indeed this person does something anywhere it will be in the awareness of others to maybe do something more when it is possible to do more. But I guess arrogance makes doing this difficult.

“Sir, isn't making a threat against a school a crime?”

“Not if the person doesn't have the ability to carry it out.”

Really? And exactly when is it decided that someone has the ‘apparent ability to carry it out’? At which point is decided that someone who is making a threat against a school doesn’t has the apparent ability to carry it out………if you don’t look into the person who has made the threat? Was it when he learned ‘medicine’ and medical treatment was given that the person didn’t had ‘the apparent ability to carry it out’? Or was it when was reported to DCF (maybe). So again exactly when it was determined he hadn’t that ability? (guess he’s still sheriffing the county….there are many other things to do..….instead of doing what he is paid for)

“We need it to be a crime”

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/10/oi/6700-threat-to-commit-crime.pdf

I am not sure if the same ruling counts for the area this took place, but based on this document I would say that threat made by that person is a crime and therefore could have been handled as a crime! So this person would have known he was watched to see if he was or wasn’t indeed able to carry out his threat, instead of assuming he was ‘just making a nonspecific threat’……..didn’t he include the school’s name in his threat?

“ I don't know the nuances and the specifics of the case.”

He doesn’t seem to have any ‘nuances or specifics of any case’ that he was asked about and interviewed over, except that Governor Scott is going to introduce his proposal!

“Jake, I can only -- Jake, I can only take responsibility for what I knew about.”

If he knows nothing about any case……..I then understand why he doesn’t take any responsibility and hide behind the ‘Broward Sheriff’s Office’ (we) as long he doesn’t know anything, he sees no reason to take responsibility, he doesn’t take responsibility either for the fact he didn’t know anything about all of this that led to this tragedy.

Habundia Awareness said...

Is this teen lying about her affair with the sheriff?

http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/sheriff-scott-israel-accused-of-affair-with-17-year-old-girl

It would be interesting to know when exactly those vids have been recorded, where they published in chronical order?

Vid 1 (published October 26th, 2012)
Hey Scott, you never told me you were a police men and as for Susan, 20 years of marriage? I thought it was only 15, yah, so I guess you didn’t include that in our 6 months little relationship, we’ve been having (laughs) but of course that’s between you and me and let’s hope no one, including your triplets see this video. Have a nice night.

Vid 2; take 2 (published October 28, 2012)
Hi Scott, so you already know I had to have an abortion, because you have a wife and 3 kids. Really Scott a wife of 20 years? Susan of whatever her name is. Triplets? I mean like is, is this for real? Like you know I was only 17 when this had to happen, so, honestly, like I just can’t believe this!

Vid 3; take 3 (published October 28, 2012)
Hi Scott, it’s me again………you know that at 17, because of you I had to have an abortion. And now I am finding out you have 3 kids and a kid from another marriage and a wife of 20 years and you’re happily married. Like are you serious? Do…..do you really think I am stupid? I mean, we’ve been, you know, working together for quite a while and I am just finding this out now. I am pretty taken back, you know, especially for a former police men, like Susan must be really happy with you. She must be so thrilled that you’re having an affair, with a 17 year old girl, who you got pregnant and had to have an abortion. Tsj…..yeah I am sure she will be very happy about that one, well good luck.

Two of the vids have been uploaded on the same day and looking at her outfit, and the place she's shooting the vid, it seem like both are recorded on the same day, around the same time. Yet the first vid was uploaded two days prior and seem to have been shot another day (clothing and position)

She tells us she 'thought it was only 15 years'........while at the last vid she's telling she didn't even know he was married....it can't be both true, can it?

Then she blames him for her to have had an abortion.......wasn't she present herself when she decided to have unprotected sex with him? A 17 year old woman should know better if she doesn't want to get pregnant to protect themselves from becomming pregnant......if you chose to not protect yourself and eventually get pregnant........it's yourself you need to blame.

As a woman myself it makes me furious when i hear woman blaming men for them to become pregnant........it's women's own responsibility to protect themselves of becomming pregnant. So if a women does get pregnant after having unprotected sex with a men (its a different story if they did use protection and for example the condom got broken somehow or slipped of somehow with a pregnancy as a result)......when a woman doesn't want to get pregnant and doesnt have the intention to become a single mom who wants to raise her child on her own, she is considered 'stupid' to my opinion if she doesn't take responsibility for not becoming pregnant.





TCM said...

HA,

She looks familiar.