267: Issues and Conflicts Facing Our Nation’s Border Patrol Agents and Law Enforcement Officials with Andy Ramirez

Welcome to the Heroic Investing Show. As first responders, we risk our lives every day. Our financial security is under attack. Our pensions are in a state of emergency. A single on duty incident can alter or erase our earning potential instantly and forever. We are the heroes of society. We are self reliant and we need to take care of our own financial future. The the Heroic Investing show is our toolkit of business and investing tactics on our mission to financial freedom.

Welcome to the Heroic Investing show where we talk about financial strategies for first responders. You guys are risking your life out there every day and we want to make sure that you have a good retirement and a good financial plan. That's what the Heroic Investing show is all about. So we've got a great show for you today and we will be back with our guest in just a moment.

What's great about the shows you'll find on jasonhartman.com is that if you want to learn about investing in and managing income properties for college students, there's a show for that. If you want to learn how to get noticed online and in social media, there's a show for that. If you want to know how to save on life's largest expense, there's a show for that. And if you'd like to know about America's crime of the century, there's even a show for that. Yep, there's a show for just about anything only from jasonhartman.com or type in Jason Hartman in the iTunes store.

My pleasure to welcome Andy Ramirez to the show. He heads up a group called law Enforcement Officers Advocates Council and he has spoken widely on border security issues, homeland security issues and border patrol agents who have really been, you know, I guess I'll call them collateral damage in someone's political ambitions or in part of free trade agreements and who the heck knows the powers that be out there. But police officers have so much more liability nowadays than probably ever before. And we're going to talk about two famous cases or infamous cases, if you will, and just get Andy's insights on what you can do as a first responder to protect yourself from liability that may ensue on an arrest so that you don't become part of someone's political motivations and suffer the consequences of these outside forces. So, Andy, welcome. How are you?

Thank you. And also thank you for having me back on the program. I'm most appreciative. It's extraordinary to deal with these types of situations with law enforcement. You know, they have an expression that I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six. But in today's political climate, given some of the things that are taking place among law enforcement officers and the political ramifications that are coming from some of these trade policies and how we're offering up scalps to foreign governments, primarily the Mexican government, that longstanding metaphor has really changed its meaning, because now they can just as easily face that judge by 12. That doesn't mean that they're going to get a fair trial, because I've seen cases where officers, their counsels are afraid to submit certain motions or they're afraid to contest certain statements in the court because they don't want to get the judge angry. So these officers, they have to go through the process, and now they're just as likely to be guilty, though the documentation and evidence shows them to be innocent of any criminal wrongdoing or any negligence or other type of action which would result in a termination. And it's just such a shameful tragedy that's unfolding. How many kids grew up saying, I want to be a policeman. I want to be a fireman. And it's always been, for the most part, an honorable profession. I mean, there's always good and bad in every occupation. But what we've seen is the Justice Department and the government taking away from that and using them as scalps for policy. And it's something we would expect from other governments, certainly not in the United States. But sadly, that's what it is today in the year 2011.

Yeah, it really is. So there were, I guess, two cases that you were involved in of police officers who suffered because of the extrinsic motivations of the political climate. Talk those cases, if you would, and kind of start us from the very beginning. What happened and then what ensued?

Well, for me, my first case was a federal case. But as I followed the federal case, and just to cite that so people understand where I'm coming from, my first case was Ramos and Compian, the two Border patrol agents from El Paso who were prosecuted for shooting an illegal alien drug smuggler who, you know, may have been turned facing the agents with something shiny in his hand that could have been a gun. Well, as I worked that case, I started to follow a path and saw a series of other cases which included more federal law enforcement, but also one local deputy sheriff in the same, I guess you could say, U.S. attorney's jurisdiction, as well as a case that went back to 1995. This would be the first case of them. And this was a canine handler in Prince George's County, Maryland. Most people think that these cases are primarily southwest border, US, Mexico border types of cases, but that's not been the situation. The first one was in Maryland, and it involved a K9 officer named Stephanie Kristen Moore. She had been a canine dog handler for a number of years. And what happened was there were these. These two aliens. Their names were Jorge Cruz and Ricardo Mendez. And. And they were burglary suspects who were spotted on a rooftop. This was after hours. This wasn't during hours. They weren't attempting to, you know, they weren't cleaning anything or anything at all. They were burglary suspects. And this was an area that there was a lot of these types of issues where a lot of calls were going out. So as the officers approached them, this individual, Mendez, made a run for it. And so Officer Moore released her dog, his name is Valk, to stop the suspect, as she'd been taught. And it's funny because, you know, things that continues to come up in all these cases are training, training, training. These officers, law enforcement at the local, state and federal level, they go through repeated training, situational training, and it starts at the academy, and it continues long after they're in the field. So this illegal aliens tried to make their run for it. The officer Moore let her dog go after him and tracked him and caught him. He engaged in the bite, per instructions, and she was then prosecuted. Now, what they did was this is the US Attorney's office in Maryland. They began the prosecution and they got an 11 to 1 verdict. But they used the one, the one was for guilty, 11 for acquittal, and they then decided to prosecute. Again, the government prosecute Officer Moore. This time they introduced civil rights charges in this deprivation of civil rights. Now at that point, it became a complete media circus. The governments involved were from Mexico and also from El Salvador. They brought these individuals back. One was from the one that was south of the border, the other that was incarcerated here. They brought them back to testify against Officer Moore and they got a civil rights conviction. She has served 10 years for a dog bite. She didn't shoot anybody. She didn't beat anybody. She didn't. And I say that indicative of the Rodney King incident, you know, the infamous videos. Nothing like that at all. This was a dog bite. She's been separated from her son, who was 4 years old at the time, is now 14 years old, 10 years in federal prison.

Just unbelievable. That's crazy. Now this was a border Patrol agent though, right?

No, this was a policewoman. This is police in Prince George's County. Maryland. So this would be, you know, in Beltway area.

Unbelievable. Okay, so tell us about some other cases with non border type issues. Just regular cops and what they're facing and what liabilities they have. Because it seems as though this movement toward all the video cameras, which video cameras, they're better than nothing. And a lot of times they help with convictions and they help with cases. And I'd say overall they're a good thing. But it seems as though what's happening now is that these departments are trying to separate and actually reduce their own liability to civil rights lawsuits and so forth and maybe shovel some of this liability off on the officers themselves. Would you agree with that assessment?

Well, I absolutely would because this happens on all levels. Feds as well as through local law enforcement report the same thing. That in essence what you have is a system that has handcuffed them, that has made them fearful of liability, that has made them engage in that hesitation. And you know, there's long been, it's well known that hesitation kills in law enforcement. You can't afford to think, you can't afford to hesitate. Again, like I said earlier in the interview, you have to go back to your training. It's all about your training. And so when they start doubting their training and they respond with hesitation, we know what happens. Law enforcement officers die. You know, as we discussed prior to the interview, I had, I'm a big fan of Joseph Wambaugh and his books. He's a former Los Angeles Police Department detective who then became rather famous writing a number of books. Among them, of course, were the Onion Field, the Choir Boys and a number of other books that were also turned into movies. And they talk in his recent series, the Hollywood Station series about the federal decree that hit the Los Angeles department specifically after the Rampart case. You know, this is where you had a few cops, a few bad eggs who did a few bad things. But it wasn't a system wide thing. But they were all l under this federal decree where everything they did now it was all about, you know, the amount of paperwork. They stacked them with paperwork. And so these guys want to be more paper pushers than law enforcement officers. And that's a shame because you're taking away what they've been trained to do and now they're thinking when they should be responding with their training. You know, cops today know that you have, you face the cameras, you have so much more. I mean, how many instances can I personally talk of where when I've been engaged in border watches along the US Mexico Border or I'd been out there with law enforcement, and you have protesters, and everybody seems to have some type of a camera for recording. And even a famous reporter from CNN once told me that the nonsense that he saw from the general public, peaceful demonstrators who were opposing certain policies and certain things that were being done to the point where, like, individuals would kick at dogs, individuals would throw rocks at people and animals, but then the second you turn the camera towards them, then the bad behavior would stop. So when we take a look at what's happening within law enforcement, it's very clear, based on my experience, and I'm a civilian, that officers are in compromising positions because they can't respond to certain things because these cameras are being done, it's okay to attack the cops. And the message that's been sent from the Justice Department is, okay, you're a law enforcement officer, so we're going to hold you to a higher standard. But at the same point, they're not going to hold the civilians to a standard Occupy Wall street movement here in Los Angeles, where if you notice the officers, when they finally moved in over the past day or so in Los Angeles, they were in literally hazmat suits. But as they approached, it's knowing what they had to do. They literally had to cordon off the media pool so they didn't get all these strange stories coming out of there where media was giving half stories instead of reporting everything that was taking place. But that was also for their safety. The officers were able to move in and do as they were supposed to do. I really thought that Chief Beck from the Los Angeles Police Department handled that very well because it didn't turn into, you know, some mess that some poor officer for doing his job is going to get prosecuted. And the truth would never have come out about, well, he got rocked or he got assaulted, because these are things that happen daily, not just on the border, but here in our cities. Cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Kansas City, you know, wherever throughout the country, we don't always get the full stories. So what do law enforcement officers do? Well, some of them have had to engage in securing what are called personal liability insurance policies, where they pay for that additional protection. But even that's limited. Even when they pay into the higher amounts, you know, so much a month comes out of the.

Is that through the union usually?

Ordinarily it is, but there are many that don't offer that. So they'll use. If I can name of the companies, because these are the two big.

Sure, please name them.

The primary Ones are right and company and I've not worked with them, but one of my attorneys have and some of the law enforcement officers have. And another group is called Feds or Federal Employee Defense Services. And what they do is they offer you as an officer, whether you're a manager or just, you know, the cop on the beat, you're offered up to so much of your expenses so that they'll cover a primary portion of your cost. So if you need to hire an attorney because you've got X amount of limit, well, that's going to supplement what you have. Or if you need straight out to get coverage because you have no coverage, then you have some type of coverage. However, the bad thing is it has to be for something that happens on duty. If you're an off duty cop and you come across a scene that because of your badge status, you can go and intervene and stop a crime in action. If you're sued, you won't be covered for that. So there are limitations to that because you weren't on duty. And this is something we've seen and experienced with people. Initially I was very supportive of this type of thing and I am to a degree. But knowing the limitations that they're not going to protect you, even though you're trying to secure that part of the community which you should be doing, they won't do it. That's made me a little more dubious now.

So what can police officers do to protect themselves in this environment? I mean, this environment has become so politically charged and really it's a dangerous environment. Citizens nowadays need to be concerned that the cops won't act because they're afraid to act. You know, certainly sometimes cops do the wrong thing. I think they probably did the wrong thing up at UC Davis with those protesters that I just don't. I'm no expert on that story, but that one seems like the wrong thing. But you know, a lot of times they're doing the right thing or they're afraid to do the right thing. It's like if they get there too soon, if they respond to the call too quickly, their liability goes up. And gosh, as citizens, we should be darn concerned about that. Because when you need the police, you need the police and you got to be concerned that they're afraid to offer their protection sometimes. And you got to feel some empathy for them about that.

Oh, absolutely. In fact, it's funny because I talk with many people within this, the immigration enforcement movement. A lot of people like to call it secure borders, but that's a term that it would require its own show just to define. But as I talk with them, you see, when I've gone to certain jurisdictions, because I've had a number of protests against me, I've had to work very closely with law enforcement. So, you know, I'll call an intel unit as an example with the police department, let them know I'm coming in, if I'm doing some type of a public event, whether it's a press conference or what have you. And I have found these agencies have been very supportive because they know that I'm just there to help them. But they know if I'm going to get protested, you know, like I've told them, hey, whatever you need from me on my end, whatever you have to do, I'm more than happy to work with you in that way, while others in the movement haven't felt the same. But I'll tell you this. Knowing that I get home safely to my family every time without creating any additional problems for the community, that's just of the utmost concern because I have two children at home to get back to beforehand. My daughter was very young. Now I have two. She's eight this month. My son turned nine months today. So it just makes you more appreciative. And there's just, what can you do about this as a long enforcement officer, again, you have to rely on your training. You can't hesitate. But everybody tells me the same thing. And it started with those Johnny Sutton prosecutions. The former U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, who wasn't prosecuting good guys that became bad guys. He was making bad guys out of good guys, though the evidence showed that these were all questionable, overreaching prosecutions. So what they, in the back of their mind, they go there. In fact, one of the agents said this recently that had to go out to a training thing and was listening to what they were talking about during training, which, of course, you remember what I said earlier, Training, training, training. Part of it is, what now? We're going to be there for you, and if this happens, we're going to be there for you. And if that happens, we're going to be there for you. And this officer knows that. Well, that's not how it works for my buddy. My buddy got prosecuted for doing his job. In fact, I had, not too long ago, a fed from the northern border call me and ask me, andy, how am I supposed to send my guys out there, my unit out there, knowing that this could happen, just for doing our job? You know, we're not so much worried about dealing with the bad guys because we know what our training tells us to do. We're more worried about the people that are supposed to be on our side that are supposed to be prosecuting bad guys and sending them to prison instead of making victims out of them. What do we do? Well, hopefully we can get Congress to fix that problem and we can get these jurisdictions to start taking a look at this and stop playing political games. Because if crimes are committed, crimes are committed. We can't ignore that. If a person is demonstrated to have no credibility, then how did they become a credible witness in a prosecution against a law enforcement officer? And, you know, just because his story is one thing, this is one thing I found dubious. Jason, in most of these cases, these officers are either being terminated or prosecuted for lack of candor or lying to investigators. And even when they're proven correct, it's ignored. And you just got to wonder now, do they literally have to use their right to remain silent just so no statement is issued? Because otherwise they're going to get charged with more things? Because they used to know that if they would speak up, if they would say something, they didn't have to worry about this, but now they're even afraid to speak because they know, oh, well, I'm going to get charged with that, too. And they're going to take the word of a bad guy, whether it be an illegal alien, drug smuggler, human trafficker, child molester, rapist, murderer, whatever the situation is, they're going to take, probably take this criminal's word over my word. And all I did was apprehend the guy. It is a scary time to be a law enforcement officer.

Yeah, it really is. I mean, so any other things that officers can do to protect themselves, it's just a real catch 22, isn't it?

Well, it is. I think one of the biggest problems that they face, at least internally, away from the prosecutions, just within their own structure. Now, I don't really have a problem with the law enforcement union. I understand the necessity of it. But it is my experience the problem with law enforcement unions is if you're, say, whether you're a border patrol agent or a local law enforcement officer, if your law enforcement union, management, so to speak, are still employed by the same people that you are, number one, there's no confidentiality. Number two, they still have to stand tall before the man if they're ordered to do so. So right there you can see the two problems that are already there. I think most of these outlets, if you look at our organization, one of the main purposes was just that because we knew that there's no confidentiality. You have to stand tall before the man is so ordered. You can't keep quiet. You can't hold things because whether the person is your member client or not, that's not relevant. There's no attorney client privilege when they're employed by the same place that you are. So that's one of the. At least why I still, like I said earlier, I'm a little dubious about it, but groups like Feds Federal Employee Defense Services or Wright and Company are still better than having nothing because you do have that confidentiality. And that's the problem with the unions today. As long as you have that, you can't say, well, bleep off, sir, because you could still get fired if you're the president of your union. You can't do that. Where an attorney can just literally say, well, you know what? Attorney client privilege, I don't have to tell you squat and promptly walk out of that person's office. The only person they have to deal with is the government that might have to face in the court for them. So I think their best bet is they need to look at that outside aspect when they're being represented. Yes, they have to have a union shop steward, but is that always the answer under that circumstance? I think it's helpful to have that personal liability insurance. But then you also need to look at organizations like ours that we can at least do that level of counseling or take some of these issues to that local elective body to try to address that from the bigger perspective and hopefully take some of the politics out of it. Unfortunately, the politics will always be in it. But if it can be diminished as much as possible, maybe stronger whistleblower protections can do that in ways that it would be too hard to elaborate. That's in itself another issue and another show or being able to take a look at some of the structures of how this is being done with say the Justice Department or Homeland Security or even your local office as it deals with a city attorney, you know, those are things that can be dealt with. But ultimately, I think as long as, well, it gets to the problem that you run out of money. Because if you're paying 200,000 to an attorney over the course because of court costs and the cost of all the paper that has to be filed and of course their hourly costs, you only have so much money that you can do. And then you can go into your retirement, you can go into this. But if you Lose your case, you just lost it all. And so that's the dilemma of law enforcement today. They're really up a creek and there's not many options. It's better to have what little options are out there. But they need to know that going into that, they may not have anything. It will only last for so long. It's like a career in sports. Everybody knows that career in sports only lasts for so long. The lucky ones are the ones like, say, a Tamu solani of the NHL who's in his 40s and still playing at the top level. Most people last just a few years, and then their careers are vanished, often due to injuries. Well, it's the same thing with law enforcement. The great ones, the ones who pretty much can, you know, don't appear on the radar. You know, it's not the days of Dirty Harry and the character that Clint Eastwood made so famous. You can't do that anymore because that officer would be in prison. That officer would have been in prison on the first incident because that's what the climate is today.

Is it safer to be a police officer or a sheriff?

I think it's safer to be a sheriff. And that comes from discussions with both. I'll never forget what several of our southwest border sheriffs have told me. They have a lot more autonomy because they are elected directly by the public, unlike the police chiefs, as we were discussing prior to the interview. A friend of mine was a captain, and he was being promoted to acting chief. He wanted to. He'd love to have been a chief, but as he told me, well, the political wins here. You know, if the majority on the council changes, then I'm out of a job. And what happens to, you know, to my. To myself, career wise, benefit wise. I have spent my whole career in law enforcement, worked up through the ranks, and I'd love to get the top rank, but then what happens, ultimately? So you're far better off being a sheriff. Your time will last a bit longer, and you have the autonomy where. Look at Sheriff Arpaio. This is the sheriff of Maricopa county or Phoenix, Arizona, who has been able to do things as he's felt he's needed to do to address the issues of his county in Arizona and the issues they face in Arizona. Unlike, say, the chiefs of LAPD who have had to operate, you know, when they go to deal with the city, they have to address the mayor and the city council. So if they decide that, well, this chief is history, they want him gone, he can be replaced on a simple vote. You know, of course they have to go through the contractual issues, but still that person's gone where the sheriff, he just has to face the voters over whatever the duration of his term is, which is usually four years.

So you're saying the voters are less, for lack of a better way to put it, politically motivated than the city council and the mayor.

Well, the voters are motivated, but there's usually a lot longer longevity. Look at Sherman Block, who was the sheriff of Los Angeles for what, two, three decades? He was there so long. But you know, there's longevity to being a sheriff. We're just in the past decade, how many police chiefs have we gone through? We right now have Charlie Beck before him, we had Bill Bratton, who in my opinion, and it's even joked about in the, in the Wombaugh books, you know, they called him Mr. He was never really a chief. He wasn't a cop. Where Charlie Beck is a cops cop. Where you had Chief Williams before him, where you had hold Holden or not Holden, oh, the councilman who was also chief Bernie Parks. So I mean you have, you know, these chiefs who can be there and if they do something that they don't like or something goes wrong, well, they're going to be the fall guy. Where the sheriff, he just has to stand before the electorate himself. And there's a big vast difference. If he wants to introduce a policy, he doesn't have to justify it, go to the city council for support on it, he just enacts it because he's the sheriff. It's a big difference.

Yeah, good point, good point. Well, hey, give out your website if you would. So if any of the officers listening ever need your help, your group offers support in various ways and can really help them work their way through the system, right?

Yes, absolutely. If they need somebody who to just get the word out about whatever the situation is or to talk with people on the Hill. You know, it's funny because I once had a high ranking agent tell me that, and this is kind of ironic, they didn't need. I asked every time I go to an agency, hey, what do you need? Do you need any equipment? Do you need any materials? Do you need more mantar, what do you need? And this high ranking agent said to me, oh, we don't need anything. We're getting everything we need. Now. At the time I had to have a bodyguard. My bodyguard was retired lapd. And he said to me, andy, that was such a blatant lie to your face. You know, every agency needs something. He goes, even at A time that LAPD didn't need anything. And I think you'll remember this, Jason. Chief Daryl Gates requested a submarine for the Port of Los Angeles in the area for lapd. It's not that they needed it, but everybody, every agency needs something. So you know, that's just something else for people to keep in mind. Everybody needs something. Every agency, every officer you need support our organization. There it's advocates.

Again, that's a D, V, O, C A T E, S. So that's plural. No apostrophe. Council. C, O U N C I L us. And a little funny thing, I mentioned the apostrophe because you had to hear the amount when we were trying to come up with a name for the organization of officers who were chiming in. Well, Andy, to be correct, you have to have that apostrophe. Is it going to be before the S or after the S? I mean, this literally became a one week debate.

That's how funny. Yeah, yeah, that's just. That's just crazy. Crazy. Well, hey, thank you for coming on and informing the officers listening about this. They already know this is a problem. They already know it's a concern and I hope it won't prevent them from doing their jobs because God knows we need them. We need good cops out there. We need good law enforcement and there are resources like your group to help them if they ever face problems like this. So keep up the good work, Andy, and thank you so much for doing it and being on the show today.

Well, thank you for having me back on. I'm most appreciative as always. And again, anybody who needs that help, we're here. If we can't do it, we'll refer you to those. If you want to go through the personal liability insurance route, we know of two great outfits that can help. It's just whatever a person needs. We'll try to help with what we can do. But thank you again for having me on and, and your support. It's very appreciated.

Are you aware that the largest transfer of wealth in human history is underway? Are you concerned about protecting your income savings or home equity? All these bailouts benefit the Wall street crooks and the Washington elites while costing the middle class. Experts are predicting difficult times ahead. The only question is where will you and your family end up with the haves or the have nots? My name is Jason Hartman with Platinum Properties, investor. Two decades I've made a small fortune in the most historically proven wealth creator. Don't be the victim of Wall street fat cats who line their pockets with your pension funds, we can teach you how to protect yourself and your family in these wildly turbulent financial times. Create and protect your nest egg the same way 85% of America's wealthy do. If you're interested in the most innovative financial education around, it's urgent that you register for our next event. Learn more about this outstanding event. Get your free CD at Jason hartman.com that's Jason hartman.com or call 1-840-Jason 1-800-405-2766. That's 1-800-405/2766. Your investments could be gone tomorrow. Protect yourself and act today.

This show is produced by The Hartman Media Co. All rights reserved. For distribution or publication rights and media interviews, please visit www.hartmanmedia.com or email mediaartmanmedia.com Nothing on this show should be considered specific personal or professional advice. Please consult an appropriate tax, legal, real estate or business professional for individualized advice. Opinions of guests are their own and the host is acting on behalf of Platinum Properties Investor Network, Inc. Exclusively.