LAPD Detectives Capture the Killers of Newborn Baby

Los Angeles: Robbery Homicide Detectives announce additional arrests in the murder investigation of 23 day old, Luis Angel Garcia and shooting of Francisco Clemente.

On September 15, 2007 at around 9:30 p.m., Rampart Patrol Officers responded to a shooting call at 1805 West 6th Street. Twenty-three day old, Luis Garcia, was shot in the chest and died. 37 year old, Francisco Clemente was shot several times in the face and body. Mr. Clemente remained in critical condition for several days but is now recovering.

Robbery–Homicide Division assumed investigative responsibility for this horrible murder. Rampart Homicide detectives and gang officers continued to assist them along with other department entities and the FBI. Detectives Dan Jenks and Dave Holmes of Robbery-Homicide Division, Gang Homicide Unit, were assigned as the lead investigators.

In the initial stages of the investigation more than twenty detectives were assigned to the case. Labor intensive tasks such as canvassing, re-canvassing, working clues and other preliminary investigative tasks resulted in the investigation developing at an accelerated pace.

The investigation has revealed that “Eighteenth Street” gang members have been extorting the street vendors in the 6th Street and Burlington area. The detectives believe that when Mr. Clemente refused to pay the gang members, he and the infant were shot.

Several gang members have been charged with numerous crimes including eight for the murder, one for extortion of the vendors and two for the intimidation of witnesses. The shooter, 18 year old Giovanni Macedo, was one of those arrested. The investigation is continuing and more arrests involving the murder and associated crimes are anticipated.

LAPD is looking for 34 year old, Juvenal Cardenas Mejia, aka “Atlas”, and 40 year old, Guadalupe Rangel it is believed that they may both be in Mexico.

Comments

[Wyatt Earp]

Let's hear it for the Death Penalty...Hip Hip Hooray!!

These punk gang members are cowards who prey on the weak and innocent. I hope each of those who committed this heinous crime are caught and get swift justice.

[Edgar Friendly]

Death penalty would be nice, but let's not hold our breath. Do we remember that beautiful little girl in Echo Park about 2 years ago, killed by a stray bullet that was let fly by a punk gang banger who was shooting back at yet another punk? They caught him, and the DA declined to file, stating he shot in self-defense. One would hope that the DA has enough stones to press for a death penalty case here, because it gets a little old seeing these punks let off relatively easy.

[Gabe]

Death penalty? Not so sure it's such a great thing.

It wouldn't deter other punks from doing this sort of thing. It never has.

Well, maybe if we make it "swifter and surer." Like they do in Texas, which wrongly executed Carlos De Luna in a case of mistaken identity, and Cameron Todd Willingham based on "crazed glass" arson evidence that now is believed to be consistent with what happens when firefighters -- get this -- put water on the fire. And then there are those 12 residents of Death Row in Illinois, all released after being found to be actually innocent.

We could reason that we don't want to spend the money to house and feed them, although we spend more to get them sentenced to death and executed.

So I'm not seeing what it really gets us, over and above life without parole. The only persuasive argument I ever heard for the death penalty was from an assistant DA out in Van Nuys. She once told me that life without parole falls short of true incapacitation; that the death penalty really is total incapacitation, so that nobody ever is exposed to the defendant again, not the corrections staff, nor other inmates, not the general public if someday he does get released. I accept that, but I can't accept the error rate.

Moreover, most death penalty advocates don't favor it because they believe in total incapacitation. What they really want is revenge. What they really want is the defendant's blood. I can understand that too. I just don't think we ought to base our theory of retributive justice on it.

Finally, let's weigh the benefit of whatever we get from feeling good about killing the monster, or from giving the monster what we collectively think he deserves, against what the death penalty does to us by putting us in the business of killing. It's a value judgment; if you don't care all that much about state-sponsored killing, then it's no big deal, but if you think state-sponsored killing is a very serious business that carries all kinds of risks and takes us into some very questionable moral territory, then the benefits don't seem all that worthwhile.

He who hunts monsters ought to be careful that he himself does not become a monster.

[anonymous]

Even missing children. Where are they ?

Britney Spears should be allowed to see her kids. It is a mental torture to take away the ones she loves. She might be unstable but still, these are her kids. The ones whom she gave birth too. Have a heart. Let her see them.

[Morgaine]

Nicely put, Gabe.

[Alfonso's living victim, my grandmother's rapist]

Gabe,
A few years ago I lost a family member to a killer. YES I wanted revenge! Yes I was glad when the killer got the death penalty. But I was even more glad that the killing took place in Texas. In about five to 10 years I'll be able to fly back to Texas and witness the last breath of the person who did the killing. I will suffer no remore, I will gladly participate in the injection if no one else can be found. It guess it would be easy to say that a life in prioson would be a better for everyone involved and to that I say yes. I could go on about how my family member was killed and the horror she must have sufferd but I don't think it would matter to you. So long as the person who did this lived out the rest of his life and died of natural causes in jail. Well to that I say the death penalty is a natural way to go, either that or let me tie him down, and do what was done to my loved one. If he manages to survive that I will be the first one putting the red carpet out for him as he walks out of the hospital. Justice in any form is Justice. He knew what the penalty was if he killed and got caught that's why they try so hard not to get caught. Under your line of thinking NO law has ever prevented anyone from not doing anything! So why have DUI laws, why put child molesters in jail? What is the point? I would agree with you about life in prison if he was allowed to live that life with out a TV, with out sun shine, with out drugs, with out a radio. IF they were treated like the animals that they are. Place meals in the middle of the floor and who ever ends up with the meal eats for the day, the hurt and dead are rounded up and disposed of. A jail where it isn't my responsiblity to make sure that they don't become victims, or where they are treated with respect. Where the jailers are on the outside of the building not on the inside with these animals. Find a better solution then just keep them locked up, because that ones doesn't cut it for me.

[Gabe]

To Alfonso's living victim --

You make some valid points.

First of all, I would never deny that your grandmother suffered, or that you suffered, and still do. Nor would I deny that your suffering calls out for a very swift and decisive response.

The question we're talking about is what the response should be. Alfonso's death will give you a great deal of satisfaction. I don't blame you or fault you for feeling that way. However, I don't agree that the state ought to decide to kill Alfonso, or anyone in his position, to satisfy you. That is hard for me to say and hard for you to accept. What the state does, it does in all of our names. All of us have a stake in the societal response to heinous crimes. All of us want to see justice done.

You and I have a disagreement about what justice requires. I happen to believe that the state ought not to kill. Part of that is based on my religioius belief. Part of it also, though, is my belief in what is good policy.

I don't think it's good policy to have capital punishment when we can't administer it fairly, as shown by the Baldus study (blacks who kill whites are statistically far more likely to get death than blacks who kill blacks, or whites who kill). Nor is it good policy, in my view, to have a system of capital punishment when there are so many flaws in the mechanism. How in the world could 12 people be on Death Row in Illinois and then be found to be actually innocent? How can we live with the fact that Texas has killed actual innocents (De Luna and Willingham, for example)? I can't live with that, I'm sorry.

You do make some valid points about how cozy conditions in prison add up to an unjust punishment. If what you say is true, then life without parole does seem an empty and insufficient punishment. But I see that as a challenge for our corrections people. I don't happen to think that San Quentin is a particularly comfortable place. On the other hand, perhaps you remember the video of Richard Speck, the murderer of eight Chicago nurses, enjoying a marijuana cigarette as he sat in a prison closet, lounging around in his blue satin underwear. It was disgusting. I'm equally disgusted by how elements of the anti-death penalty movement in my state are quietly planning to attack life without parole once they manage to abolish the death penalty. To me, life without parole must be part of the bargain if we abolish the death penalty.

So as I said, you raise some valid points. I think the death penalty, like many issues, is something reasonable people may disagree about. You should know that there are victims' groups which advocate abolition. Some members of those groups have lost loved ones to murder. There are a wide range of opinions on this issue, and most of those opinions are worthy of respect.

I'm sorry for your loss and I'm not trying to persuade you here; I wanted you to understand more about my position, and to know that I'm not someone to whom your suffering makes no difference.

God's speed to you.

[Alfonso's living victim, my grandmother's rapist]

Gabe,
Your opinion is noted. However, you still can't tell me that a life in prison is worth my money in taxes. I can appreciate your feelings but I hope that the death penalty is NEVER taken off the table. Until we as a society can figure out what to do with these people and how exactly to treat them the penalty of death should always be an option. A prisoner at this level when he/she has taken a life should be locked up for life in a death penalty situation. In small rooms no sunshine with none of life’s pleasures 23 hours a day. And don't risk the life of some correctional officer to take care of him/her. Until we can come up with a better system than what we have now and s better system than one you advocate the death penalty should always be an option and let’s face it most of the time the prisoner gets to live out his life and dies of natural causes anyway. However, the death penalty option isolates these prisoners away from most human contact. The penalty of life in prison still gives them wonderful options. And it’s those options that I have a problem with. You and I can go back and forth on this issue for forever and we will never agree for every "innocent" person in prison that you have named I too could name one or two that are not too innocent. So in conclusion you protest against the death penalty and I'll advocate for it and may the better argument win. See you somewhere on the oposite side of this discussion.

[Steven Oustrad]

I say KILL THEM NOW! Give them the needle, preferably a dull well used needle! You kill in the fashion they have, you do not deserve to live one more day! Furthermore, the families do not deserve to be further victimized by these murderers by the REPEATED attempts to a new trial which will undoubtedly be pushed by the anti death penalty Johnny come lately's! And I certainly do not want to foot the bill for your repeated legal costs!

[Morgaine]

Part of the reason I agree with Gabe is I also lost a beloved family member to violence, and I am familiar with the grief process. You tell yourself you will have closure when the perpetrator dies, but it just isn't so. That is when you will begin the process of closure - and look how long the process has made you wait already. I am very sorry for your loss and pain. I hope the beauty and love that was your grandmother's life is soon separated from the way her life ended for you and for your family, and that soon none of your thought and energy will be expended in the direction of a sociopath killer. Bless you, and bless Gabe for offering a thoughtful opinion in a forum where it is most likely to be at odds with the general consensus.

[midwest gal]

I say kill them all and let God sort it out!

[alfonso's living victim]

Gabe, I just found this article...This is why I hope the death penalty is never taken off the table. Not because he has sexual identity issues but, because he gets it all at my cost!

A killer who sued to have a sex change claims her body is becoming more masculine again because she's being denied treatment in prison as she awaits a ruling in her bid for the surgery.

Michelle Kosilek, formerly known as Robert, said that for months she has not been allowed to have court-approved hair-removal treatment or access to a specialist to discuss her testosterone levels.

"My breasts have shrunk, genitals have regained previous size and function, facial hair is thicker and scalp hair is thinner, all related to an elevated testosterone level," Kosilek said in a handwritten letter submitted to the court recently.

Robert Kosilek was sentenced to life in prison in the 1990 murder of his wife. Kosilek said the slaying was self-defense after she poured boiling tea on his genitals.

Kosilek, 58, who legally changed her name to Michelle in 1993 and has been living as a woman, first sued the Department of Correction in 2000, saying its refusal to allow her to have sex-change surgery violates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

In 2002, U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled that Kosilek was entitled to treatment for gender identity disorder, including hormone treatments, laser hair removal and psychotherapy - but stopped short of ordering sex-reassignment surgery.

Kosilek sued again in 2005, saying the treatments were not enough to relieve her anxiety and depression.

"I would not want to continue existing like this," Kosilek testified in June 2006.

The trial lasted on and off from May 2006 until March 2007, with expert testimony from 10 doctors, psychiatrists and psychotherapists. An Associated Press review last year found that the corrections department and its outside health care provider had spent more than $52,000 on experts to testify about the surgery, which would cost about $20,000.

Though testimony ended almost a year ago, Wolf has given no indication when he will rule in the case, which is being closely watched nationwide by advocates for other inmates who want to undergo a sex change. Transgender inmates in other states have sued prison officials, but none has persuaded a judge to order a sex-change operation.

The Department of Correction claims Kosilek's surgery would create a security quagmire and make her a target for sexual assault. Department spokeswoman Diane Wiffin would not comment on Kosilek's recent claims that her treatment is being neglected, citing the ongoing litigation.

In court papers filed last month, Kosilek claimed that prison officials have stopped following the treatment plan outlined by Wolf in 2002, causing a "serious revision" in her attempts to complete her transformation into a woman.

Kosilek said she has not received any laser hair removal or electrolysis since May 2006, and that prison officials have refused to let her see an endocrinologist since October 2007. She said she has repeatedly told prison authorities that the testosterone blocker Lupron has stopped functioning effectively.

In a written response, lawyers for prison officials said Kosilek has continued to receive adequate treatment for gender-identity disorder. The Correction Department also said Kosilek met three times in December with a nurse practitioner to discuss her concerns about her suppression treatment.

Kosilek, however, said prison officials have denied her repeated requests for a follow-up visit with the endocrinologist.

Prison officials said Kosilek received extensive laser hair removal treatments, then asked in January 2007 for electrolysis to remove hair that was too light for laser treatments. They said the department's mental health provider is currently reviewing the request for electrolysis to determine whether it is "appropriate or necessary treatment."

Kosilek's lawyer, Frances Cohen, said the surgery is a medical necessity for Kosilek, who has twice attempted suicide.

"We hope that the Department of Correction wouldn't use the amount of time that it necessarily takes the judiciary to resolve this to allow her treatment to move backwards," Cohen said.