From: Phil Murphy Subject: Ask the right question. Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 20:27:13 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Ask the right question Over the course of all the discord and speculation about the Three-Points DEA shooting, the "what ifs" and "if onlys" have been flying fast and furious, and I will readily admit to being one of the most vocal instigators. I do, however, think that there is a gaping hole in the realm of idle speculation which should have been addressed long ago. I will take a stab at this missing argument herein, but first, some "insider" background. After speaking with a trusted deputy sheriff who could provide more accurate information than what passes for a free press around these parts, I was able to glean a clearer shooting scenario than I was capable of imagining prior to his shared insight. Without going over every sordid detail in this forum, I can confidently share some of my impressions which may answer some readers' questions... both asked an unasked. The Sheriff's Office had received a lot of very hostile reactions regarding the relocated child molester from the tiny community when the SO had first contacted them. There was an inordinate amount of suspicion and blame placed against the SO (as if the department had anything to do with the decision) in the days following the community "heads-up" that concerned the SO. The emotional mind-set in Three-Points was *far* worse than the media led us to believe. Knowing this, the question of David Aguilar's obvious suspicion and apprehension could easily be addressed, but we'll hear enough about that during the civil suit action. What needs to be addressed -- at first -- is Aguilar's commission of an unwritten violation of law known to police officers as Felony Stupid. "Felony Stupid" is, by 'n large, the single worst crime an otherwise law-abiding civilian can commit. It can lead to fines, jail time... even death. We saw the outcome here. What is seemingly ignored throughout the press's pat inquiries of the Fed's side of the story is yet another unwritten law that is a basic rule of police work: "In criminal investigations, there is no such thing as a coincidence." DEA Agent Laverty is now up to three, yes, *three* different stories regarding his shooting David Aguilar. He has claimed through either direct interviews or through his attorney(s) the story of "one trip" then "two trips" and now back to "one trip but shooting" -- none of which make any sense on their own to a rational, outside observer. His local hired gun has since been joined by a more prominent gunslinger attorney from New York. Why? The aforementioned deputy gives far more credence, though, to Aguilar's 15 year-old son's initial claims (under horrific duress, mind you) of the "two trip" scenario than to any other eye-witnesses' accounts because he says that there has been a troubling tendency by the other interviewees to be unable to tell the same story twice. This could prove disturbing to anyone who feels that "justice" will be served under the civil suit's near certainty of success. Why should anyone feel any certainty about anything in our current judicial system, at all? Because at sometime, in some way, with some malice of forethought, Agent Laverty has lied. This obviously begs the question, "Why?" Football is said to be a game of inches, but one could easily say that criminal investigation is a game of micromillimeters and genetic fragments. It also contains a certain dimension that football doesn't share: Semantics. Looking at this shooting scenario without the "little details" appears to show a clear case of self-defense on the agent's part. But, it's the little details which are of grave concern to some observers. If one can take a moment and forget about the "two trips" vs. "one trip" stories and the inherent mind-set speculation, something equally or even more disturbing arises when one focuses on the actual "gunfight" scenario: -- Three-Points makes "Bug Tussle" look like a thriving metropolis. -- Aguilar has no phone in his home. -- Aguilar was in the process of leaving and told his son that, "he was afraid to leave the kids alone with that car parked out in front." (A very obvious thing, in this neighborhood.) -- The "it was 200 feet away" line about where Laverty's car was parked is grossly misleading to the casual observer because of how rural this area really is. (In other words, that's in your front yard, out there.) -- It does take a while to walk 200 feet. (Long enough time in which one could make a decision on a course of action as one was approached.) -- The issue of whether this was a private or county-maintained road is unclear. -- There are no guidelines or rules regarding an undercover officer having to identify himself as a DEA agent. -- The deputy explained to me that once Laverty identified himself, the jig was up for the whole operation. (More about this, later.) -- There are seven holes in Laverty's windshield. -- Four more shots were fired out of his "one-touch/auto-down" driver's widow. (I do not believe that this car was offered with that option, but I may be wrong. It's important because of the conscious effort the agent would have had to make while shooting/backing up/laying down/aiming.) -- At some point in time, Aguilar did discharge his rifle. -- Aguilar cannot have fired while approaching the car and also have placed the gun *unfired* at the driver's window "nearly touching his (Laverty's) head" because Aguilar's rifle was only discharged once. -- If Laverty "continued shooting" while leaning down behind the dash and backing up, there were no aimed shots from this point on. (Note: Shades of the ATF firing from behind the parked cars at Mt. Carmel by simply holding their sidearms up and blindly shooting "in the general direction" of a building occupied by innocent women and children.) -- Laverty did not call in the shooting. Another DEA agent on the scene did. -- Laverty was not interviewed for two days by local law enforcement because he said that he had not been able to contact his lawyer. -- The Pima County Sheriff's Office held and interrogated (the media's words, not mine) Aguilar's grief-stricken son for five hours without counsel or parental presence/permission. Aguilar's commission of "Felony Stupid" aside, this action doesn't speak too well of the DEA's finest. On that note, let's look at the agent's background of five years in the Chicago PD vs. eleven months with the DEA. His street cop credentials are fine (to my knowledge) but eleven months as an agent with federal law enforcement is practically nothing, because that translates to only about five months on the job. Is this why Laverty didn't make an effort to call in the shooting after it happened? I can't say, but I do know this... None of this would have been necessary... if the agent had just LEFT when approached. Who cares if he called in that his cover was, or was about to be, blown? What is so damn important that a federal agent would risk a confrontation to maintain a lousy stakeout? Why was a father, family and community's lives placed at risk in this manner in the first place? Four simple words answer these questions: THE WAR ON DRUGS If we are to be pulled mercilessly back and forth, to and fro, over these mind-numbingly petty arguments regarding "justified" or "unjustified" in either the father's or the agent's case, can somebody PLEASE tell me why we insist on perpetuating this wholly uncivilized, un-winnable and unbelievably un-American assault waged against our people, property and supposedly unalienable rights? Oh, yes... I forgot. How silly of me. The War on Drugs makes the government tons and tons of money. It doesn't matter how many rights are abridged. It doesn't matter how many illegal seizures are made. It doesn't matter how many lives are lost. As long as it turns a profit, it's here to stay. And as long as you don't say anything about it, I sincerely hope you enjoy your stay. Phil Murphy January 18, 1997