« March 2005 | Main | May 2005 »

April 27, 2005

This could come in handy

I like to think of myself as a respository of interesting but useless knowledge; every so often, however, I come across something that actually has a practical application.

Did you know that you can start a fire with a Coke can and a chocolate bar?

Hat tip to Joe Sherlock at The View Through the Windshield.

Posted by Mike Lief at 01:11 PM

April 06, 2005

If the crooks run fast enough . . .

The Ventura County Star ran a lead editorial today, State pursuit policy needed; Police, bystanders' lives at stake, which is -- to put it mildly -- rather misguided.

The editorial was prompted by a high-speed pursuit that ended when the suspect hit a car driven by a local husband and father, killing him. The fleeing driver is recovering from his injuries.

The Star tells us that the geniuses in the legislature are reviving efforts to "create a statewide policy ensuring vehicle pursuits are conducted in the safest and most effective way possible."

As you may have guessed, that involves simply not letting the police chase fleeing crooks.

That's like reducing the number of people injured resisting arrest by not trying to subdue suspects who are . . . resisting arrest.

[sigh]

State Sens. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, and Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, are again working to pass laws to curb high-speed police pursuits. They are soliciting input from California police chiefs and county sheriffs. A similar bill by Sen. Aanestad that would have allowed pursuits only when there was a threat of the fleeing driver hurting or killing someone failed last year.

One would presume that Sen. Aanestad's previous bill provided for the hiring of lawyers trained in the use of Ouija boards, to foretell which fleeing felon was malign and not benign. Of course, there are those of us who believe that ordinary citizens, even crooks, of the benign type, surrender when chased by the cops.

This leads to the other half of the analysis: those citizens who refuse to surrender to the good constable are probably guilty of either a very serious crime (presenting a risk to John Q. Public) or exercising spectacularly bad judgment (presenting a risk to Johanna Q. Public).

Since that legislation failed, at least 36 more people in California have lost their lives in high-speed pursuits. Disturbingly, the number of vehicle chases in California keeps growing. There were 5,895 in 2001; 6,337 in 2002; 7,203 in 2003.

Wow! Thirty-six people killed as a result of crooks refusing to yield to the flashing lights and siren? That's not good. And look at the number of pursuits! There's an epidemic of bad guys on the run.

In 2003, of the 7,203 chases statewide, 1,049 resulted in collisions, killing 33 and injuring 1,106. Twenty-two of those fatalities were suspects and 11 were not, according to the California Highway Patrol.

Oh, wait. Two-thirds of those killed are the criminals, who died while committing a crime. The other third are the victims of . . . the criminal conduct of those fleeing the police.

Revised pursuit policies can significantly lower those numbers, saving families immeasurable grief.

That has been demonstrated most notably by the Los Angeles Police Department, which banned pursuits for minor infractions in 2003, after an infant boy's arm was severed in a crash resulting from a high-speed police chase in December 2002. It has since noted a substantial drop in police and bystander injuries.

Two comments. First, considerable grief could be avoided if criminals did not engage in criminal behavior. Second, there will be an even more substantial drop in injuries to police and bystanders if we tell the police to avoid chasing anyone, whether in a car or on foot, who refuses to respond appropriately to, "Excuse me, sir, I notice you've broken the law and, if it wouldn't be too great an inconvenience, would you mind coming on over here so I can arrest you, just as soon as you're done? No? Okay, well thank you anyhow."

The editors at the Star really hit their stoopid groove in the finale.

People can argue that those who flee police are responsible for these tragic crashes. That is true. However, law enforcement, and now the Legislature, must ensure that police pursue suspects in the safest manner possible.

That doesn't mean every tragic accident will be avoided, but as demonstrated in Los Angeles, it means there will be fewer of them.

Police pursuits will always have an element of danger to them, attributable to the actions of the criminal. All the police can do is let us know to stay out of the way, through the use of lights and sirens. The Star acknowledges this, but then says that some magical improvements in procedure will make us safer, just like the folks in L.A.

Did they just say that if we emulate Los Angeles we’d be safer?

Am I the only one rubbing my eyes and doing a quick check on my sleep state?

[deep sigh]

The biggest problem with the so-called drop in chase-related fatalities in Los Angeles is that it doesn't tell us how many rapists committed more rapes, how many robbers robbed more convenience stores, how many killers killed again, once they'd driven fast enough to scare the police into calling off the hounds.

There is a compelling reason to continue chasing drivers who refuse to yield to the police: pour encourager les autres -- as an example to other crooks that they'll never get away from the cops by running.

Now that's a lesson worth teaching.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:09 AM

April 04, 2005

One last thing . . .

About the Schiavo affair.

I've heard much talk about the legal system, and how our very freedom, the stability of the American experiment, depends on our adherence to the rule of law. The thinking is that because courts held hearings wherein testimony was given; evidence was considered;rulings were issued; and appellate courts upheld the decisions of the lower court, that Terri's parents, and therefore the rest of the country as well, must accept the outcome.

As a deputy district attorney, I had the good fortune to work for Mike Bradbury, who headed the Ventura County District Attorney's Office for almost 30 years. When I was a novice prosecutor, I was introduced to Mr. Bradbury's moral compass. Although a tough, law-and-order type with an "Old West" persona -- he lived on a ranch dubbed "The Hang 'Em High" -- he told all his attorneys, "Do right."

In other words, the bottom line is not "win at any cost," but to pursue justice. The justice system, the laws passed by the legislature, enforced by the prosecutors and interpreted by the courts, is a vast, convoluted, imperfect means to an end. As such, although police have a duty to present all crimes to the district attorney for prosecution, the district attorney has wide latitude with regards to what -- if any -- charges to bring.

The prosecutors are tasked with evaluating a crime, seeing if the facts produced by the police investigation convince the reviewing attorney of the suspect's guilt, followed by an evaluation as to what the appropriate charges are, and finally, whether or not there is a reasonable likelihood that a jury would convict the suspect.

All that being said, even if a prosecutor believes the charges are true, the suspect is guilty, and a jury would convict, there are circumstances where, IOJ -- in the interest of justice -- reduced charges, or no charges at all, might be filed.

Judges have the authority, IOJ, to dismiss special allegations, "Strike strikes," as we say in the trade, even grant probation where the law mandates prison, in the interest of justice.

This elasticity is built into the system because we know, at a basic level, that sometimes the right thing to do isn't necessarily the course of action mandated by the legal process.

When people say that the courts have given Terri's parents their day in court, and therefore they must stand by while police enforce the court-ordered starvation of their daughter, well, there's the rub.

Is this end result just? Is it just because judges say it is an unlawful act to try to give Terri water?

Courts once said that "Separate but equal" was lawful. They once held that slavery was lawful, but helping a slave escape was a criminal offense. Should those Americans who knew that slavery was an abomination -- no matter what judges said -- refused to assist those slaves seeking freedom? Should the Underground Railroad have ceased ferrying desperate men and women to freedom because to do so was a violation of the law?

There are times when civil disobedience is the right thing to do.

I understand that anarchy is the result if this thinking is applied indiscriminately, but the argument of "legal process over justice" leads to moral anarchy.

Justice may be blind, but the law all too often is an ass; it helps to ask ourselves, "is the final result just, or is it just the final result?"

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:27 PM