.
Feedback

Officer Recalls Looking into the Eyes of Death and Evil

Story of meeting evil.

 

The room was very dimly lit. As I stepped into the house I could sense the presence of death. That’s a hard thing to get used to. It’s a sixth sense that develops in cops over time. Something’s not right. The hair on the back of your neck stands up and your body tightens. The fight or flight response is just under the surface.

When I first saw the victim I was shocked. I had never seen someone caught in the throes of death like that before. There seemed to be a scream on her face, frozen there for all time. Her eyes looked away, lost. Who had done this to her. Why would anyone do this to another person. What kind of rage or anger could drive a person to such horror, didn’t they realize what they were doing to another human being? Worse yet, what if they did realize what they were doing and did it anyway. That’s a monster in the realist sense of that word.

As I looked around the room I was struck by the simplicity of how otherwise normal the scene was. On any other day I could be walking into this room for a cup of coffee and a friendly conversation with this woman. I could imagine the Christmas tree in the corner of the room during the holidays and the sound of kids running around getting ready for school. It was surreal.

There is something disconnecting to examining a crime scene. The separation from what happened to the victim and the antiseptic approach of documenting the scene; the cops milling around, that one drinking a soda, that one taking notes, another snapping photographs, all the while the victim lays there in the middle of the room like another piece of furniture, silent, unmoving.

As a new investigator being in the center of this situation was a constant challenge to my inner person. I was here doing my job. At home my family was doing what families do at home, completely unaware of what I was part of. The victim and her family were caught up in the most intense and painful event of their lives.

Yet there was a matter of factness to it all. That was the strange part of it. The senior cops, detectives and investigators took the whole thing in stride. I supposed the look on my face gave away my youthful inexperience. “Don’t sweat it, you’ll get used to this kind of thing” was advice I got from almost every veteran there. I remember being horrified at that prospect. If I am going to get used to this what kind of career have I chosen for myself.

As I continued to work the scene the strange feelings didn’t go away, but they did get pushed back a bit. I did my job and moved on. At the end of the day, as I stood in the door way getting ready to leave I took in the scene again. I shook my head and went home. I didn’t mention too much detail, but I told my wife what my day was like, not your routine cop stuff for sure. As I went to sleep that night I thought I had made peace with it. Which made the next day even stranger.

I got to work early, there was a million details to attend to in this type of a case, even for a junior member of the team. The rest of the Unit was heading out for their assignments, interviews and other types of details.

About 10AM I got a call to go to a neighboring police department. They had a guy there that might have some information on the case. I was told to go and check him out. I got to the PD and was introduced to their detective, a dusty old guy with years of experience. We went to an interview room and spoke to this man with the information.

As the conversation got moving, I noticed that the man’s answers were not matching up to the questions. He seemed to want to tell us something different than what we were asking. Over a period of time it became clear to me and the dusty guy that this young man was involved in the case. The more we talked and let him tell his story, the more it became obvious that he wanted us to know what he did and why. He was intense, his story was more intense. The mood of the room changed.

As he spoke I pictured the victim in her own living room. I became completely involved in the action as he related it to us. I began to see my role as the victim’s advocate, the person who would stand up for her against this demon. We challenged this man and the more we did the more enjoyment he seemed to get from his actions. I was outraged at some level that he was proud of what he had done. He spoke of his actions in terms of his “work”. We talked with him for five hours. He explained in his own twisted logic what he had done and why he did it. I pursued him for every detail. I felt a sense of urgency to get it all. To tell the victims story, to speak for her when she could not.

When we were done talking, when all the details were out there on the table, all three of us were exhausted. We had gone on this horrific journey together and I felt I was changed somehow. As I drove home that day I realized the change in me was the result of coming face to face with real evil. I had looked into the eyes of something I had never seen before, and it looked back. I also understood what my career meant. To represent someone who cold not speak for themselves and to stand for them and their family was humbling. I found my place that day. I found my calling and I was grateful.

Let me know what you think.  email me at  jpangaro194@yahoo.com            

HomeOfTheBrave February 8, 2013 at 08:57 pm
Patricia- I provided you with real numbers, if you feel that the $200 - $400 a year that those numbers reflect as pay towards police services is too high, then speak out about it at township meetings. Personally, I don't see how something so small in a tax bill, compared to the other tax dollar amounts, creates such an outrage. Joe T, the tax lien list has been published, municipal taxes aren't driving people out of their homes. $700 a year on a $316K dollar house isn't driving that person from their home. You're being a little unrealistic while I am being honest.
HomeOfTheBrave February 8, 2013 at 08:58 pm
Chief Wahoo: what town do you live in that you're paying 10K a year in taxes??
Joe Taxpayer February 8, 2013 at 09:10 pm
Chief and Home of the Brave
Lacey gets $11M in state aid and uses budget magic called deferred school taxes to keep their local taxes down. If you look at the 2012 budget you will see that the magic is almost done with so watch for your 2013 tax increase of 10% Pt Pleasant gets 1.2M in state aid Who can explain why Lacey gets 10X Pt. Pleasant in State Aid???
Robert Yates February 8, 2013 at 09:18 pm
HOTB: The second amendment protects my right to "keep and bear Arms." According to the language of the amendment, this protection is not confined to my home, my car or the range. You know that it is impossible to get a license to carry in this state. This is a violation of the constitution - even if 9 judges can find some way to say that it is not. You know that I know your argument is accurately representing the law, technically speaking. I am trying to get you to justify the substance of the position, and to not simply retreat into the "well, it's legal" or the "supreme court says we can do it" US citizens have a God-given right (enshrined in the 2nd Amendment) to defend themselves. NJ violates this right. The kicker is (from your past posts) I think you agree with me, yet you need to find someway to justify how its okay for you to assist in this violation. An unjust law is not made just simply because the government says it is. I think it is indisputable that the SC has a pretty poor record of defending the constitution.
Karen Bolden February 8, 2013 at 09:40 pm
Chief: You have a lot to say, some of which is helpful but why are you so mean and condescending to the people on here? You constantly call them fools, sheep etc. What exactly do you do that makes you so much smarter than everyone on here?
Chief Wahoo February 8, 2013 at 10:03 pm
i READ AND LEARN thats exactly what i do to make me smarter and i do not believe what i am told by those who benefit by the lies.........it is not time, to be nice any more.....you must wake up NOW.....sorry if it offends you.....believe it or not, my words will help you more than any politician who talks nice to you and tells you what you want to hear ......i may be rude (on purpose) but they make you to do things at the threat of force.....so who is really the mean one ????????????
Josh February 8, 2013 at 10:12 pm
It is not explicitly in the Constitution, but covered in the Federalist papers, and well established. The Constitution is, after all, a set of laws. The Supreme Court is the final word on what is constitutional and what is not. You might not agree with how they rule, but there is nothing you can do about it. I don't know if NJ gun laws have ever been challenged in court, but they are the law in Nj. As an final thought, would you want to live in a place where the police interpret and enforce the laws as they see fit.
Robert Yates February 9, 2013 at 11:48 pm
@Josh: you are wrong that the SC is the final say. Maybe judicial review is found in the Federalist (I haven't read them in a while), but I am sure it was refuted in the anti-federalist papers. In either event, it is a political position that you may be willing to accept. I am not; the matter is certainly up for argument as this country has a long history of nullifying unjust laws. You do bring up a good point when you ask who should be the final say. It could be the state, perhaps the municipality, or maybe even the individual. I doubt a Lacey Police officer could do much worse than the US Supreme Court in protecting the rights set forth in the bill of rights.
Bill McDonnell February 10, 2013 at 02:09 am
Robert,
"US citizens have a God-given right (enshrined in the 2nd Amendment)"? Where is gods or any gods name used in the second amendment? Since I donot believe in a made up supreme being is it still my right also? Or I am left out because I donot believe in your god?
Josh February 10, 2013 at 03:32 am
RY, Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Supreme Court is the ultimate and final word on what is constitutional. They are the highest appellate court in the land so once they rule there is no higher place to appeal to. That is not to say that they don't ever change their mind, as they do. That justices on the SC are appointed for life so they do are freed from political pressure. That is why these appointments matter so much. Your idea that the individual should be able to decide on what is constitutional would lead to anarchy as everyone could decide which laws they want to follow.
Paul Heyman February 10, 2013 at 03:48 am
Yates - first off stop with the @ sign this isnt twitter JAckson. Second of all - you must be kidding me. Of course the supreme court decides what is constitutional or not.
HomeOfTheBrave February 10, 2013 at 04:00 am
Robert- NJ allows you to defend yourself, as does every other state. NJ just doesn't allow certain people to carry a gun around with them 24/7. I happen to agree with you regarding the fact that you should be allowed to concealed carry, but that still doesn't mean that NJ is violating one of your God given rights by not allowing you to carry a gun in public. Washington DC violated peoples 2nd Amendment Rights (see DC vs. Heller), but NJ allows you to own handguns, shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles. The Founders were big on States Rights and not allowing the Federal Government to interfere. The way I see it Robert, you can either stand on a soapbox and rally the people to your cause, or you can complain in internet forums about not being allowed to carry a gun. Only one of those two options even gives you a minuscule of a chance at making a difference. Go be loud!
HomeOfTheBrave February 10, 2013 at 04:10 am
Article III Section II :"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;"
Pretty much states right there that the Courts have the ultimate say.
HomeOfTheBrave February 10, 2013 at 04:13 am
I'd be lying if I said that this conversation was boring. I'm pretty excited about the debate that this sparked. With the exception of a few trolls, this has been some good conversation. Thanks!
clamdigger February 10, 2013 at 04:31 am
funded by the contractor because somewhere along the way the PBA said it was a necessity and was eventually built into contracts for LEO's to put in more time.
clamdigger February 10, 2013 at 04:36 am
before the hurricane hit and the power was out for a week, I had not seen a police officer directing traffic in years, especially at one of these work zones. Any time I pass a work zone the officer is sitting in his/her car either writing paperwork or talking on the phone while employee's of the contractor are out in the street with their flags or paddle signs and 2 way radios directing traffic.
clamdigger February 10, 2013 at 04:40 am
Chief; 50% is a big cut but your concept is pretty much right on, we just went through this in Brick a couple years back.
KC February 10, 2013 at 06:05 am
The declaration of war against public employee unions and public employee salaries and benefits is disgraceful period. Again, I am not a public employee.
Pundit February 10, 2013 at 04:01 pm
There is no such thing as a public war against present or retired public employees or in your case police officers. But there is a disgraceful public war being waged by present and retired public and governmental employees including police officers against overtaxed taxpayers. If the present and retired government and public employees and police officers feel they are being underpaid well then find a real job working for private employers. No one is begging you to stay working for the government. Really.
KC, do you dream of being a dramatic actor? You sure sound like a wannabe. And try being honest about who you really are. Again, you are not honest.
DennyD February 10, 2013 at 04:10 pm
Nuclear Power Plant
Joe Taxpayer February 10, 2013 at 04:18 pm
It's odd that the largest expenses in the state budget are all payroll related same as towns, counties and schools yet public employees are not responsible.
This is a case of the 1-2% public workers in NJ getting paid for by the other 98% at expense of themselves. In 14, expect even more pressure on taxes as the state has to pay more for pensions which will probably come at the expense of state aid. It's not like the Feds where NJ can just print money and kick the can. Imagine if instead of pensions, that 1.7 B could go to property tax relief? Pension Battles The biggest single funding increase in the FY14 budget is the estimated $690 million hike in the cost of state pension payments from $1.06 billion this year to almost $1.7 billion next year. http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/13/02/03/analysis-christie-s-fiscal-cliff-3-billion-and-counting/
Chief Wahoo February 10, 2013 at 04:34 pm
New Rule in the 21st Century. If you can't touch it or protect it , you do not own it. The public leeches will learn this rule the hard way. Their IOUs are worthless. There is no money. They were greedy , although I do not blame them for taking as much as they could.
It always makes me laugh when they argue how much the private sector made when times were good. Not realizing that they needed those good times to continue more than the taxpayers to keep their fangs into the zombie sheep. But as always when you mess with a mans shelter and feeding his family , as property taxes do now , we have reached the tipping point. The pot of gold at the end of the public employee rainbow is not there. Pay for your own health benefits , pay for your own retirement. Get a job in private sector if you do not like it.
Chief Wahoo February 10, 2013 at 04:44 pm
Joe T. It is actually much worse. There are 800, 000 public leeches active and retired being paid by 8,000,000 NJ citizens. Then when you subtract the many in NJ who pay no taxes , it probably drops to below 6,000,000 tax paying hosts paying to support 800,000 leeches. And this is just on local and state level. When you start to include the federal level. The middle class taxpayer does not have a chance to make a honest living and support this Ponzi. The math just does not allow it.
Joe Taxpayer February 10, 2013 at 04:45 pm
Thanks. Lacey benefits more than the rest because of this business which keeps taxes low there. Good for them. Doesn't mean everyone else isn't screwed by high property taxes.
iknow February 11, 2013 at 12:16 pm
Chief Whaoo uses words such as these to describe people:
"public leeches" "their fangs into the zombie sheep" "public employee rainbow" Then tries to convince people that he is a leader: ".....believe it or not, my words will help you" He actually thinks he is smarter than you: "i READ AND LEARN thats exactly what i do to make me smarter" Is someone a little high on himself? This guy is probably a drunk who gets brave after drinking his daily case of beer and then goes and rants about public employees on his computer. He is most likely a member of the largest "Ponzi" scam of them all: the ones collecting unemployment, disability, and every other free handout that the government gives you even if you didn't contribute towards it. This man is a joke!
Robert Yates February 12, 2013 at 03:16 pm
@Josh: if you are content deferring to the SC because the SC has ordained themselves as the final arbiters of a law's constitutionality (even though they are pretty bad at protecting rights as history has proven), that's cool. I would just ask you to consider that there are alternative solutions to judicial tyranny.
@PH: the little @ sign is a good tool to direct your comment at an individual poster when the string is running in the reply column. Sorry if it annoys you. On the other stuff, feel free to make an argument, but your mere say so adds nothing to the conversation. @HOTB: the part of the constitution that you cited gives the SC the authority to decide certain cases. Nowhere does that clause state that this decision is supreme. Marbury v. Madison established the concept as a matter of law (falsely I believe and many thinkers and states rejected this rationale). See John Calhoun; his writings are very instructive on the concept of nullification.
Robert Yates February 12, 2013 at 03:40 pm
@BM: I am sorry you are offended by my assertion that the bill of rights are God-given. These rights are also provided by the laws of nature and common sense. In either event, they apply to everyone. I don't remember ever suggesting that they do not.
@HOTB: you have been very forthright through out this conversation, but the suggestion that NJ allows you to defend yourself is simply not true. NJ does not allow anyone (save the select few who can get a superior court judge to deem that they are in imminent danger of losing life or limb) to carry a loaded firearms outside of their home. You know this is true and this is a violation of the constitution, the laws of nature and the laws of common sense. Again, if you are content deferring to the SC because of their self ordained authority, then okay. But there are other ways. Also, isn't complaining on an internet site a way of rallying people to a cause (perhaps not the most effective one). Certainly there are other ways as well to convince people, but at this point, this is really all I have time for and really I don't even have that. After all I have to work almost an entire half a year to pay the taxes that politicians use to violate my rights and those of others. It is great fun though to have these discussions and I thank all who took the time.
Robert Yates February 12, 2013 at 03:54 pm
@Josh: the suggestion that SC appointees are not political is as naive as it is wrong. Why do you think that the SC always ends up voting in favor of the lunacy that is regularly put before them by congress. Robert's opinion in the recent healthcare decision was one of the most incoherent and rationally absurd rulings that I have ever wasted time reading. You sound like perhaps you might be in law school. Wait until you get to Scalia and Thomas and Renquist's interpretations of the 4th Amendment and executive power. They are serving the people who appointed them and or the popular flavor of the day. Very rare is the judge who is ideologically consistent and even rarer is the judge that has no sold out a million times in order to get appointed.
Josh February 12, 2013 at 04:49 pm
RY, I said that SC nominees are free from political pressure, not that the appointees are not political. Once on the Supreme Court, they never face the electorate and never fear for their job. They are free to rule as they see fit. They need no favors so they need not compromise their beliefs.
Your refusal to accept that SC is the final arbiter on the constution baffles me as you fail to explain who is the final arbiter? Who has the last word on whether a law is constitutional or not?
Robert Yates February 12, 2013 at 06:29 pm
I will grant you that there is not suppose to be political pressure, but there is both before the appointments and after. What could possibly explain Robert's ruling on the heath care law otherwise? I have already answered your question on who should have the final say. I am not sure that there should be a single entity that has final say. In the past, certain citizens were content with the state having final say. This has been the main way in which nullification has occurred. But maybe it's the municipality. If they proceed to violate fundamental rights, maybe its the individual. One of the best tools citizens had in earlier day was the concept of jury nullification. A quick example would be this: I am walking my dog at midnight and I am stopped and frisked and the officers finds me carrying a gun. Because this is technically illegal in NJ (even though that law violates my rights) I am arrested and tried. Now, the judge will tell the jury that if they believe that I was carrying a gun, then they must find me guilty because that's the law and these are the facts. Back then, the jury knew that they could determine the facts and the law. If they felt the law violated the person's rights, they voted to exonerate and the court could do nothing about this. This was a great check on overweening government and ridiculous laws that infringe on our rights. This tool is still available to jurors today only it is gravely frowned upon by judges because it lessens their power.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Point Pleasant Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Kathleen Ann Hagel May 25, 2013 at 03:27 am
Way to go my peanut butter crunch!!!!
Joseph Cutrone May 25, 2013 at 12:33 pm
Dear Cass, This is Dads friend Joey In Florida. and i am SO proud of you! CONGRATS on this and ALLRead More your future "gigs" cant wait to see your name in broadway lights and I KNOW you will do it! Joey