Another Gun Control Debate

by Stacy Dittrich

It seems like every time we have a national tragedy involving guns, gun control advocates get their knickers in a bunch. After the Arizona murders, a heated debate over gun control has, again, ensued. Do we need stricter gun laws, or should people have the right to defend themselves? First, it truly amazes me the misinformation out there on the murderer, Jared Loughner’s, weapon of choice—a Glock 19 9mm; a semi-automatic handgun. The number of news organizations that referred to this as an automatic weapon was astonishing. Even celebrity gossip site TMZ proved they should stick to Lindsay or Britney meltdown coverage when they posted a ridiculous survey asking if people think automatic weapons should be banned. Pay attention, Harvey!

Automatic weapons are already illegal, except for those who obtain a Class 3 Federal Permit. Good luck with that.

It may surprise many people that over the past decade as gun restriction laws have eased, gun murders have lowered. Why is that? It’s my opinion that the people who arm themselves make the criminals hesitate more before acting. “Hmm, should I rob that dude or not? He could have a gun.” Here’s another argument. People think that if guns are banned totally, then the number of violent crimes will go down. Not so. With a few exceptions, i.e. Jared Loughner, the law-abiding citizens who carry guns are not the ones out there committing the crimes. It’s the criminals who can’t legally purchase guns anyway, so what difference does it make? The criminals obtain their weapons by a secondary method or theft. All a ban will do is expand the black market gun trade for the criminals. At least give people a chance to defend themselves. I saw an interesting comment on a site that perfectly summed up a gun ban. It read, “In Mexico guns are illegal. How’s that workin’ out for them?” Those poor people down there who aren’t allowed to carry guns to defend themselves don’t stand a chance.

Another aspect is the “Guns kill people” versus “No, people kill people" argument. I’m siding with the latter. Last year in the United States, 9,369 people were murdered in gun-related violence. Those of you screaming, “See! That’s why we should ban guns!” hang on a minute. Last year in the U.S., nearly 18,000 people died in DUI-related car accidents. Do cars kill people, too? Should we ban them? There were also approximately 801 people murdered by someone’s hands/feet. And, yes, they honestly have a statistic for that. I think we should ban those too so we can all roll around as torsos. I would love to hear your comments on what could possibly be the difference.

In 2009, the FBI reported that 215 people were killed in what they title “justifiable homicide." The FBI defines this as an average citizen who kills a felon in self defense during the commission of a crime. I look at this differently, as in 215 criminals out of our hair (good riddance) and 215 lives saved—the shooters’ lives.

On the heels of the Arizona shootings (when I say heels, I mean that the shooting victims were barely through the hospital doors), New York Rep. Peter King introduced the most asinine piece of legislation I have ever seen. He wanted to make it illegal for anyone to carry a weapon within 1,000 feet of a member of Congress. Unless Congress members walk around with a billboard on their heads that says, “I’m a Congress member!” I don’t know how you could differentiate a lawmaker from an average citizen. Not to mention, 1,000 feet stretches pretty far. I don’t know many Congress members’ names in my area, but the ones I do know, I don’t have a clue what they look like. Let’s say a citizen legally carrying a firearm walks into a gas station, not knowing that a Congress member is around the corner giving a speech at the local elementary school. He can be arrested? Furthermore, does Mr. King truly think a deranged maniac, hell-bent on murder, is going to worry about violating a gun law?

The issue of gun control clearly isn’t going away anytime soon. We’ve had this argument for decades and will continue to do so. In the meantime, I think I’ve given you a few extras to think about. The solution to gun violence is for law enforcement to start cracking down on those carrying firearms illegally. This wouldn’t have helped in Jared Loughner’s case since his handgun was purchased legally, but, no matter what laws there are, there will always be a nut, like Loughner, flying under the radar. Stiffer penalties for those possessing firearms illegally must be a priority.

Just last week, New Jersey police officer Christopher Matlosz, 27, was literally executed in his police cruiser by loser thug Jahmell Crockam, 19. The local prosecutors had been preparing a warrant for a previous weapons violation against Crockam, but they clearly didn’t move fast enough. Obviously, Crockam didn’t have a gun permit.

Tweet

Oksana Needs Reputation Rehab!

by Robin Sax

Less than four months ago, Oksana Grigorieva was the “poster child” of the domestic violence victim. She garnered much support and even sympathy after the details of the January 6, 2010 domestic abuse detail surfaced. Mel Gibson’s taped rant and tirade sent chills down the spines of even the most hardened of people. No one thought Mel would survive this one. It seemed clear, to all, he was going down this time. To make sure I wasn't missing something, I called a few of my detective buddies at Lost Hills Sheriff's Station and found that they concluded as similarly as I---that Mel Gibson committed a crime against Oksana and if it were any other person, he or she would have been arrested on the spot.

The evidence (compared to the typical DV case) was overwhelming--a report from Oksana, taped calls corroborating Oksana’s words, a suspect clearly afflicted with anger, among other issues, medical records and statements consistent with the injuries, and another victim who says similar crimes have happened to her.

So how is that in four short months the tides have changed so much that Oksana is not only disbelieved, but she is loathed and Mel is coming out seemingly clean? Are the coming and goings of 39 lawyers, as reported by TMZ, a sign that Oksana’s case is weak or that no one can take control? Is the difficulty because of Oksana or because of the people around her? Are there just too many ego driven people who want a piece of celebrity, so much so that they cannot get a cohesive plan together? Whatever the reasons are, the state of the case is most telling.

Mel’s camp has succeeded in the court of public opinion because they have been rock solid in how and where they fight the battle. They have a strategy, and the team works together. You don’t see Stephen Kolodny or Blair Berke being quoted all over the place. You see a solid team with a solid division of labors with no credit or stardom needed. You don't see Mel's lawyers releasing evidence to TMZ before it gets to the sheriff and DA. And if you don’t think this matters, think again.

As the DA’ s office is deciding what to do about filing domestic violence charges against Mel and/or extortion charges against Oksana, be aware that the Los Angeles District Attorney has a written policy mandating the filing Deputy DA to consider the likelihood of successful prosecution. And what better way to tell what potential jurors are thinking than reading what the wing nuts are saying on TMZ? Twelve-hundred negative comments per post doesn't bode well for successful prosecution.

Please do not get me wrong here. I am not saying there is not a case for domestic violence against Mel, but what I am saying is the lack of laser focus by Team Oksana has made the chances for the DA’s office to engage less likely. Remember, the prosecutor has the sole discretion of whether or not to file a case, and, if they don’t feel that they can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, they don’t need to file it.

The best piece of PR in this case would be a filing by the DA on Mel and a rejection of the extortion charged on Oksana. And instead of Team Oksana making that happen, they have been too busy giving quotes to TMZ, arranging Oprah, and booking People, all of which have backfired.

So, Team Oksana, take a lesson from the Fortune 500 companies when they are in crises. I am not saying the lame basics, like “be transparent.” You need to go further--choose a leader (a real leader, one who has Oksana’s best interest at heart), be honest, be available, be forthcoming, and, by all means, fight your battle in the courtroom. We are all watching your every single move, and you must think beyond today, as we will remember this case not for the details, but for how it was handled.

Tweet

2009: Crime In Review

 by Robin Sax 

It’s that time again — the very end of the year.  In addition to looking to the future (charting goals and resolutions), this is a chance for us to reflect upon 2009 and learn.  Blogs, TV shows, newspapers and magazines are looking at the year: the good and the bad, the trends and the hook-ups, the births and the deaths. From my perspective, this is an opportune time to examine the top crime stories of 2009.  After perusing dozens of media outlets, I’d like to remind you specifically of 12 crime stories -- one for every juror on a panel -- from 2009, in no particular order. Some represent justice, truth, and closure; others illustrate injustice, missed opportunities, and evil. These stories affected us all, directly or indirectly:

1.     Roman Polanski reignited: This case is about more than just the facts of Polanski’s offenses (which are indeed major). Polanski stole time, resources, and energy from the State of California for years, actually, decades. He accepted no responsibility for his actions, nor for the deal he chose to strike.  The best case would be for Polanski to come back and face a California judge, take his medicine, and receive the same sentence he bargained for in the first place (assuming the LA District Attorney). We're all fascinated by a man who lived freely for three decades, suffering no consequences for leaving the country to escape the law. So, man up Polanski!  Not just privately; teach your Hollywood buddies a lesson too!  Teach them not to blame the victim, not to minimize the damages caused by sexual assault; and not to deny the realities of the crime.  Tell Whoopi that you committed real rape, and you are finally going to take real responsibility! Once you do, we can all move on in 2010.

2.     Jaycee Duggard found:  Don’t get me wrong; this case represents one of the great outcomes in the criminal justice system!  And a big fat shout-out to Berkeley Events Manager Lisa Campbell and Berkeley Police Officer Ally Jacobs for not missing opportunities as the California Department of Corrections and the Contra Costa Police had done so many times before. This case may be the first time we heard law enforcement actually call it like it was -- a case of “missed opportunities.”  Missed opportunities no longer!  Nancy Garrido, wife of Phillip Garrido, may be the real monster in the 1991 abduction of 11-year-old Jaycee Duggard. True, her husband, Phillip Garrido, is a horrific figure who kidnapped Jaycee and held her captive for 18 years. Garrido, a registered sex offender, kept Jaycee (and her two kids, fathered by him) in a tent in the backyard. But Nancy Garrido knew and said nothing. Jaycee was returned to her family in September. What did we learn? We need to take a closer look at the way we use registered sex-offender lists and, perhaps more importantly, how we monitor sex offenders all the way around. 

3.     Balloon Boy takes off:  I hate to give this case any more attention, but it represents so much of the decade that I have to mention it. The balloon boy case illustrates the worst of media and the most pathetic things people will do to exploit it. I was shocked that so many news stations (almost all of them!) covered this loose-balloon chase with such intensity.  I mean, it was surreal -- a giant Chef Boyardee cap sweeping the skies and Wolf Blitzer in The Situation Room tracking trajectories of falling balloons.  Why was it so popular? Because TMZ rules the media these days, and our society can't get enough of this type of buzz. It looked like traditional news outlets were trying, for once, to trump TMZ. (Get over it, TMZ rules!) The silver lining: at least mom and dad Heene pled guilty and were sentenced expeditiously.  I have never seen justice take off so fast…. a lot faster than it would have taken to get a real television show made.  

4.     Two tragic massacres -- Fort Hood and The Tacoma police murders: Nidal Malik Hasan and Maurice Clemmons both committed terrible acts of violence when they carried out their (unrelated) massacres. One similarity: both Hasan and Clemmons targeted official personnel in their shooting rampages, Hasan on a military base and Clemmons at police officers. Hasan, a 39-year-old military psychiatrist, was never suspected as being capable of massacre. Similarly, Clemmons, a 37-year-old parolee, got a second chance to live out in society precisely because he wasn’t seen as a threat. Clemmons was granted clemency by then-Gov. Mike Huckabee – putting forth the case (successfully) that he was rehabilitated.  Obviously, those around both Hasan and Clemmons got it wrong; they didn't see that either man was a violent sociopath. What can we learn from these tragedies? I honestly don’t think there is an answer here. This type of senseless violence occurs more often than any of us care to review. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims. We also pray and hope that this type of crime doesn’t make the list in 2010. 

5.     Annie Le found dead: We were all horrified when Annie Le was found dead inside the wall of a research lab on the day she was supposed to be married. Lab technician Raymond Clark was arrested and charged with her murder. Investigators zeroed in on Clark early in the investigation after he failed a lie detector test and was found to have defensive wounds on his body, scratches on his arms and back and a bruised eye. In addition, his attempts to clean up the crime scene (where Le was last) and DNA evidence led to his arrest.  We were reminded, yet again, that even the guy-next-door-type can be capable of murder.

6.     Cherish Lewis still in jail: The case of Cherish hasn't made headline news. It stands for all such worthy cases that don't get national media attention. Cherish is the mother of five-year-old Jaelyn Rice. An Ohio judge ordered Cherish to hand her child over to an abusive father. When Cherish refused, she was jailed. Her child is in hiding with relatives, and the predator-father is free. This is a case of true injustice where the system got it totally wrong. I highlight these types of unknown important cases as a co-host on radio show "Justice Interrupted" (with Stacy Dittrich), which will be relaunching next month. Find out more at www.justiceinterrupted.com

7.     Amanda Knox convicted of murder: The conviction of this American student for the murder of her British roommate sent ripples of shock and scrutiny across the U.S. media waves. I can't say Amanda didn't do it, based on what I saw of the evidence presented; none of us can say for sure what happened that night. I can say this though: I don't think Amanda would have been convicted of murder if she were tried for the same crime in the United States. I believe this case raises a very important issue: American students traveling abroad for international education should be afforded some protections. There was clearly some questionable prosecutorial conduct in this case. But since the U.S. lacked jurisdiction, diplomats could do nothing once the sentence was handed down. I don't believe that's fair. We should learn from this case to help prevent further miscarriages of justice in future international trials. 

8.     Shaniya Davis sold for sex: Little Shaniya was sold by her mother and ended up dead. I applaud the prosecutors in the Davis case for calling this crime what it is: human trafficking, and not labeling it just another case of sexual assault and murder. There is true evil out there, unfortunately, and this case is an example of what an evil, desperate mother can do to her own child. We need to get the word out that human trafficking for sex is a problem not just in Thailand or Cambodia, but right here at home in North Carolina and other states. 

9.     Chris Brown’s attack: Rihanna’s battered face hitting TMZ was a huge moment this year. Many people in this country still believe that domestic violence isn’t prevalent anymore. Well, this case reminded us all that it's still around and can and does affect everyone. I believe that while Brown got special treatment as a rap-music superstar, he was forthright in taking responsibility for his crime and at least reminded us that we need to pay attention to domestic violence. Brown pled to a felony, and he suffered some public humiliation. I think Brown got a little better deal than what he would have if the case had gone to trial -- but that's the nature of a plea deal. The real big shocker was when Rihanna went back to him! She really let down thousands of female fans who counted on her to behave as a role model after the attack. While the crimes de jour may change from year to year, we must remember that we still have a long way to go to stem violence against our loved ones.  

10.  Michael Jackson’s death: Dr. Conrad Murray is the sideshow to this final Michael Jackson explosive controversy.  It seemed as though the world stopped for a bit when news of Jackson’s death hit the airwaves in June.  Jackson’s Facebook page jumped from 800,000 fans to 7 million the week following the self-proclaimed King of Pop’s passing.  But the controversy over Jackson's doctor still rages. I know we'll be hearing a lot more about this one in 2010. Murray probably will be charged early next year after prosecutors present their case to a grand jury. I don’t think L.A. wants to lose another celebrity trial. Dr. Murray will probably be charged with involuntary manslaughter. Right now Jackson's death is being treated as a homicide investigation (simply because homicide investigators handle cases in which the victim died in the presence of another person – in this case Conrad Murray).  Thousands of media outlets will continue to follow this case. Get ready L.A.!

11.   Anthony Sowell’s rampage: This Cleveland rapist, if convicted, is the perpetrator of one of the most gruesome series of crimes in recent history. He lived in a townhouse duplex filled with the rotting bodies of women he had raped and strangled to death. Police found bodies in upstairs bedrooms, the living room, a crawl space, a shallow grave in the backyard and another grave in the basement. There were at least 11 victims.  The real question in this unspeakable case: neighbors and officials who did nothing about the horrendous smell wafting from the home. Neighbors knew something was off about Sowell. Some said he reeked so terribly himself that their eyes would water. City officials who inspected the street blamed the smell on backed up sewers or Ray's Sausage Company, housed in an adjacent building. Had the signs been heeded earlier -- among them Sowell’s strange behavior and the stench coming from his house -- perhaps some of the women might have been saved and more deaths prevented. This is a cautionary tale (a gruesome one) for us all to pay attention to our surroundings, follow our instincts, and report and pursue strange things -- even odors -- that seem out-of-place.

12.  Bernie Madoff’s scheme exposed: Madoff ran the largest Ponzi scheme in U.S. history. He cheated thousands of investors of some $50 billion. The federal government exposed the scheme in December ’08. Madoff pled guilty to 11 felony counts in March of  ’09, making him the highest profile white-collar criminal in recent memory. Madoff's scheme wiped out dozens of charities and the life savings of entire families; he totally ruined many innocent lives. Madoff wants everyone to believe he was the only one who knew of the fraud. That's hard to believe, since his brother, two sons, niece, and other family members held high-level positions in the firm. Now the 70-year-old will spend the rest of his life in prison. The Madoff scandal seemed to be at the epicenter of the economic meltdown and will undoubtedly shake the financial community for years to come. 

Tweet

Cambridge Police Justified

by Stacy Dittrich

It seems it will never end…the topic of race relations in America. In the recent case of the Cambridge, MA arrest of Harvard Scholar Henry Louis Gates, Jr. the subject reignited the fact that tensions are as heated as ever. Why? Your guess is good as mine. Let me put myself in the shoes of Cambridge, MA Police Sgt. James Crowley (shoes I’ve worn many times over to the point the soles are worn!) I’m am both angry, and exhilarated, about this particular case.

Let’s pretend I’m dispatched to a report of a burglary in progress. The dispatcher tells me the 911 caller says there are 2 black males using forcible entry into a home. Whether or not the caller actually said that to the dispatcher, I have yet to hear the radio transmission of the call being dispatched. Okay. I do my job; I respond to the call and, lo and behold, I find two black males inside a home where forced entry is observed. The 911 caller, Lucia Whalen, 40, makes contact with me outside of the home and says, “Hey! I’m the one who made the 911 call!” According to Whalen, the conversation ended there. However, in all my years of law enforcement I’ve never spoken to an official “complainant” of a call and never asked her any questions. Crowley documented in his report that upon arrival Whalen told him that she was pretty sure it was two black males forcing entry into the house (ummm, well there actually were so why is this a problem?) Whalen (pictured right) maintains that all she said to Crowley is that she made the call. I don’t believe it for a minute. In policing, you try to get as much information from the original complainant as possible. A veteran like James Crowley is clearly not going to say, “Ok! Thanks for calling, lady!” without asking any questions. Whalen’s attorney, Wendy Murphy, refused to answer questions about the "on scene" conversation during a recent press release.

Silence speaks volumes.

Web sites like TMZ are trying to insinuate that Sgt. James Crowley lied on his police report.

Please.

It would be one thing if they were told “2 black males” and ended up arresting 2 Hispanic or Asian males, but the bottom line is this: 2 black males were seen forcibly entering a residence and 2 black males were found inside that particular residence. No matter how you put a spin on it, the fact remains is that whoever called clearly articulated what they saw. What the nation is failing to realize is that has absolutely nothing to do with the arrest. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and his clear disrespect for law enforcement or the laws of the state of Massachusetts is what caused the arrest. If one takes a good look at the details, it is crystal clear that Mr. Gates violated the rules of disorderly conduct. I saw a moronic defense attorney on a prominent network state that to be guilty of disorderly conduct, one has to pose a clear physical threat to another person. I don’t know where this man went to law school but I’m not sure the bar association would agree with his theory. Here’s what the misdemeanor law of Disorderly Conduct reads in Ohio (which is similar to most states):

(A)No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following:

(1)Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent and turbulent behavior.

(2) Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;

(3)Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;

(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or, upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;

(5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by an act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose to the offender.

To make a long story short, if a young suburban house wife is playing with her toddler at a public playground and a man enters screaming the F-bomb over and over, he is guilty of disorderly conduct. The young housewife is offended, it happened in front of a child, and that’s all it takes, folks. If a man is standing in his own front yard screaming obscenities (as in the case of Dr. Gates) and any neighbor in close proximity can hear it, and is annoyed by it—he’s as guilty as all get out. So says case law.

So, back to my “if I were in his shoes scenario,” here’s what happens:

I arrive at the home, speak to the complainant, make contact with the suspect and advise him of the complaint (Okay, so here I have to give uber credit to the Cambridge Police—Me? I’d have put the guy down at gun point. Period. How the heck do I know the guy’s not a burglar? (I’ve seen burglars that range from scummy white rednecks, Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians—to attractive young college girls! If I’m a racist for calling out “it is what it is” then you are the one with serious issues!)

After advising them of the complaint, one of the men say, “I live here, this is my house!” I ask that man for identification (standard procedure no matter what call an officer is on) so I can verify it is his house, and get the hell out of there to meet my buddies for our scheduled coffee break.

His response?

“Why do you want my ID? Because I’m a black man in America?” he screams in my face.

“Um, no, so I can verify that you actually live here, sir” (I’m improvising of course.)

After the man launches into a tirade of verbally abusive obscenities towards me, he eventually provides identification. I verify he is, in fact, the homeowner and I begin to leave. However, as myself and other officers are exiting the home, the man follows us and continues his obscenity-laced tirade. When I notice the large crowd outside, I turn to the man and say, “Okay, enough is enough! It’s time for you to go back inside and calm down.”

Well, that’s not good enough for Dr. Gates. The instruction to calm down merely incites him more. He starts yelling a louder tirade that could be heard several blocks away. So, I warn him again, “Go inside! Your last warning!”

You guessed it. He proceeds to follow the cops onto the front lawn acting like an imbecile. They arrested him. They do their job.

Quite frankly, I think they gave Dr. Gates a break in only charging him with disorderly conduct. Here, in Ohio, Obstructing Official Business would have been more applicable—a second degree misdemeanor:

(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s duties.

Translation: You screw around and waste a cops’ time who is just trying to do their job by failing to provide ID, acting like a complete ass, and causing a disturbance, you are GUILTY!

I’ve encountered many, many, situations similar to the Gates’ call. Upon my arrival, the homeowners start laughing, pat me on the back, and are more than happy to provide proof that they live there. They find it quite amusing and are eager to tell their friends and family the story.

In Gates’ situation, the problem isn’t about race, it’s about social classes.

These calls I’m referring to where the citizen’s are good-hearted and cooperate with the cops are low to middle-class; all races included. The problems I’ve encountered, similar to the Gates’ case, was all “well-to-do” upper class neighborhoods. Doctors, Lawyers, Business Owners, and Stock Brokers of all various races are the only ones that have given me a hard time when I’ve been dispatched to their homes when a neighbor got “paranoid,” (according to them). I have been called names by these people that would put sheep into shock and have arrested several. But, like Sgt. Crowley, was later called into the administration office where I was told, “Ya know, the prosecutor’s office called, Dr. Smith is really sorry for the way he treated you and swears he won’t ever act like that again. He knows you were only doing his job. Do you mind if we void the charges?”

What am I supposed to say? It’s politics. My boss wants the charges to go away and if I want any kind of career I’ll agree. The only problem in the Cambridge case I see is that the charges were dropped. Dr. Henry Louis Gates acted like a first-class ass, disrespected his local law enforcement officers and neighborhood, and should pay the consequences. Race is nothing but a smoke-screen.

When President Obama stated the Cambridge Police acted stupidly is an entirely different blog. I simply don’t have enough room here for that!

My “exhilaration” in this case is a result of the overwhelming support Sgt. James Crowley (pictured left) received from his own department, the Massachusetts police union, and from cops across the country. It is so refreshing to finally see a law enforcement agency that is standing behind one of its own, instead of throwing them under the bus—like we see day after day. In a typical scenario, especially one where an officer was called ‘stupid’ by the President of the United States, this officer’s career would be over before it began. Regardless, the men and women in blue all over the country and—most importantly, the officers of his own agency, rallied around him because they knew what he did was right. Sgt. James Crowley is an instructor in cultural sensitivity training. He was the one that taught other officers to be color blind. Calling him a racist is comical and it is finally time he was defended!—Kudos to those who support him. Hey! Colin Powell agrees...

I don’t agree with the “beer summit.” I firmly believe that Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. should be thoroughly embarrassed by his actions; he should apologize, and then go bury his head in the sand.

Tweet

Rihanna and Chris Brown Find Women in Crime Ink

Women in Crime Ink’s Susan Murphy-Milano found herself in the thick of the Rihanna/Chris Brown fiasco when she was quoted in over a dozen news and media pieces, including Associated Press, People magazine, and TMZ.com, regarding the domestic violence incident involving the two high-profile entertainers. Murphy-Milano, a violence expert and victim’s advocate, was contacted extensively about her knowledge of domestic violence victims.

The night before the Grammy Awards, Chris Brown allegedly assaulted his long-time girlfriend, pop-star Rihanna, after a pre-Grammy award show at mega-producer Clive Davis’s party. According to news reports, Brown allegedly received a text message that escalated the verbal altercation into a physical assault. Photographs of the pummeled pop-star Rihanna appeared on numerous Web sites this past Thursday, prompting a public outcry and an LAPD internal investigation. Women in Crime Ink declines to publish this photograph due to the nature of the crime.

Although under scrutiny by law enforcement and public opinion, Murphy-Milano does see a positive side to the violent incident, as told to the Associated Press.

"I think she could be a very important voice and a tool for other people," she said of Rihanna. "She could turn this around," Murphy-Milano said, and tell others, " 'Don't be me.' "

This story and others simply show that the contributors of Women in Crime Ink are clearly the experts in the criminal justice field.

Tweet