Unfettered Blather

In Texas the legal limit for driving while intoxicated is a blood alcohol level of 0.08. This is a Class B Misdemeanor if it is your first offense. What is a 0.08 blood alcohol level? Well, for a normal person that represents less than two beers. As a former law enforcement official I am for cracking down on drunk driving, but I think there is a distinct difference between someone who is tipsy and someone stoned out of their gourd. The reason why we cracked down so hard on drunk driving was because of people getting hammered and then ramming into innocent drivers and bystanders. The routinely fatal outcome of their actions led to stricter penalties than before, and all was good.

Then we went too far. Now you can be thrown in jail, literally, for having a couple of drinks. While I appreciate that the line must be drawn somewhere I think we’ve gone too far in the other direction. The stigma of being arrested and thrown in jail over a couple of drinks? Someone is likely to be just as much a threat if they had not gotten enough sleep, came off a long shift at work, or was taking a strong allergy medication.

I’m very careful about how much I drink and I become very careful when I drive if I’ve been drinking at all. You can fail a field sobriety test with minimal alcohol in your system. If an officer smells any alcohol on your breath they have cause to administer a field sobriety test or even bring you in for a breathalyzer. While I’d be the first to agree that it’s not worth the hit to your reputation to spend a couple of nights in jail over a couple of drinks, I also think it shouldn’t have to be a concern. The real threats I want off the streets, the people who don’t have enough self control to figure out that you shouldn’t get yourself buzzing hard before you get in a car. A little tipsy but still functional? I’m not worried about that guy. I consider them less of a threat than the perfectly sober street racers slamming back Monster drinks and driving their Civics as if they were impressive automobiles.

Language, written or spoken is one of the greatest hallmarks of civilization, without it there is nothing, no history, no debate, no ability to further the greater whole of humanity. Words have rightly been labeled as tools, and powerful tools they can be. Men’s lives can be forever changed or even ended by a carefully crafted selection of letters. Yet I see little respect for words, and more importantly their meaning. Simple misuse or reassignement of a word’s intent can change the landscape of our culture. The word “terrorist” is a prime example.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22391416/

Laws using the phrase “terroristic threats” have been around for some time in relation to school students, they have taken on a greater sense of urgency by some since the various school shootings and the attacks on September 11th. However, what defines a terrorist? What is the context?

There are many definitions of a terrorist in a political sense, in this case we will use the definition used by the United States:

“…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and… (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States… [or]… (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…”

The word terrorist bears it’s roots in the French Revolution where murder and executions were carried out to advance the political agenda of the Jacobin party.

Most people understand the true meaning and power behind the word terrorist. We have all had the definition reinforced and visually associated with the towers in New York falling, the hole in the Pentagon or the aircraft shape scorch mark in the Pennsylvanian soil. Terrorism has a great deal of gravity.

The student in the above article was a depressed teenager who appears to have dealt with serious emotional issues involving anger and suicide. Does this make him a terrorist? The answer is simply, no. This student is possibly deranged, perhaps emotionally unstable, maybe a potential killer at the worst, but none of these make him a terrorist.

There was no political or religious agenda attached to the plot, no desire to shape school policy or to bring down the public school district through intimidation and attacks. This was a solitary plan, something which the term terrorism and it’s broad, far reaching implications dismisses outright. To say I am going to “terrorize you” with fear is an overly simplified justification to abuse the word.

So why use such a powerful word so carelessly? Simple, it has impact on the listener. Abusing words for their impact is a dangerous game to play as they give an innaccurate impression of the situation. Laws are (sadly) made on people’s impressions of events, if they hear “terrorist” as opposed to “troubled student” then they may rightly assume this is a individual case of a disturbed individual instead of conjuring images of suicide bombings and raised fists chanting religious or political slogans. Terrorism in this case is an attempt to collect the random incidents of depression, gang violence, rivalries and fights under a single grave banner to invoke a mental picture.

There is a certain amount of self-importance to the use of terroristic threats, instead of averting the death of teachers and students, people are labeled as “targets”.

Respecting words and accuracy of use is important to preserving it’s value and meaning. We need to realize when people are abusing them for a false sense of depth or urgency. To label someone a terrorist leads to their treatment as one and to a public misconception that can create laws and attitudes that may one day haunt us. One only need read how often possibility lead to action in the above article to see what a simple definition change can do.

All of this leads to words which describe one of the great horrors and challenges of our time being cheapened to include individuals who could never dream of coming close to the evil that is terrorism. To claim the depressed revenge of a student in Nebraska is similar to religious and political movements that kills thousands in their quest to dominate a nation and it’s people is more than inaccurate, it is disrespectful and grossly misleading. Untold numbers of people have died at the hands of terrorists, some in the most hideous means most people could never imagine, they deserve better than this.

There is a word to describe this however, its called “rhetoric”

A small city next door to where I live recently got rid of its motorcycle patrol officers. Traffic control is now handled by six officers using Dodge Chargers. While a sweet ride, they aren’t going to be as effective.

The justification for getting rid of the motorcycle program was largely about cost and convenience. Motorcycle officers cannot book suspects on their own, but must call a patrol car. Also, after additional maintenance and training, a motorcycle ends up costing about as much as a patrol car.

I hate this argument for police departments where everything is compared to how many patrol cars they can put out on the street. This totally ignores the landmark Kansas City Patrol Experiment, which demonstrated that patrolling cars has little effect on crime. Indeed, you’re often better off having officers back at the station ready to be dispatched as calls come in. Almost every police department I’ve ever dealt with acts as though the Kansas City experiment never happened. Amazing since the study was conducted over 30 years ago!

The second problem with comparing everything against the cost of more patrol cars is the assumption that sheer numbers is a solution for every problem. When the SWAT commander for the Austin Police Department wanted to get a helicopter from the Feds at no cost, the administration above him shot it down comparing the annual maintenance cost against how many patrol cars they could put on the street. Surely they could see that this is an apples to oranges comparison. Obviously a helicopter can do things a patrol car can’t. As much as I don’t like the militarization of police departments, the military also understands force multipliers. A helicopter is a force multiplier for police. It serves a function that simply cannot be done on the ground. If the Austin Police Department and city manager truly thought the cost would not bring worthwhile benefit, then they should have just said so. To make a decision based on a fallacy is concerning where public safety is involved. (Disclaimer: This was in 1998 and I was serving as a civilian with the APD attached to the Tactical Division. Hopefully current administration is a little more level-headed in their decision making process).

Getting back to my main point, a police officer on a motorcycle serves a different function than one on a patrol car. Motorcycles are incredibly effective for traffic enforcement. I say this with mixed feelings, since said police force is notorious for strictly enforcing the speed limits not two blocks from my house. At the same time, active traffic enforcement does improve safety and encourages better driving practices. If you can see the cops a mile away, you’ve lost a lot of that effectiveness. While Texas State Troopers are masters of hiding full-sized automobiles, local police have it a little tougher. By comparing apples to oranges in determining costs and benefits, the neighboring town is saying they don’t really understand the price of public safety.

On the other hand, at least I have a better chance of getting away with speeding now.

So once again a female educator has had a sexual relationship with a male student. While the article listed doesn’t mention it, the news last night said the victim was 15 years old.

I thought this quote in particular was interesting -

“Frisco Police Sgt. Gina McFarlin said that police had no reason to think the victim was lured into the relationship by any promise of reward or under the pretense of educational interaction. Also, they do not believe the juvenile was ever Torres’ student.”

News flash Sgt. McFarlin, a 15 year old boy does not need to be enticed into a sexual relationship. I saw the picture of Ms. Torres on the news last night, she ain’t half bad.

The other hilarious quote out of Sgt. McFarlin was on the news last night when she talked about how we have to make sure school staff doesn’t “prey on the people we have entrusted to their care.” While I agree this is a grievous breach of trust, I don’t know about “preying” so much.

We sexualize our kids at younger and younger ages and then we act shocked when they have sex. A 15 year old boy, already a raging cauldron of hormones, is given the opportunity to have sex and he will pursue it unless he has any reason not to. A 15 year old boy is not going to care about what happens to his partner in most cases unless he has some kind of moral upbringing. Considering how many spoiled brats I encounter anymore, I place no faith in a minor to care about the implications these acts might have on his sexual partners career or freedom.

I’m not excusing Ms. Torres behavior, but I am also not shocked by the incident, nor do I think the victim is entirely innocent here either. She’s not a monster, she’s not preying on anyone. It would be different if sex were coerced or forced, regardless of gender. It’s not ok because the victim was male, but my first question was whether or not he was a willing partner.

We need to sanction people in trusted positions when they breach that trust. Ms. Torres, if found guilty, needs to be punished. Even if it turns out to not be true, she will end up paying a price for not protecting her image and her good name.

However, let’s not make her into a monster either. Not every improper sexual encounter is the result of some sort of “sexual predator”.

So now we have Texas police officers busting people for being drunk in bars. This has been going on for a few weeks now, and the public outcry has been deafening.

Now, in a former career, I used to work in a jail. I saw the Austin Police arrest people for all kinds of stupid crap. Seriously, the way the law is these days you could be breaking a law out of sheer ignorance. So the idea that maybe law enforcement officers are going too far with this initiative doesn’t surprise me in the least.

My other thought about this is that I am all for preventative measures in enforcing the law. However, most of the preventative measures I am for is doing things like graffiti clean-up, fixing broken windows, etc. Basically not allowing the criminal element of a city take over whole neighborhoods by showing them the city government doesn’t care. Arresting someone for being drunk in a bar as a measure to curb drunk driving is basically assuming they are going to commit a greater crime. It’s like the old joke about the cop who busts the black guy/teenager/insert whatever group here when they’ve done nothing wrong, but the cop believes they will eventually. What we have here is an actual manifestation of something that is supposed to be an ironic joke. Somehow I don’t think the people who were arrested found it all that funny.

The biggest problem I have is that arresting people in a bar is really stretching the definition of what “public” intoxication is. You do not want drunks stumbling down the streets of your city, I’m on board with that. However, bars are privately owned and operated. Going into them to enforce a Class C misdemeanor is bad for everyone. It’s bad for the bar owner’s business, it’s bad for the person who gets arrested, and it’s going to paint the police in a very very negative light in the minds of people who might be otherwise supportive of the police.

I agree that it could potentially impact drunk driving, something that causes more harm than a lot of people realize. Unfortunately, I do not agree that the end justifies the means.

I have a buddy on the Dallas Police Department. I will be talking with him this weekend and see what his take on all of this is. More on Monday.