Wednesday, December 12, 2012

"Wire Tapped Murder," More Background On The Gang-On-Gang Killing Of Darrell Fisher...

Stock photo, blog post by John Hoff

A story on Fox 9 aired in late November revealed interesting details about the murder of Darrell Fisher. Incredibly, Minneapolis police and FBI had wiretaps running and knew about the threat made against Fisher by a fellow member of Young 'N' Thuggin (YNT). Click here for the Fox 9 story.

For a number of reasons, not the least of which being an inability to find the shooter and not knowing "Black" was the street alias of Darrell Fisher, authorities couldn't stop the murder. Naturally, the family wants to blame police instead of their own gang-involved relative.

An active citizen in North Minneapolis did forward some additional information about this murder, including the fact Fisher lived in a duplex at 2725 - 2727 Humboldt Avenue North and the owner of the property is scheduled for a rental inspection, gee, when?


The property in question is owned by Theresa O. Alada and her partner, Mike. It has been a constant source of aggravation to neighbors ever since it was purchased by the Aladas. The murder of Fisher was the tragic cherry atop a very big ice cream sundae of constant frustration and aggravation caused by not only tenants, but even by individuals hired to be laborers and perform lousy, inadequate fixes to the structure.

In fairness to those laborers, apparently getting wages out of the Ayalas was no easy task.

Here is a link to a 3 page community impact statement about the property, and it's a doozy. Apparently the neighbor who wrote this statement was actually one of the citizens who called police the night Fisher was beaten by fellow gang members for stealing drugs. It was that theft of drugs which resulted in Fisher's death, his body dumped behind the house of this same neighbor.

I am looking forward to finding out how this gets resolved and whether the Aladas will lose their rental license. They certainly should. The next door neighbor, who has done so much to document this problem and provide testimony, is fighting a battle for all the decent people in North Minneapolis and deserves to be commended. 


Johnny Northside! said...

This post has been corrected. It originally said "up for license review." That information, received by this blog from a source, has been corrected by the same source. The property is actually "scheduled for a rental inspection." There is some overlap in the meaning of these two phrases, but the more correct phrase has been substituted.

Johnny Northside! said...

I also received the following info a moment ago.
Alada has an Appeals hearing scheduled for the 18th. (Seems a bit weird to schedule a appeals hearing before the reults of the inspection are in so I guess this is a good sign.) ;)

Anonymous said...

I just had to make another 911 call on 2725/27 Humboldt Ave North tonight. At around 6:00 pm my wife went out back to do some shoveling and heard a commotion and screams around at the front of our house. When I looked, a woman was screaming and two people were trying to subdue her. Apparently they were taking something out of the home and the woman was frantically trying to prevent this. For 20 minutes this struggle ensued while the man pushed and struck the woman. An older woman who was driving a large late model suburban that contained two small children was assisting him.

Finally a police squad car could be seen coming up the street. The woman immediately took the children out of the car and began walking up the street away from the disturbance. The man who was straddling the screaming woman got up and let the crying woman go back into the home. As the Police stepped out of their car the man threw his hands up in the air. "I'm not armed!"

I stepped out of my house to get a better view of what was occurring. The man who was fighting with the woman did all the talking. "My girlfriend lives here and she has a restraining order on me. I just came back to get my stuff." He lifted a garbage bag that had been behind the vehicle. The cops motioned him to move on and then got back into their car while whistling...the Andy of Mayberry tune.


No one checked this guys ID. Didn't even get his name.
No one checked to see if the woman was OK. Police didn't even see her.
No one asked the parties to prove who owned the crap in the bag. They didn't even know what it was in the bag.
I had called in that there was a Suburban type vehicle involved. What involvement did the woman with two kids have in this?

If this guy had a restraining order, what was he doing at this address much less in physical contact with this woman? What good is a restraining order if it isn't enforced? Why didn't the police act to enforce the penalties associated with breaking a restraining order?

None. I realized after I made the police call that this was the same man who broke into the home and beat this woman last summer. Of course, the police wouldn't know that because when I called twice last year they just did a drive by and shined the spotlight on the home. No wonder this woman didn't come out and get involved.

But the bigger question is...why are they back as tenants? It's obvious that the Aladas are not the innocent victims of bad tenants. In some way they are intimately involved with this trouble and need to be held responsible.

I couldn't help but wonder if I might be better off if Barney Fife was answering my calls.

Johnny Northside! said...

I appreciate you posting all this info. I hope you will also post it on North Talk. I think the more people see it the better.

I will say that cops are sometimes reacting to the "revolving door" created by judges. They seem to be saving their time and effort for the bigger crimes. But, yeah, some ID needed to be checked, definitely.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that the bigger crimes are in many cases a direct outcome of criminals being able to get away with smaller offenses.

Police are always looking for help in reducing criminal behaviors. Yet when given the opportunity to actively engage in assisting the community to clean up trouble spots they fall short. Domestic violence is a huge problem in this community. If the women being battered don't feel police will follow through with the protections that the law provides, they will not participate with the investigation of higher crimes.

Is it any wonder that neighbors are not actively participating in efforts to reduce North Side crime or that we can't attract homesteaders to our community?

It is easy to say that this might have been an isolated instance where police had other calls occurring; however this type of sloppy police work is the norm rather than the exception.

Anonymous said...

It is too bad that we have lost another proud black man to another proud black man. we are losing proud black men and i am proud to say that i would LOVE to help out by tuning out a dozen or so also. Stay tuned as proud black men go down one by one. you wont print this because you only post proud black racists, you pussy.

Johnny Northside! said...

A comment rejected that is racist. However, I am publishing this portion of the comment.
you wont print this because you only post proud black racists, you pussy.
To which I respond: the commenter is making a point, very crudely, about a perceived double standard of this blog. The commenter feels I publish comments from "black racists" but reject comments from (by the commenter's implication) white racists.

It is fair to say I reject what I see to be CRUDE AND THREATENING racist comments and that I give leeway to commenters who may, for example, accuse me of racism for publishing stories about crime in the community committed by black people. (Though I make no distinction about the race of alleged criminals and I simply write about whatever crime that happens, and I also write about white mortgage fraudsters, white sex offenders, etc, but make no distinction based upon race)

If my selection of comments is inconsistent or hypocritical, well, feel free to engage me and submit comments discussing this matter. But I will not publish crude, threatening racist comments featuring the "n word" and making generalized threats against people on the basis of race. Whatever race.

Furthermore, I do not see comments along the lines of "you are racist for writing about this guy" as being comments I should reject. I see that as an attempt to criticize and engage me in discussion. There is a world of difference between comments saying "you are racist for writing this" versus comments along the lines of "I would like to put a bullet in this (n word)'s head."

Racism is stupid and crude. It's like when children are very little and first grasp that people have different colors. Racists have one thing figured out, what color they are. They remain at the mental level of small, undeveloped children and don't move far, mentally, beyond that level.

JNS Blog loves all the races of the world and sees race as a subjective artifice that breaks down upon logical and scientific scrutiny. If this means I will reject crude comments from self-described white racists, so be it. If you have something to say, say it intelligently so it will get through the comment filter.


Anonymous said...

How about using something other than pu***? The dialog about racism goes on and on, back and forth, but apparently it is A-Okay to put-down men by associating them with a derogatory term for vagina, as if being a woman is the WORST insult imaginable for men.

Johnny Northside! said...

Fair enough. I was trying to get dude there to respond on the same little verbal playground he'd established but, you know, fair enough. Though I don't see how using the word "bitch" would be so much better given the point you're making.

Naysayer said...

A couple of comments here:

The victim impact statement is very well written, and clearly articulates the experience of just about any long-time NoMi resident, who at one time or another, has lived next to, or in the immediate vicinity of, the house-from-hell, where the landlord and the tenants are equally challenged socially. The only relief seems to be that of variety, as the tenants tend to move frequently, unless the house belongs to the Mpls. Public Housing Authority. The behavior remains the same, but the cast of characters continually changes. I speculate as to whether the rental licensing authorities can appreciate the skill and care that went into preparation of the statement.

It is deplorable that the police treat domestic abuse as a nuisance crime unless a weapon is involved, but the conviction rate is very low, and they do not see themselves as cultural reform agents. In fact, I shy away from intervening in domestics as a civilian. This is regrettable from the standpoint of upholding community moral standards, but it is always dicey interjecting one's self into situation where the predator and prey are intimately acquainted.

Naysayer said...

By the way, Johnny, when I use the preview button to edit my comments, it takes me to a page that asks if I want to create a blog. Everything written is then lost. You may want to look into this glitch.

My other comment is in regards to the hot-button issue of racism. For some, this is all that they have as a guiding moral compass, and every social issue involving the interpretation of good and evil where skin-color differences are present must be filtered through the prism of racism first and foremost. Of course, as you intimate, this is very debilitating, as such a narrow world view doesn't compel one to examine one's attitude and behavior within the context of wider and more sophisticated social mores, and this usually leads to big trouble.

I have held out hope that your blog might serve as a forum for entering into a meaningful dialogue with those of such a persuasion, since it is probably the least sanitized place for discussing deeply controversial community issues. The only other alternative these residents have for self-expression and entering into dialogue on such taboo issues is their own insular sub-culture, which is a dead-end in terms of the possibilities for enlightenment and changing attitudes. So, I guess the bottom line is that I encourage you to cut a little slack for those who are inarticulate and hateful, if it might lead to fruitful discussion where we all might learn something of one another.

Joel Baird said...


This has nothing to do with racism.

It has to do with actions and responsibility! The actions of the landlord and his renters effecting other residents. The responsibility of law enforcement and the City to address these concerns and to provide protections for the community from these abuses.

The owners and renters of this home could be any race or gender. We have Whites, Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and even people of Polynesian decent in our neighborhood and all are negatively effected by this crap.

Go troll your divisive dialog elsewhere!

Anonymous said...

Using bitch isn't a better alternative, in fact it is the same thing I'm calling out, Pu*** is just that much farther over the line.

Naysayer said...

Joel, you need to calm down! My comment about racism was directed at Johnny's 1:14 editorial comment, not at you. Evidently, you haven't read and comprehended as carefully and as skillfully as you write. But, I totally understand that it is easy to jump to erroneous conclusion when issues raise visceral passions.

I have nothing but respect for your moral sensibilities and willingness to take a pro-active stance in order to make NoMi a more decent and livable place that is colorblind. But, cooler heads must prevail in order to generate meaningful dialogue, particularly regarding the issue of race.

Joel said...

I understand that the both of you minimize my efforts to convey tangible problems that are occurring within our community and are hampering potential solutions by disbarking in non-relevant sparring over race and gender colloquialisms that have nothing to do with this post.

I recognize that Johnny has editorial power in his blog and I appreciate that he has chosen not to post ignorant comments; but I am equally disappointed that he found it necessary to rebuke those comments in this thread or that you were baited into responding.

The purpose of this thread is to enlighten and empower others with similar experiences to lend a voice to enacting solutions.

Johnny Northside! said...

Comment threads do turn into a free for all sometimes, Joel. I know this topic is important to you.

As for solutions, KICK OUT THE SLUMLORDS ONE BY ONE seems like the best I can come up with at the moment.

Oh, and also "Don't criticize the police over what happened here." Consider, for example, if gang members suspected they were being wiretapped and knew that talking about murderous threats on the phone line would send police scampering to reveal wiretaps.

What would you do if you were a gang member?

Play act murderous threats at least once a week. That's what you'd do.

Joel said...

In this case "How much collateral damage is acceptable to pursue the investigation." (Collateral = My family and neighbors)

Without going into the details already describe there was enough information to connect the dots between my constant 911 calls and the residential location of Darrell's family after he was released from jail knowing that the home had gang affiliations.

As Naysayer suggests in his 8:57 post this is not an isolated instance. Currently it seems that the only way the City addresses Problem Properties is to assess the structural and code deficiencies until the landlord lets the place fall apart, then demo the structure leaving a hole in our community. This is a long and cumbersome process that also hurts the neighborhood.

The broader questions are:

1. Is law enforcement and the City taking 911 calls seriously?

2. Does the 911 system provide any means for local government to address problem properties?

3. What mechanisms can be asserted to protect community members from problem properties and hold the property owner responsible as the law decries regardless of ownership?

Anonymous said...

Hey naysayer at 9:51 that's a blogger glitch. It works the same on all blogger blogs. Be sure to select anonymous or Name/URL and have something entered there before previewing your comment. This will prevent the redirect. Otherwise, the comment being previewed will be flushed instead of previewed.

Naysayer said...

Well, ok, so back on primary task:

"Kicking-out slumlords one-by-one" is more of a slogan than it is a solution. Slumlords inhabit an important perch on the economic food-chain. Someone has to provide sub-standard housing services to the economically and socially challenged. It is certainly not a job that I would want, but there is a need by the vast army of renters who can't pass a basic screening test for various reasons, so that they are shut-out of suburban apartment complexes, but who can come-up with a deposit, and who are willing to pay exorbitant rent until the next cash-flow crisis arises, which is frequently.

Until the market deems NoMi as ripe for gentrification, if incredibly that should ever happen, a municipal rental licensing commission is not going to have an appreciable impact on altering the prevailing market forces at work.

Joel said...

The word "slumlord" denotes a landlord who does not maintain their property or address tenant issues and neighborhood complaints. HUD provides handsome subsidies for the economically challenged. There is no need for sub-standard housing.

Those "vast" armies of renters that can not pass background checks and are socially challenged need to be held to the same standards as everyone else. What you are proposing reinforces negative behaviors. There is no reason why our community should maintain lower standards to accommodate such behaviors.

It is also ridiculous to theorize that investors who profit on providing substandard services should be given a pass because of the "benefit" they provide to society by allowing criminal behaviors to inhabit our neighborhoods.

Maintaining a minimal level of social behavior and responsibility can hardly be considered gentrification by anyones definition.

State Law and CPED already have established licensing criteria, what we need is enforcement.

Naysayer said...

Well, this is a useful conversation.

Joel, your assessment about code violations as the key to dealing with problem properties reflects my experience. Some years ago, there was a rental full of gangsters close by. They like to step out onto the front porch frequently and blast their guns into the sky, probably during TV commercials, and then quickly duck back in. This is in the era before shot-spotter.

Our block club organized to call 911 whenever there appeared to be suspicious or criminal activity, which was often. There were countless service calls over an extended period where the police would either drive by or stop and talk to the residents, but there were no arrests. In the absence of corpses riddled with bullet-holes littering the front yard, the 911 route went nowhere. The slum-, I mean landlord was too scared to do anything, and hadn't even collected rent for some time. He confided that he had made the rental agreement with a nice young woman, who subsequently disappeared, and who had provided no clue that she might be a gangster's moll.

Then, I think that our crime prevention specialist advised that we work through code enforcement and public health departments instead. We got the place condemned rather quickly due to multiple public health violations. Mainly, the creeps were in the habit of storing their garbage in the back entry or throwing it in the backyard rather than putting it in the trash bin. So, it was lack of tidiness rather than a more serious breach of community mores that got the city to act to remove these undesirables, give control of the property back to the owner, and provide some relief to the neighbors.

Anon. 2:15: Thanks for the information on the "blogger glitch".

Naysayer said...

As for your interpretation, Joel, that I somehow condone the behavior of slumlords, I mean moral-challenged landlords, its not true. I deplore the ethics of their business decisions, because they care little, if at all, about the social costs they impose upon the community. But, my experience has led me to be a realist rather than an idealist when it comes to behavior. There will always be those willing to supply shoddy goods and services to those who demand them, irrespective of well-meaning enforcement mechanisms attempting to impose the production and consumption of better quality products. I realize this point of view aggravates those who wish to hold people to a higher standard of behavior, but this erroneously assumes that they actually value what you and I do, and are willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

But, you don't need to feel that you are alone as a target of my worldly observations, as my realism even irritates JNS on occasion, which is how I got my moniker from him.

Joel said...

I hear what you are saying. What we hope to do is change the experiences of our community and introduce a new reality of responsibility and fairness.

For landlords that are duped into allowing bad tenants into otherwise well run properties, the Minnesota Nuisance Laws provide the opportunity and assistance of jurisdictional attorneys office to provide immediate eviction of the tenant and the sheriffs department will even serve the papers and escort them out.

Again, the problem is instituting the enforcement of these laws.

Chuck said...

Kick out the slum loards ? Let start with Steve Meldahl.