Main Content

I wasted an opportunity to learn and share about my California crime scene cleanup experiences and thoughts.

Then, I thought, "I'm wasting an opportunity here. If I begin to see, I mean, really see during, may become a classroom for my understanding. Then I have an opportunity to help others affected by crime scene and tasks."

"Maybe I can find some useful information," I thought to myself. "Can I see personal items without blabbing about their owner." I can see the personal property and other similarities to other sites.

In this way, I follow a methodology similar to a sociological approach, but a sociology of. Keep in mind; I'm not intruding on privacy. I'm simply making a note of similar life-styles, similar problems, and similar activities. All I do while performing crime scene cleanup any sociologist would do as a participant-observer.

Sure, participation influences my perspective, but as long as I keep a sociological attitude while writing about my crime scene cleanup experiences, I'm no different than someone like Durkheim studying crime scene cleanup.


I must note something of value to those interested in recognizing suicidal behavior and stopping crime scenes. For years I ignored personal items and property during crime scene cleanup. I cleaned it but gave it no thought.

I called "professional." I still have a bailiff-like attitude toward a crime scene cleanup requires an impersonal approach. But, bringing a scientific attitude to crime scene cleanup for a study of crime scene keeps me well within Durkheim's intent and methodology.

I make a point of experimenting and testing in small areas. In this way, I find new and better ways to complete crime scene cleanup jobs. Testing for cleaning goes way back in professional cleaning. I apply it to crime scene cleanup just like I would apply it to carpet cleaning. Now, I take this same approach to crime scene cleanup and apply it to study the crime scene. I mean, crime scene cleanup now gives me information to write down.

What I find of interest during crime scene cleanup becomes information for crime scene studies. Still, every crime scene cleanup task remains anonymous. No client's personal information may enter my crime scene studies.

I allow myself to write stories based on what I observe, in general, during crime scene cleanup. I allow myself to re-write stories to share after the crime scene cleanup. It happens that some clients need to share their thoughts and feelings. So I simply listen and occasionally give feedback.

No personal information will ever see the light of day, since I don't collect it, but I do note it. It hasn't always been so. What does become part of my crime scene cleanup studies become anonymous? Even details become blurred for the client's privacy.

What does follow from their crime scene becomes something of use by those suffering from a crime scene victim's loss? Or, information about the crime scene helps to inform those experiencing suicidal ideation. Then there's those with a need to help someone considering crime scene.


Perhaps what I share can help. I do know that my academic and crime scene cleanup experience with crime scenes has helped to inform family survivors of a crime scene. They come to feel less singled out by a horrific incident depriving them of a life-long relationship.

So now, what I meant to write in a few lines has become a bit too long. I meant to write about privacy for crime scene cleanup clients and experienced crime scene cleanup as a learning process for others' sake.

Now I've written hundreds of words about my crime scene cleanup approach to learning. I'm motivated to help share what I can from crime scene cleanup with families and here.

Symbolic Interaction Related to Crime Scene Cleanup Work

An interest in symbolic interactionism makes me an odd person. Not many people have heard of this phrase. Like any other academic theory, it has its promises and failures. I think I understand it, but it took many months before its power sank into my thick head.

My interest grew from questioning the sources of mind, self, and society, the title of a book by George Herbert Mead.

Symbols mean something, and they play a powerful part when our minds take on meaning. They need not have a place in our external world, like a flag or religious icon. We can internalize these symbols as objects. We can act upon our and other's meanings for these objects. These powerful abilities help to make us human. When we look at the language, we find an even more powerful human invention.

Language, words we use in patterns, and meaningful structures (subject-verb-object sentences) give us an ability to carry a past, present, and future around in our heads. These abstract symbols give humanity an immeasurable power over nature, including our human condition. Consider calculus, for one.


Think of all our trillions of words used in language for manipulating nature and humanity. How many of these words came to lead us to the crime scene, self-destruction of our own internalized meanings of our externalized environments? Ideas like these come to my mind during crime scene cleanup. While removing blood and other potentially infectious materials from homes, businesses, and other places, these thoughts come to mind.

I ask myself, "How might we alter external environments to help others control their suicidal thoughts?". No other type of professional after death cleanup produces such meaningful thoughts for me. Homicide cleanup comes closest, but even here, a major element present in crime scene cleanup does not exist, manipulation of a self to self-destruction, crime scene. Nevertheless, they have meaning.

Here's a couple of examples: Words come to stand as symbols for patterns of life, like freedom, liberty, and due process. Imagine carrying the power of these ideas in the human mind as part of history, part of the present, and most spectacularly, as objects for projecting into the future.

We have power through symbolic interactions to project our past and present into a future, thanks to our external environment internalized into our internal environment, our minds in this case.

Elsewhere I write about the symbolic interactionism of George Herbert Mead and how it comes to influence our approach to understand the crime scene today. George Herbert Mead never wrote about the crime scene or crime scene cleanup, for that matter, but he did create a way to construct symbolic interactionism. As a result, we have a social psychology today based on Mead's theories of the significant symbol. Some of which I use to write about the crime scene and crime scene cleanup.

In a sense, this way of seeing our world looks similar to an ecological relationship where internal and external relations exist in the struggle for survival, natural objectivity to overcome participant observation in crime scene cleanup studies. To repeat me, our external world, our objective circumstances, influence our perception of the world, of course. Our perception of the world will influence those objective circumstances.


For example, we react to them and, in doing so, act upon them. Example: While walking a child along a sidewalk, we perceive this child is walking too near the curve and street. We interpret a threat to this child. We react with these symbols: Stop! Move away from the curve. We know a risk increases when children walk near a street, so we react accordingly.

Stop signifies our life-saving interaction here. Its meaning for symbolic interactionism is in the act it leads our child to follow. Likewise, its meaning is in what we understood from our past and present "stop" meant for yourself and our child. This influence over another's act is what I call a "dialectic of the act," as Mead did. For those readers with interest in schools of thought, this symbolic interactionism is radical empiricism.

Compare symbolic interactionism to cognitive psychology, and we find a minor relationship between meaning in words and actions followed from their meaning. There's not much more for a symbolic interactionist approach to cognitive psychology or cognitive therapy. I cite these concerns for clarifying a place to find symbolic interactionism in the world of theory, psychology, and understanding. Readers may call this "symbolic interactionism," an epistemological theory.

"Security" became a very big word on September 11, 2010. The truth is that security has always been a major issue with human beings. Human existence is characterized by uncertainty and insecurity. At times these very conditions lead to a crime scene.

Ultimately, we must accept responsibility for our actions because of the choices we've made. It is the person who makes choices, not social circumstances. We must become responsible because this is the price we pay for choice.

Note that existentialism rejects deterministic approaches to deny responsibility for one's own decisions and actions. We all make choices within a context. Social influences give guidance to our decisions and choices, but ultimately it is the whole person making a choice. We're born into our world as a biological bundle of potentiality.


Our birth process creates pain and anxiety for each baby. Thrown into a world of cold hard surfaces, we loose our once warm, soothing environment. A baby's new world begins to act upon it.

As gravity begins pushing down on it, a gross departure from its once weightless existence, its once oceanic being entered an earthly existence of conflict between sensory stimulation and responses. Stimulus- a response to new sounds, temperatures, and touch (or lack thereof - - contact comfort and its opposite, contact deprivation). Serve to shape our bodies and mind.

Before long, a dialectic begins to exist between a baby's internal being and its exceptional world. We call this dialectic, the dialectic of the act. We invoke this act while performing crime scene cleanup. We might say that as infants learn a name and discover this name applies to their external and internal world, they develop a self (There's someone in here talking back to me), but this takes well over seven years. Now they begin a journey of self-creation to decisions and confrontations.

Soon we make choices and decisions. These create consequences. Choices follow in the context of decisions made in an external environment, in part. Otherwise they are out of our control. Before long, our perspectives become more nuance.


Choices offer more than simple black and white decision making. Learning to learn comes to serve those with this internationality toward their world. Before long, an intent to learn serves the learner for manipulating both their internal and external environments.

For example, good students become better students as they receive rewards for their learning skills. Like a snowball rolling downhill, these students grow into their learning environment while learning rewarding experiences. As a consequence, they come to control their internal environment, themself, and learning.

Learning to search for more choices begins a long learning process to quick rewards later life, given an adequate external environment.

Patterns begin to arise among choices, and self forms its identity daily as self grows. We call "correct" choices "intelligence" when done quickly and accurately. When done slowly and randomly, we call this behavior "challenged." Choices made in one context may seem appropriate while in another context become inappropriate.

During the crime scene cleanup, I see results from a lifetime of "challenged" decision making and incorrect choices. Many times, in my opinion, 99% of crime scenes might have been put off for a better outcome. Unfortunately, crime scene victims do not choose to put off their crime scene for the sake of honor, shame, poverty, drugs, alcohol, and poor self-esteem, and more.

Poor self-esteem has its origins in poor decision making when it comes to choices, which I see so often. My writing seeks to get to the context of a phenomenological-ontological moment of the understanding crime scene. This understanding has its motivation in the many crime scene cleanup jobs I've performed in many places.

Cleaning tells me something else might have transpired to save these crime scene victims.

Unfortunately, once a crime scene victim has made that final decision, they come to believe there are no options for them. From individuals toting guns and new liquor stores to rob for money and drugs to individuals out of control, we can easily explain violence.


We all know what conflict means. It means that tension arises between two or more people, often enough. It may also indicates an internal tension arises. Conflict may occur at home, on the road, or in the workplace. Battles occur in schools, playgrounds, in classrooms, and more.

Often as not, patriarchal relationships involve conflict. This means that females must bend to male values and practices. Patriarchy does indeed set the tone and the rules for behavior. Internally and externally, decisions, and choices make us who we become.

It seems that we ignore terminal violence against innocent people until it's too late. And then, after the fact, we begin to ask questions. "How does this sort of behavior enter our lives?" To my way of seeing things, there are several ways to explain the crime scene. Here I'll list a few.

In no way are these ideas final, and in no way do they reflect an absolute truth. I do have some ideas worth sharing. It doesn't matter if our perspectives focus from a lens shaded by demonic forces in our universe, or an evolutionary, "blood-in-tooth-and-claw" struggle for existence.

Conflict resides internally and externally for each of us. Sometimes I enjoy looking at these ideas defined in existentialism. Although no longer a popular philosophy to read, it still offers explanations and useful ideas. I suppose one day we'll see these ideas come back into fashion. Meanwhile, I do my best to explain how I see existentialism in crime scene cleanup. I believe my crime scene cleanup experience has lead to an understanding of crime scene and violent crime against others.

No one is born into a vacuum. Everyone has influences upon their physical growth and their mental makeup. For sure, every human being has their perspective of the world, and they have their social world to live within and to gain their experience. A Kennedy, Rockefeller, or Koch Brothers would have a protected life.

Our experience in our social world helps to shape our perspective, and in some ways, our view does help to influence our social world.