The High-Speed-Chase "Discussion"

Today's "You Said It" column in the Daily Sentinel contained a symptom of a dumbed-down electorate seriously deficient in the subjects of individualism and economics. One poster, far from the worst chosen for publication, wrote: "Some criticize the police when a pursuit occurs. I would like to see more criticism of the one running and to say thanks to those who put their lives on the line so that we may be safe." Well, fan my brow. Isn't that special? Actually, I haven't seen any praise or support for the "one running," so it would appear that some logical examination of the issue is in order.

The entire "victim" movement is a dangerous anti-probable-cause, anti-due-process constitutional fraud in the first place. But that doesn't bother the loud, proud-of-ignorance crowd. Completely clueless of the mechanics of human law, they just want to "get" the bad guys no matter what, and procedural due process be damned in the struggle. Unfortunately it's not that simple.

A criminal trial does not, indeed cannot, involve the crime victim's rights, only the rights of the accused person. A criminal trial is the state (society collectively) versus the accused (individual), not one individual (accuser) versus another individual (accused). The crime victim's rights, along with the state's right to public peace, health and safety, were embodied in the particular statute which was violated. That's why it is the whole of society (aka the "state") which goes after the accused person in a criminal trial, instead of the victim or the victim's family in a civil trial. That's why, at both state and federal levels, there are two completely separate sets of rules (e.g. Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure [C.R.Crim.P.], and Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure [C.R.Civ.P.]).

Since the crime victim's rights were violated by the criminal's violation of society's rules of behavior, it is logically impossible to violate a crime victim's rights simply by granting the accused person his constitutional procedural rights to a fair determination of probable cause by a neutral judicial officer, a legal presumption of innocence, and strict adherence to the legal rules of procedural due process, mistakenly thought by noisy, illiterate ignoramuses to be mere "loopholes".  As the Founders knew full well — as contrasted with the various opinions of dumbed- down-but-highly-vocal numbnuts — it is only by strictest adherence to the rules of probable cause, procedural due process and evidence that society has any chance whatsoever of being reasonably confident it convicted the correct person, the person who actually committed the crime, not the person who the victim friends and family merely believe committed the crime.

Serious problems are created when the various players try to influence the administration of justice by playing politics and introducing wannabe-clever public relations contests into what is supposed to be the neutral and dispassionate administration of justice on a case-by-case basis. Prosecutors usually try to utilize their symbiotic relationship with the media to make the public hate the accused prior to trial. The prosecution needs its spin, and the media needs column inches for its stories, so strategic leaks are cleverly made to help create bias in the jury pool so as to make conviction more likely. I witness this phenomenon frequently in the local papers first hand, so there is no room for argument. It happens, period.

It's a simple fact of life that society's prosecutors, who are supposed to care first and foremost about justice, don't. They care first and foremost about getting as many convictions as they can, to persuade a majority of the electorate to vote for them and keep them in office. This sad bit of reality, in turn, gravitates toward forcing the defense to resort to the same spin tactics to either 1) embarass the government into a better plea deal, or 2) make the accused (who we're supposed to be presuming to be innocent, but we don't) look benign and innocent to the public, or 3) both.

Of course this will sound like heresy to some, but virtually everybody involved in a court case lies, spins, and exaggerates for their own purposes, the parties, the prosecutors, the lawyers, the cops, and, yes, especially the judges. I know first hand of two local judicial officers who conspired together to deliberately falsify the register of actions and record on appeal so as to conceal their criminal behavior in willfully and knowingly, in direct violation of a statutory prohibition of jurisdiction, falsely arresting and imprisoning for 18 days a litigant for contempt in an attempt to get him to waive his jurisdictional rights in a dissolution of marriage and child custody case. That behavior constitutes a felony violation of 18 UCS 241, 242, and the absolute proof lies in the computer audit trail in the custody of the state court administrator, who, of course, won't grant access without a court order by the very judges who are engaged in the cover-up.

The Daily Sentinel knows all about this situation, but in effect protected the judicial criminals and spiked the story by refusing to investigate the state judiciary's collective cover-up. The Daily Sentinel, self-perceived as "your community's newspaper of record," doesn't want to know the truth, because then they could be correctly accused of being a direct criminal accessory to the criminal cover-up.

Of course, the chicken-little, "criminals exist, so we need to give up freedom in preference to the 'safety' of a totalitarian police state" morons can have nothing to say about the foregoing FACTS because they are provable. So, like the good little control-freak fascists they are, they can only adopt the currently popular "liberal" mantra of "let's move on" (to the next thing we insist on being stupidly wrong about). See, e.g.,

My point is that no part of government, including the 4th branch of media, can be trusted to tell the truth and administer justice fairly in accordance with law without keen scrutiny and distrust on the part of "the people." And that scrutiny and discussion, to be in the best interests of justice, needs to happen in an atmosphere as truth-friendly and demonization- resistant as possible. But it can't happen when self-perceived-as-politically-clever people use ad hominem euphemisms, such as "protecting criminals," "bashing cops," "not supporting our troops," to rhetorically attack their opponent's person, instead of their opponent's arguments and ideas.

That's exactly what's going on with the "You Said It" posters who falsely, and ever so deliberately, accuse any person who favors doing a cost-benefit analysis of high-speed chases as "protecting criminals" and "bashing cops."

I told you all that to lay the groundwork for the important points of the original included subject of high-speed-police-chase discussion.

First of all, every situation (aka "incident") is contextual. Devoid of context, there can be no rational discussion of any important issue.

Second, for the dumbed-down numbnuts out there whose ignorant anti-Bill-of-Rights blather makes me want to throw up, EVERYBODY despises criminals and wants to see them get caught, so stop your wannabe-clever and insanely dangerous political pretense that favoring logic and due process is "protecting criminals" or "bashing cops". That same type of pro-gun-control-type of non-thinking is too stupid to be able to comprehend the reality that criminals will ALWAYS find ways to get guns precisely because they couldn't care less about the law. Therefore, it logically follows that gun-control laws only harm law-abiding citizens by depriving them of their constitutional right to use guns as the most effective tool to defend themselves from attacks by the very same criminals that all the vocal pro-tyranny numbnuts are in such a hurry to ignore due process to "get". It also logically follows that since criminals WILL run from the police, it's a good idea to have a logically deduced set of fact-determinative rules already in place for when the potential danger to the public outweighs the potential benefit to the public in any given high-speed-chase situation. The idea is to strategically achieve the most bang-for-the-buck safety for society as a whole.

As a matter of public policy, in a situation where the cop already has the suspect's license number, it makes no sense to engage in a dangerous high speed chase which kills innocent people and destroys millions of dollars of property SOLELY to catch a teenager with an otherwise clean record who panicked after accidentally running a red light, and then implying that the criminal was the only person involved in the chase by pretending that any attempt at rational discussion of important issues and policies constitutes "protecting criminals" or "bashing cops." It takes two to make a chase (the chaser and the chased), and just as criminals WILL get guns, and criminals WILL run from the police, so cats WILL chase birds, and cops WILL chase crooks. So that's simply not part of a fair analysis of the issue. The real discussion is about when the calculated danger of a high speed chase is, or is not, justified by its context-related facts during a case-by-case cost-benefit analysis, as such analyses relate to the training of police officers and the formulation of their rules of engagement. In other words, when does the potential public benefit outweigh the potential public danger?

In case there are a few individuals in the anti-Bill-of-Rights crowd who actually give a hoot about facts, logic and reason, I suggest you try to enlighten yourself by buying and reading the 5-star-rated book, "Arrest-Proof Yourself", written by Dale C. Carson and Wes Denham. Dale Carson is an ex-cop and ex-FBI field agent, who was also a SWAT sniper and an instructor at the FBI academy, and then became a defense attorney. So he definitely knows what he's talking about. Wes Denham is a professional writer and Carson's lifelong friend.

Chapter 2 of Carson's book is titled, "To Hunt And Arrest Is The Quest Of The Best." On pages 50-56 are found the following emphasis-in- the- original paragraphs:

"Cops! To stay free, you've got to avoid them like the plague. You've got to stay out of their sight, off their radar screens, and out of their freaking computers. They are the gatekeepers of the plantations. They alone have the power to transform indiscretions, stupidities, and recreational drug use into a lifetime sentence of shame and low wages...." 

"What you've got to understand is this: cops like to hunt and pursue. They enjoy arresting people. I refer to good cops, not time servers trudging toward retirement or social worker types who decide, after a few bloody scuffles with angel dust-crazed psychotics, that maybe it's time to get that teaching certificate after all. The animal cops hunt is that prince of prey, the two-legged beast. Human quarry are smart and wily. Often they draw guns and knives, or ambush you from inside their cars and their houses. From a cop's point of view, that's the real sport."

"The above paragraph is one of the most important in this book. Cops are hunters — period. Once you understand this, police tactics will make sense. Cops are the hunters; you are the prey. Avoiding these hunters, hiding from them, and not antagonizing them are the essentials of arrest proofing. As I noted in the introduction, the fact that cops are hunters is not a bad thing. Without intensive policing, our cities would be uninhabitable."

"The important thing to understand is that almost all police effort is put into hunting and arresting people. Everything else — serving and protecting, fostering community — is way, way down on the list. To street cops, law and order, peace and quiet, and community understanding are by-products of hunting and arresting people."

"The way cops think about it is this: toss enough bad guys into the can and — bingo — law and order happen. Peace and quiet break out like roses on a vine. As for community understanding, the community  can understand that if they start breaking laws and getting into it with cops, they're going to get hammered. This, ladies and gentlemen and children of all ages, is the cop's point of view."

 "Confusion results because city police departments and municipal governments are  administered by elected sheriffs and mayors. Understandably, politicians play down the hunt-and-arrest activity and play up the serve-and-protect angles...."

"When I was a cop, I didn't just like arresting people, I loved it!..."

"Police work is not like any other work. Can you name another job in which you are expected to engage in physical combat with people who are trying to kill you?..." 

"Cops crave excitement. They never have one shift like another. On slow days they can make their own excitement because they can always find someone to arrest. I call the technique 'flushing rabbits'...."

"...(Cops are fanatics about maintaining their cool. It carries over into their prose. Cops can make an account of the most grisly murder sound like a linoleum brochure.)"

"While you're in pursuit, dispatchers clear the entire network by shutting up every other cop in the city while you call in locations. Nowadays, they'll spin up helicopters. During a pursuit police cruisers are racing ahead of you, behind you, and on every side. A minute earlier you were bored. Now you're leading a cop circus down the highway at 100 miles an hour. Usually the suspect burns out the brakes or crashes. Then there's the foot chase, maybe a fight, then an arrest. Every day cops engage in the primordial male activities — hunting, fighting, and protecting the tribe. They experience thrills that have been honed by a million years of evolution. When a shift gets slow, they just flush a rabbit. Want to be a cop? It's a kick-ass way to make a living."

"Cops are backed by courts, jails, judges, and the entire apparatus of the state. They can stop, arrest, search, attack, and even kill. It's The Power. It's The Juice. It's intoxicating, and nobody else has it. Police officers have to train not to let it go to their heads....."

"In any medium to large city, cops are backed up not only by other officers, but by helicopters, boats, tear gas, explosives, snipers, dogs, SWAT teams, even armored personnel carriers with artillery and high-caliber machine guns. If things get tense,  the governor can call out the National Guard, which can muster infantry, cavalry, and armor equipped with mood adjusters like mortars and wire-guided missiles. Yikes!"

"The funny thing is that the guys who most often get snotty and sass the cops are generally clueless petty offenders. The real bad guys, the stone evil types who hurt people and steal things for a living, give it up when The Man shows. They know who has The Power...." 

"Police are dangerous. They are heavily armed, and unlike any other group in society outside the military, they are trained to fight, maim, and kill. Police officers are better educated and trained than ever, but accidents happen. Anyone who challenges the cops, runs from them, hits them, grabs their equipment, or even appears to reach for a weapon is risking injury or death. Cops train for hundreds of hours in order to be able to disable or kill people quickly, instinctively, without thinking. When they blow you away, it's not personal, not even emotional. It's just business — cold as ice."

"In some ways cops are similar to a gang. They have better haircuts than the Hell's Outlaws and use deodorant, but they're still a gang in one characteristic all gangs share: you can't challenge just one member; you always have to deal with the entire gang. With cops, you take on one, you take on all. Even cops who hate each other will stand shoulder to shoulder against outsiders. Cops are always the biggest gang in town, with the most guys, the most guns, and the most money. Challenging them is insanity. Cops never, ever, lose on the street. Whenever challenged, they call up reinforcements until they win."

Dale Carson was ostensibly a good police officer, and is now ostensibly a good defense attorney. His must-read book is simply about reality, not about cop bashing, as some will no doubt contend based on the above quotes.

In view of the above experienced professional account of the harsh in-the-trenches realities of the police power of the state, as told by one of the state's courageous trained law-enforcement warriors, I consider wannabe-clever, politically-manipulative individuals who try to demonize any person in favor of a serious policy discussion regarding a context-related cost-versus-benefit analysis of high-speed police chases — as such analyses relate to the formulation of wise public policy — as "defending criminals" or "bashing cops" to be sloganistic, jingoistic sophist scum.

To some readers, more gentle and polite than the noisy morons, it may seem at first glance that I have used overly harsh and inappropriate language in this essay. But all you have to do is read "The Art of Political War" by former "leftist", David Horowitz, to understand the degree to which you are mistaken. Rhetorical brinksmanship is the strategic propaganda tool du jour. Witness the sickeningly manipulative sophistry of the male gay strategy leadership which brands as "hater", "racist", "bigot", or "homophobe" any persons who dare to find the idea of smearing feces on their urethras to be repulsive and medically risky. I have merely engaged in a defensive rhetorical tit-for-tat with various too-dumb-to-live, wannabe-clever, control-freak, demonizing manipulators who know nothing whatsoever about the law, individualism, or economics, and who stupidly never met a wrongful conviction (of an innocent person) they didn't like, yet feel perfectly free to viciously attack the person of any individual who dares to favor rational and courteous dialogue on any given subject.

The type of loud and proud-of-ignorance jerks who don't care if innocent people get killed as the result of a high-speed chase after some misdemeanor "perp" who panicked after running a red light, require a smack upside the head with a rhetorical 2 x 4 to wake up and come to their senses. Until then, they don't belong in any serious public dialogue about public policy, which is the precise point I set out to make crystal, emphatically, emotionally, and embarrassingly clear to them. In that context, words like "jerk," "sophist," "manipulator," and "scum" seemed entirely appropriate and proportional.

Such words also seem appropriate for members of the Vestigial Dinosaur Media (VDM) who utilize such devices as "You Said It" columns to gain credibility and popularity by making the "little people" feel like they have effective input into the public square, when nothing could be farther from the truth. The reality is the VDM couldn't care less about the opinions of the hoi polloi; they only want to form their opinions for them by "managing" and "shaping" the "news" for their own elitist political and economic purposes (e.g. stealing the "other guy's" labor). Magnanimously letting the "little people" blow off steam is an important part of cultivating reader gullibility. And consumer gullibility is an important part of propaganda effectiveness. Propaganda effectiveness, in turn, is important to the process of using such clever devices as "law", "government", "money", and "taxation" to steal the "other guy's" labor in ways relatively unnoticed compared to ordinary "blue-collar" thuggery such as muggings and armed robbery.

If I have offended the delicate sensibilities of any such wannabe-politically-clever manipulators, the only thing I can say is "Gee! I'm desperately sorry. I promise to do my dead-level best to not lose any sleep over it." Actually, there are a few other things I can think of to say to them: 1) either read a few books on the law or keep your pie hole shut, 2) if an innocent person has to be convicted or killed by police-power "mistakes" of the state, I sincerely hope it is you, 3) go to confession and pray for forgiveness, and 4) your ignorant comments are more than welcome, as I will definitely find ways to use them to strengthen the case against mindless narcissism and disordered control-freak sophistry.

*  *  *

Thank goodness the "holiday season" is over and things can get back to normal.

Christmas is always a tough time for me because the spend-more-money-than-you- can-afford approach of most people to the merchants' holiday is so VERY FAR removed — the exact opposite, actually — from what the birth, life, anti-state teachings, and death of the Jesus of Nazareth were all about. It can be discouraging, if you let it, to witness lemming behavior in humans.

Oh well, most "Merry Christmas! Ho! Ho! Ho!" folks mean well enough ... for whatever good mere intentions are worth in terms of actual accomplishments. As for the politically correct "Happy Holidays!" crowd, this is a G-rated blog, so I deem it preferrable, for policy reasons, to remain silent about them.

High Speed Chase 1 160 pixels.jpg30.93 KB