Talk:2015 San Bernardino attack/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

USA v. Marquez trial notes and dates

for notes on court document research see: these notes

Judge Jesus G. Bernal

Counts

  1. 18:2339A(a) CONSPIRACY TO PROVIDE MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS
  2. 18:922(a)(6) FALSE STATEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF A FIREARM
  3. 18:922(a)(6) FALSE STATEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF A FIREARM (second offense)
  4. 8:1325(c) MARRIAGE FRAUD
  5. 18:1546(a) FRAUD AND MISUSE OF VISAS, PERMITS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS

Docket #: 5:15-cr-00093

  • PACER case #: 636885
  • Free Archive: [here] (see above note - not always perfectly up to date, use PACER to be sure)
  • Magistrate judge case number: 5:15-mj-00498-DUTY
  • Note: Both of these are used and seem to be tied to the same PACER case# above:
    • 5:15-cr-00093-JGB-
    • 5:15-cr-00093-JGB-1 (what is this?)

Docket #: 5:15-mj-00498

  • Seems closed as of 12/30 but contains relevant documents
  • PACER case #: 636012
  • Free Archive: [here] (see above note - not always perfectly up to date, use PACER to be sure)

Who ever wrote this, thanks. Winterysteppe (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome. Update: I popped into Pacer and downloaded the last two documents as of 6/6/2016. [accessible for free here]. Several prior documents were under Seal. Everything is moved back yet again but the trial should be very revealing. The government has produced discovery to the defense, including: over 8,500 documents including reports of investigation, evidence photographs, expert witness reports, search warrants and other legal process; and over 500 hours of audio-recorded witness interviews with law enforcement, including the draft transcripts of these interviews. I'm not a legal expert but its likely that a significant portion of those discovery documents will be introduced as evidence at trial. Once that evidence is admitted in court (the Defense will try to have it eliminated) it generally becomes fully accessible to the general public. [more here]. The major reason for the push back appears to have been the case is so unusual and so complex, due to the nature of the prosecution, that it is unreasonable to expect preparation for pre-trial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act
March 6, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. - STATUS CONFERENCE AND MOTIONS HEARING DATE
March 21, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. -TRIAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.28.218 (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.240.49 (talk)

Description and technical details of the weapons used?

The article says that in addition to a couple pistols, two assault-style rifles were used. But other than saying they were "AR-15 type" semiautomatic rifles, there is no other information about them. What was the size of the magazine(s) used? Were they detachable? If so, in what way were they detachable? (E.g., a "bullet button", or...?) How many magazines did the shooters have?

This information is relevant to the ongoing public debate over gun control. Indeed, California already has very strict restrictions on the sale of so-called "assault weapons" (perhaps the strictest in the nation), so I have to wonder how these "AR-15 type" rifles were obtained, or more specifically, in what way did they comply with California's stringent restrictions on the sale of these types of weapons. Captain Quirk (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC) Category:Mid-importance Terrorism articles

Motive - "under investigation" vs. Islamic Terrorism

Changed motive to Islamic Terrorism but was reversed, nearly instantly, by someone demanding "discuss in Talk first." No other reason was provided.

Its obvious the "Motive" here is no longer under active investigation, so an update is clearly needed.

Best evidence of motive was first person accounting of the motive by one shooter who posted, contemporaneously to the incident, on FB that her motive was to support Islamic Terrorism. There hasn't been one iota of evidence to refute that.

FBI has stated on innumerable occasions that the event was classified as Islamic Terrorism.

Corroborative evidence is the FBI's very first count in USA v. Marquez (a secondary player to the actual shootings, but intimately involved, over a several year period, with excellent awareness of the primary shooters motive) is for 18:2339A(a) CONSPIRACY TO PROVIDE MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS.

The fact pattern here is abundantly clear, 100% consistent, and undeniable. For more complete coverage read the 20+ page detailed FBI complaint against Marquez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.240.49 (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Agree. Investigation had ended, Islamist/terrorist motive is clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Police Foundation investigation - report due March 7- 21

The Police Foundation
http://www.policefoundation.org/
Hired: 1/25/2016 report due March 7- 21
Chief Behavioral Scientist: Karen Amendol

One issue to be investigated - how, and when the first responding police should engage with recent "mortal danger" level trauma survivor victims? Here, both the shooters and the police were dressed in highly similar tactical gear, carrying similar looking assault firearms. Several trauma victims therefore had difficulty distinguishing friend from foe early on, and may have experienced substantial additional anguish when yet more gunmen came into their close-in physical proximity.

First responding police may also have been emotionally activated given the carnage and horror at the crime scene. Fear and emotional activation can be highly contagious. Police, despite having extensive training, full body armor, and substantial assault weapons ready to respond to any threats may have had clouded judgement in terms of tactical priorities and the immediate needs of the defenseless and unshielded trauma victims.

Apparently police engaged survivors immediately at the scene, remaining in a side hallway adjacent the actual recent killings, prior to removing them from that perceived threatening environment.

Primary use of the report is likely to be ways police might train better to immediately identify themselves to terror victim survivors (as a friend vs. being perceived as an additional foe) so as not to accidentally increase their terror and suffering, and how to best balance the needs for immediate tactical intelligence with the physical safety and psychological needs of trauma victims. Various quality of information aspects might also be explored, in the vicinity of overwhelming trauma, such as "set change" timing dynamics, reality vs. perception under extreme duress, and time periods needed to relieve hyper-attention and high emotionality attached to being subjected to substantial terror.

Perhaps a entry level background article: [9/11: The Psychological Aftermath]

Police Foundation Report

Full report here.

NYT obtained a draft report (see below) and later reported:

‘It Finally Clicked That This Wasn’t an Exercise’: Report Recounts San Bernardino Shooting. In that articles its reported:

After The New York Times obtained a draft version and reported on its contents, the Justice Department on Friday released the final document. Some details changed — including the number of times the killers were shot, how many shots they fired and how their vehicle was traced — but the overall picture was unaltered.

Can't seem to locate the original NYT coverage of the draft report they had at an earlier time. Nor can I locate any official press release by Justice covering the report. (Attorney Eileen Decker, Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Central District of California is however quoted in the NYT.

Sometime after it was announced the Police Foundation would do a report they changed their web site to remove all mention of it.

Did someone leak the draft report to NYT and did they use that to get the actual final document released? Will this document be admissible evidence in the Marquez case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.28.218 (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Attribution of Police Foundation report to DOJ by newspapers is misleading

Yes, DOJ provided grant funding to COPS, which funded Police Foundation report. Other than that attributing "involvement" by the DOJ is highly misleading. The report was 100% the work product of the Police Foundation.

Note the following in the introduction to the report:

This project was supported by grant number 2015 -CK -WX -K005 awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues

The authors were:

  1. Rick Braziel
  2. Frank Straub
  3. George Watson
  4. Rod Hoops

Chief Rick Braziel (Ret.)
Rick Braziel served as chief of the Sacramento Police Department (SPD) from 2008 until his retirement in December 2012. A 33-year veteran of the SPD, including 18 years as a member of the executive leadership team, he held a variety of ranks. As deputy chief, his assignments included the Office of Operations, Office of Investigations, Office of Technical Services, and the Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Services.

As chief of police, Braziel refocused the SPD mission, including redesign of crime reduction strategies, deployment, and resources resulting in the reduction of Part I crime by 21% while reducing department staffing by 28%. Under his leadership, the SPD increased transparency and community involvement through the creation of a Police Advisory Committee, Interfaith Leaders Council, Youth Advisory Committee, town hall meetings, online citizen surveys, and a redesigned website with interactive features. Braziel’s commitment to community policing is illustrated in his book, Cop Talk: Essential Communication Skills for Community Policing. He is also a nationally recognized instructor on the topic. He consults and instructs for Humboldt State University in teambuilding, communication skills, community policing, and leadership.

Braziel is president of the California Peace Officers Association, treasurer of the Police Executive Research Forum, a member of the California Police Chiefs Association board of directors and Salvation Army advisory board. He also served as chair of the Central California Intelligence Center Governance Board.

Braziel received his BA and MA in communication studies from California State University, Sacramento. In 2006, he received a master of arts in security studies from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. His thesis resulted in a $3.1 million grant toward the creation of communities of learning.

In addition to numerous commendations, Braziel received the Silver Medal of Valor in 1988, Distinguished Service Award in 2001, and a Unit Citation in 2002. He was named alumni of the year by California State University, Sacramento. Chief Braziel (ret.) can be reached directly at rbraziel@policefoundation.org

Frank Straub, Ph.D.
A 30-year veteran of law enforcement, currently serves as the Director of Strategic Studies for the Police Foundation, where he works on Critical Incident Reviews including the San Bernardino terrorist attack–and the resulting report Bringing Calm to Chaos–and the Orlando Pulse shooting (in progress). Dr. Straub last served as the Chief of the Spokane, Washington, Police Department, where he received national recognition for the major reforms, community policing programs he implemented and significant crime reductions achieved during his tenure. In Spokane, Dr. Straub mandated that all members of the department receive 40-hours of crisis intervention training, and he created a team of officers who received over 100 hours of specialized mental health training. As Director of Public Safety for the City of Indianapolis, Dr. Straub collaborated with Eskanazi Medical Center’s Prescription for Hope Program, assigning a team of police officers to the program, which focused on reducing youth violence and retaliation through hospital-based interventions. During his tenure, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department reduced homicides to the lowest level in 20 years. Dr. Straub has also served as the Public Safety Commissioner for the City of White Plains, New York where his department reduced serious crime by 40%. He established the first police-community mental health response team in Westchester County to proactively assist persons challenged by mental illness, homelessness and domestic violence. Dr. Straub previously served as the Deputy Commissioner of Training for the New York City Police Department; and as a federal agent. He holds a Ph.D. in Criminal Justice, from the City University of New York’s Graduate Center, an M.A. in Forensic Psychology from John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and a B.A. in Psychology from St. John’s University. He co-authored a book on performance-based police management and published several articles regarding community policing, police reform, and jail management. Frank Straub, PhD Fstraub@pollicefoundation.org

George Watson
provided media, community relations, and writing expertise to the project. He spent more than two decades building a career as an acclaimed journalist and public official. These two professions give him a unique expertise in media and community relations, handling a crisis while also specializing in helping people build their public identities and manage their reputations. Watson worked for 18 years in daily journalism, writing and editing for some of the largest and smallest newspapers and websites across the United States. He anchored the Associated Press’s metro desk in New York City, wrote for The New York Times, and won a handful of national awards for investigative work in southern California. He has covered mass shootings, officer-involved incidents, and serial killers; reported from Afghanistan; and also spent time at Ground Zero in the days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. He has used blogs and other social media to cover both breaking news and larger in-depth pieces while also anchoring a newspaper’s live web coverage of local and national elections.

In 2009, Watson became chief of staff for a member of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors. For four years, Watson led the office for a county that is home to 2.4 million people while directing all media and public interaction. The supervisor was commended for the office’s use of social media to connect directly with the public, providing easy-to-understand information to constituents and also showing a level of public service and interaction rarely seen from a politician. Watson is a graduate of Hobart College. [No bio or contact information on Police Foundation website]

Sheriff Rod Hoops (Ret.)
A 34-year veteran of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department (SBSD) in Southern California, Rod Hoops served as Sheriff-Coroner-Public Administrator from 2009 until his retirement in December 2012.

The SBSD serves over two million residents in an area of over 22,000 square miles—the largest geographical county in the contiguous 48 states—providing municipal policing services to fourteen cities and operating one of the largest county correctional facilities in the country.

As sheriff, Hoops increased the diversity and educational achievement levels of command staff, and instituted a shared-leadership strategy to empower decision making by commanders at the local level. During his tenure as sheriff, and despite recent budget contractions throughout California, the SBSD operated under budget without having to downsize agency staff.

Over the course of his 34-year career, Hoops served as the assistant sheriff overseeing SBSD operations and as chief and deputy chief of police in numerous cities served by the department. From 2008 to 2009, he was chairman of the Los Angeles High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (LA-HIDTA).

Hoops holds a masters in public administration and bachelors in criminal justice from California State University, Fullerton, and is a graduate of the California Command College.

Sheriff Hoops (ret.) can be reached directly at: rhoops@policefoundation.org

New characterisation of attacker's motives being removed (twice in less than 24 hrs) in violation of 1RR

On 9/9/16, the Los Angeles Times published an in-depth article on occasion of the DOJ after-action report and the LAT characterised the attack's motivation as "inspired by Islamic terrorists", a characterisation different from all other characterisations previously included in the article. This was summarily removed from the article for reason of "There's already a subsection devoted to that. See below."

The referred section did not include the new LAT characterisation.

To avoid further conflict, the new characterisation was added the the subsection referred, and the subsection title modified to reflect the new information. The addition was summarily removed for reason of "Redundant, all already mentioned in other parts of the article", in an all-blanking edit in violation of 1RR and furthermore a separate issue/quote from the San Bernardino Sun (unmentioned elsewhere and therefore not redundant) was also summarily eradicated.

Could compromises be reached instead of wholesale blanking out of the quotes from the San Bernardino Sun and the Los Angeles Times? Thanks in advance. XavierItzm (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The edits in question were extremely redundant and therefore unnecessary. They mention that Farook and Malik were inspired by Islamic terrorists ("The killers had been 'inspired by Islamic terrorists'."), but the very next sentence says pretty much the same thing ("In Senate Judiciary Committee testimony given on December 9, 2015, FBI Director James B. Comey said that the FBI investigation has shown that the perpetrators were 'homegrown violent extremists' who were 'inspired by foreign terrorist organizations.'") Hence my reversions and the edit summaries that came along with it. The LAT source doesn't seem to provide anything other than an extreme simplification of what's already in the article (and reliably sourced too). Parsley Man (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
The response provided appears to be disingenuous. The Los Angeles Times states "inspired by Islamic terrorists", whereas all the previous material cited above refers to "foreign terrorist organisations". Seems to be quite a difference there, unless one assumes all terrorists are now Islamic, which one would think would be quite insulting and biased. XavierItzm (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Islamic terrorists, foreign terrorist organizations, aren't they the same thing? I've never heard of any foreign Christian or Jewish or Buddhist terrorist organizations. Parsley Man (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, as Mathsci said on WP:AN3RR, the same paragraph also mentions Farook and Malik talking about jihad and martyrdom. I'm sure people can draw their conclusions from there. Parsley Man (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Many foreign terrorist organisations have not been religious in nature. Take, for instance, the IRA (Ireland), the FMLN (El Salvador), or ETA (Basque). XavierItzm (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
2+ reverts in a short time, rather poor form. Motive is well established: Islamic Terrorism. The master is responsible for the behavior of his servants, especially when they are diligently "on the job", pledging allegiance to the master, etc. Further the master provided training, inspiration, promised untold rewards, etc. Respondeant superiores. As Dante noted of visitors to the 8th level of hell, they deliberately exploited the passions of others, and so drove them to serve their own interests.
San Bernardino Sun & LAT have interesting points raised about the Police Foundation report, however attributing that report to the DOJ, and getting offhanded quotes about it from DOJ staff about it are misleading. Best to just let the report speak for itself and make note of the authors backgrounds. Will be interesting to see if it makes it into evidence in the Enrique Marquez case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.28.218 (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Posttraumatic stress disorder

Article has highly refined facts and figures about the attack but zero coverage of Posttraumatic stress disorder. No good sources? Perhaps encourage San Bernardino County Health (and Mental Health Association) to follow up? ER department at Loma Linda is very proud they are a "Level I Trauma Center". How about some legitimate year after disciplined research? County spent resources supplying early trauma counseling, was that effective in preventing longer term PTSD? What worked, what didn't. Is the suffering (mostly) over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.240.49 (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The recently added Survivors section mentions that some of the survivors desire access to counseling or antidepressant medication. The citation doesn't mention PTSD. Can you find a citation that mentioned it? But even if you did it might be inappropriate to say these private individuals are suffering from PTSD. It certainly is inappropriate for us to assume it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Raheel Farook, Tatiana Farook, and Mariya Chernykh section

Now that a separate article has been created for the perpetrators of the attack, what are your thoughts on moving the section Raheel Farook, Tatiana Farook, and Mariya Chernykh from the 2015 San Bernardino attack to Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik? In my opinion, the move makes more sense since the three individual's connection with the actual attack is minor. However their connection with Rizwan Farook is much more relevant as family members. I feel this is similar to how biographical articles on Wikipedia containing information about the subject's family members (i.e.: information about Anwar al-Awlaki's family members are listed on the subject's page instead of on articles about terrorist attacks related to Al-Awlaki.) Djrun (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC at Smith & Wesson M&P15

Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15# Request for comment: add three instances of criminal use. Should the 2015 San Bernardino attack be mentioned in that article? Please post on that page if you have a comment. Felsic2 (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015 San Bernardino attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of the noun "attack" to describe this event

This discussion has been moved to WP:VPM#Use of the word "attack" in various article titles in order to have all 20-30 discussions in one place. Please go there to participate. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of the noun "attack" to describe this event

Alfred Nemours (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox edit

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "group firearms by type of weapon & then list brand names; TOC limit". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

phone hacking

WaPo has revealed that the phone was hacked by an Australian company, see here. Zerotalk 01:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

"California attack" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect California attack. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 2#California attack until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 05:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_San_Bernardino_attack/Archive_6&oldid=1117500682"