Krenwinkel returned to LA

'Bama,

Do you know many Alabama officers with cuffs?  We want details! 

[quote author=freebird link=topic=3074.msg41635#msg41635 date=1257578687]
Even if she was just wanted for questioning (rather than a very gruesome set of murders) I'm pretty sure I would have her in cuffs with a belly belt. Seems that Alabama Police are a little to trusting. . . .  : but that's just MHO
[/quote]


Don't remember where I  heard it and don't even know if it is true or not but I seem to recall from somewhere that a prisoner being transported via commercial airline cannot be restrained with cuffs unless they give their consent.

Does anyone know if this is true or not?

I did a lot of interstate extraditions on behalf of a Florida jurisdiction as a deputy sheriff back in the early 1980's. My information is therefore dated.

As it was:

The transport officers had a a great deal of discretion and latitude whereas the method of restraining the prisoner was concerned. The airlines didn't have regulations that prescribed law enforcement procedures. However, certain airlines were a bit more touchy about prisoner transports than others. There were some, such as Eastern, who generally preferred that the subject be fully restrained every time, and others such as Delta that didn't seem to care what we did with the guy or gal in question so long as everything stayed cool.

We would always have a look at the nature of the prisoner and make a determination based on a number of factors. For instance, if one's prisoner was a violent offender or an escape risk (we used to call those suckas "rabbits"), then they would be restrained to whatever degree we felt necessary to ensure the safety of the officers and the passengers onboard the aircraft. For a hot one, we'd truss the subject with cuffs, belly chain, and leg irons... or some combination thereof. I also had a pair of thumb cuffs that I'd stick on guys who had a proven ability to pick handcuffs. You cuff them in front so their thumbs are pointed downwards and stick those thumb cuffs on afterwards and that was it for them picking the lock easily enough that you wouldn't notice them struggling against the restraints.

If the subject was incredibly violent we wouldn't even utilize a commercial airline, but would instead sometimes fly to where our subject had been apprehended in a light aircraft belonging to the sheriff's department. At other times we also transported such persons by means of motor vehicles of various types. We even had a bread truck with a built-in cage that we used when we wanted to go super low profile. Shades of Danny DeCarlo!

We generally preferred to not restrain the subject if possible, so as to avoid the inevitable embarrassment of the prisoner, as well to dodge looky-lou situations and panicky passengers from freaking out enroute. There were times when we had a guy cuffed, but we'd wrap a sweater or something over his wrists so as to hide the restraints. The subject would then end up looking like some sort of collegiate type being escorted by two uber-goons. It was all very svelte and trendy.

The chief transporting officer in my unit was a guy named Captain L.C. Gilley... and yes, that's a real name. Most of the time while working with LC, the deal was that he'd be sitting in a seat behind the unrestrained subject, with the younger, still-brawl-crazy Roberteaux sitting unarmed in the aisle seat next to the subject, blocking him in. The idea was that if the subject got out of hand I would pounce and pound, or sap the guy out with a blackjack. If he got past me, LC would shoot him dead on the spot. We used to take the subject aside before we ever got to the terminal and explain our game to him. Very few inmates wanted to screw around after we sat there and very calmly told him exactly how we were going to handle him. And all a guy had to do was take one look at LC to understand that the old man wouldn't hesitate to let him have it.

LC carried Glaser safety slugs in his .38, which make a horrible mess out of any person they hit, but which wouldn't penetrate the fuselage of an aircraft or ricochet and injure another passenger. That wasn't SOP, either... just a good idea that somebody in our unit came up with (probably Sergeant Codierre). You just had to make sure to shoot the guy point-blank, and that's the end of the show. A safety slug wouldn't penetrate his body.

If we had to transport Katie, we probably wouldn't have handcuffed her either-- and never mind the oo-ee-oo Manson stuff. The situation would have been that the female officer would have been in the aisle seat with the male escort sitting back behind them placidly. Had I been running the show when Katie broke bad, I would have nailed her from behind with my 'jack faster than you can say "Krenwinkle"...

I do not know if any of this has changed since 9/11, and again: I've been out of that game for ages. However, this afternoon I will be speaking to a friend who is still a sergeant in my old unit and will provide an update if he has information that is any different from that above.

--RBTX

I have always found the description safety slug ironic.  I carried Glasers (still do) in both my Colt and my Dan Wesson.  I have seen what a safety slug will do, and it is not pretty.  The slug will penetrate but it doesn't come out, between the damage done by shreadig and the impending damage from the shot spreading as it hits, it was an effective round for maximum damage with little risk to innocents.

[quote author=Roberteaux link=topic=3074.msg41658#msg41658 date=1257690819]
I did a lot of interstate extraditions on behalf of a Florida jurisdiction as a deputy sheriff back in the early 1980's. My information is therefore dated.

As it was:

The transport officers had a a great deal of discretion and latitude whereas the method of restraining the prisoner was concerned. The airlines didn't have regulations that prescribed law enforcement procedures. However, certain airlines were a bit more touchy about prisoner transports than others. There were some, such as Eastern, who generally preferred that the subject be fully restrained every time, and others such as Delta that didn't seem to care what we did with the guy or gal in question so long as everything stayed cool.

We would always have a look at the nature of the prisoner and make a determination based on a number of factors. For instance, if one's prisoner was a violent offender or an escape risk (we used to call those suckas "rabbits"), then they would be restrained to whatever degree we felt necessary to ensure the safety of the officers and the passengers onboard the aircraft. For a hot one, we'd truss the subject with cuffs, belly chain, and leg irons... or some combination thereof. I also had a pair of thumb cuffs that I'd stick on guys who had a proven ability to pick handcuffs. You cuff them in front so their thumbs are pointed downwards and stick those thumb cuffs on afterwards and that was it for them picking the lock easily enough that you wouldn't notice them struggling against the restraints.

If the subject was incredibly violent we wouldn't even utilize a commercial airline, but would instead sometimes fly to where our subject had been apprehended in a light aircraft belonging to the sheriff's department. At other times we also transported such persons by means of motor vehicles of various types. We even had a bread truck with a built-in cage that we used when we wanted to go super low profile. Shades of Danny DeCarlo!

We generally preferred to not restrain the subject if possible, so as to avoid the inevitable embarrassment of the prisoner, as well to dodge looky-lou situations and panicky passengers from freaking out enroute. There were times when we had a guy cuffed, but we'd wrap a sweater or something over his wrists so as to hide the restraints. The subject would then end up looking like some sort of collegiate type being escorted by two uber-goons. It was all very svelte and trendy.

The chief transporting officer in my unit was a guy named Captain L.C. Gilley... and yes, that's a real name. Most of the time while working with LC, the deal was that he'd be sitting in a seat behind the unrestrained subject, with the younger, still-brawl-crazy Roberteaux sitting unarmed in the aisle seat next to the subject, blocking him in. The idea was that if the subject got out of hand I would pounce and pound, or sap the guy out with a blackjack. If he got past me, LC would shoot him dead on the spot. We used to take the subject aside before we ever got to the terminal and explain our game to him. Very few inmates wanted to screw around after we sat there and very calmly told him exactly how we were going to handle him. And all a guy had to do was take one look at LC to understand that the old man wouldn't hesitate to let him have it.

LC carried Glaser safety slugs in his .38, which make a horrible mess out of any person they hit, but which wouldn't penetrate the fuselage of an aircraft or ricochet and injure another passenger. That wasn't SOP, either... just a good idea that somebody in our unit came up with (probably Sergeant Codierre). You just had to make sure to shoot the guy point-blank, and that's the end of the show. A safety slug wouldn't penetrate his body.

If we had to transport Katie, we probably wouldn't have handcuffed her either-- and never mind the oo-ee-oo Manson stuff. The situation would have been that the female officer would have been in the aisle seat with the male escort sitting back behind them placidly. Had I been running the show when Katie broke bad, I would have nailed her from behind with my 'jack faster than you can say "Krenwinkle"...

I do not know if any of this has changed since 9/11, and again: I've been out of that game for ages. However, this afternoon I will be speaking to a friend who is still a sergeant in my old unit and will provide an update if he has information that is any different from that above.

--RBTX
[/quote]

Roberteaux,

Thanks for that! You always have good detailed answers that are interesting.

Howdy, kdimm!

Well, I finally got next to my buddy the deputy, and here's the scoop he gave me:

These days, if one is to transport an inmate via a commercial airline, one must provide a letter of intention to the airline itself. This is usually submitted at least 48 hours before the proposed transport.

That was a thing we did as a courtesy in the past, but now it is apparently mandatory vis-a-vis the airline's internal regulations.

The airlines also have a greater degree of influence over the type of operation that is to take place than they did when I was a young buck. This is to say that there are some airlines who now refuse to allow the prisoner to be restrained in any manner whatsoever-- apparently to assuage the other passengers, who were notoriously jittery about riding in a jet that also contained a felony offender, even in my long-ago day, and are even more easily spooked now. It follows that there are yet other airlines that require that the prisoner have more chains wrapped around him that the Ghost of Christmas Past... even if he's just a forgery artist and not at all violent!

It's all up to the airline in question, and sometimes there are occasions when some poor copper has to drive clear to Timbuktu because the airline simply will not facilitate the sort of operation that the police agency has in mind.

As I said above: we did have various werewolves to cart in the olden days who, due to their rather difficult predispositions, caused us to nix the idea of an airline flight anyway... so that much hasn't changed-- except that the airline has a much bigger say than before whereas such matters are concerned.

There has been another big change since 9/11, to wit: the TSA now requires local law enforcement agencies who are involved in extraditions to teletype yet another letter of intent to them, with a certain format that must be followed if TSA is to accept and allow the operation to take place. The information that TSA requires is fairly comprehensive and complete, and the officers can expect to be shaken down pretty thoroughly themselves before TSA will ever let them onto an aircraft.

Other than that, it's pretty much the same deal and most of it is governed by common sense. I learned that the sheriff's department still likes to play the game with one or two guys in the seat next to the prisoner, with another one in the back seat who will pop the dude if things go extremely wrong. The only difference is that now they would tend to taze the guy before actually putting his lights out the way we would back in the Stone Age, when all cops had to rely on were fists, impact weapons, and guns.

And that's the whole story...

Take 'er easy, kdimm!

--RBTX 

Oh, and I almost forgot to say:

The prisoner himself has nada to say about how he will be shackled, no matter what else about the situation is operative. There is no law at all in place that gives any discretion to the prisoner.

--RBTX 

So she wakes up every morning and 'knows' that but does she care?

[quote author=gerard link=topic=3074.msg41676#msg41676 date=1257774771]
So she wakes up every morning and 'knows' that but does she care?
[/quote]
EXACTLY!!!

A recent entry on the MansonMysteries website states that a 2/01/10 parole hearing has been scheduled for Krenwinkel.

I wish Gibby's sister would at least attend this parole hearing. Money, influence and wild horses wouldn't stop me from having my say.

MG~ I agree. I have never understood that. Like you, I would HAVE to attend. It is nice to meet you, there are so many good, new people here! As far as parole hearings, Bruce Davis scares me the most. IIRC, he came close to getting out last time. That would be a travesty IMHO.
Jamie

Thanks JJ it's great to meet like minded folk like you. Any time you want to PM me, feel free.

I think Gibby in a way has been failed by her family. At least the Tates (Doris, Patty, Debra) fought for Sharon's justice. Where was Gibby's?

While is is wrong to blame him for every unsolved murder of that time, the fact remains that he knows what happened to John Haught. {Zero}. I can not believe a changed man as he claims to be would not be compelled by his conscience to tell the truth about how that poor victim really died.
Jamie

Police are more polite when being photographed.

:tan: