Just send 'em down the road

Who'da thought there might be homeless people living in and around downtown Houston? I mean, that's just got to be a complete and total shock to anyone and everyone. That, and trash, noise and the other assorted sins of the inner city. What a horrid awakening for anyone from the suburbs or the wealthy enclaves within the city limits.

Well, the folks who paid a big ass chunk of change to move into lofts on the east end of downtown (not the, shall we say, nicest part of town) are now having to deal with the realities of urban life. I'm sure it was just an oversight of the real estate agent not to mention these things we all take for granted to the oblivious yuppies looking for the "next big thing."

Residents in East Downtown (across the freeway from the ballpark) must have been taken aback when they found out just how gritty their (supposed) yuppie wonderland was. They've banded together, however, to "take back" their neighborhood (from the people who were there long before they left the land of three-car garages). The residents have asked the city to ban homeless folks from sitting or sleeping on the sidewalks in a 220 acre area.

Councilman James Rodriguez is spearheading the effort to expand the city's "civility code" to the neighborhood in hopes of attracting new developers (and forcing the homeless to go to someone else's neighborhood -- most likely where no one has enough money to make themselves noticeable to local politicians). Mr. Rodriguez says local churches and charities who provide food for the homeless are to blame for the situation.

Under the "civility code," folks who set up camp in a neighborhood and don't leave when demanded requested by police could face fines of up to $200 - or, more likely, time in the city jail because they don't have the money to hire an attorney or pay the fine).

Laws such as these seek to criminalize the poor because they are, after all, poor. How about we look to address the real problems underlying homelessness in this country? We need to find a way to provide access to medical services, including mental health care, for the poor. We need to figure out how to provide these men and women with a source of income and a bed to sleep in. We need to address structural unemployment in this country.

The City of Houston and Harris County gladly pony up money to help billionaires build private playhouses for their sports franchises. The city will gladly declare eminent domain over property whose owners won't sell for the price developers are offering. As a nation we seem to have no problem burning billions of dollars a year to send young Americans to their deaths to satisfy the ego of whomever sits in the White House. We seem to have no problem criminalizing more and more types of behavior and putting more and more people under the supervision of the courts.

And, instead of trying to find a solution to a problem, we just want to pack it up and send it down the road a bit so someone else can be bothered.

Oh, for the love of Cthulu

It would appear that someone down at the DMV isn't up on their occult studies. The license plate frame is a very nice touch.

Bk

A BALK is an illegal act by the pitcher with a runner or runners on base, entitling all runners to advance one base.

MLB Rule 2.00


The pitcher, following his stretch, must (a) hold the ball in both hands in front of his body and (b) come to a complete stop.  This must be enforced.  Umpires should watch this closely.  Pitchers are constantly attempting to “beat the rule” in their efforts to hold runners on bases and in cases where the pitcher fails to make a complete “stop” called for in the rules, the umpire should immediately call a BALK. 

MLB Rule 8.01(b)


If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when— 
(a) The pitcher, while touching his plate, makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch and fails to make such delivery; 
(b) The pitcher, while touching his plate, feints a throw to first base and fails to complete the throw; 
(c) The pitcher, while touching his plate, fails to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base; 

(d) The pitcher, while touching his plate, throws, or feints a throw to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play; 
(e) The pitcher makes an illegal pitch; 
(f) The pitcher delivers the ball to the batter while he is not facing the batter; 
(g) The pitcher makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch while he is not touching the pitcher’s plate; 
(h) The pitcher unnecessarily delays the game; 

(i) The pitcher, without having the ball, stands on or astride the pitcher’s plate or while off the plate, he feints a pitch; 
(j) The pitcher, after coming to a legal pitching position, removes one hand from the ball other than in an actual pitch, or in throwing to a base; 
(k) The pitcher, while touching his plate, accidentally or intentionally drops the ball; 
(l) The pitcher, while giving an intentional base on balls, pitches when the catcher is not in the catcher’s box; 
(m) The pitcher delivers the pitch from Set Position without coming to a stop. 
PENALTY:  The ball is dead, and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk. 
MLB Rule 8.05

Oops!

The prosecution in the Roger Clemens trial got caught throwing an illegal pitch on Thursday and the umpire judge granted Mr. Clemens' request for a mistrial.

The prosecutor played a videotape of Mr. Clemens' 2008 testimony before Congress - the only problem being that someone forgot (?) to redact the portion of the video where Rep. Elijah Cummings referred to a conversation between Andy Pettitte and his wife after being instructed by Judge Reggie Walton not to mention  it.

After speaking to a friend of mine I'm a bit curious as to whether it was just (to paraphrase the NASCAR boys) "one of them trial thangs" or if it was a deliberate attempt to get a mistrial because the prosecutors thought the jury might be a little bit too friendly to the Rocket.

Either way this farce represents a huge waste of taxpayer dollars - made even worse by the budget and financial crisis the country finds itself in. So what if Mr. Clemens lied to Congress. Our representatives up in Washington were on a little fishing expedition in the first place. We're talking about a bunch of athletes accused of using performance enhancing drugs -- we're not talking "serious" issues affecting the welfare of the nation.

No one cares if the latest Hollywood starlet has silicon in her chest and botox in her lips. No one cares if her leading man is injecting steroids to look more ripped. No one cares who's smoking and snorting what. It's all entertainment.

And who is Congress to act pious because they don't think Roger Clemens told the truth in that hearing room? Each and every member of that institution will look you and me straight in the eye and lie like a cheap rug. What's worse: a ballplayer lying about taking steroids or a Congressman lying about what he's going to do with your tax dollars?

Did an 82-year-old man really need to be tasered?

Tasermania is the new fad sweeping the English countryside these days.

According to the BBC, on June 28, 2011, police were called out to a disturbance. An 82-year-old man (whom the English press refers to as an "OAP" - old age pensioner) was arrested for possession of an offensive weapon and for criminal mischief. Now I have no idea what pissed off an 82-year-old man enough for him to vandalize someone's car - but I'm guessing it was pretty bad.

But then the story gets more bizarre as an officer pulled out his taser and "discharged" it. The 82-year-old man was taken to the hospital (or, as they say across the pond, "to hospital"), where he stayed for several days, complaining of pain.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is looking into whether the use of the taser was either appropriate or proportionate given the circumstances.

What would possess a police officer to unleash 50,000 volts of electricity into the body of an 82-year-old man? What "offensive weapon" could this man have been carrying to justify shooting him with a taser?

Scott Greenfield regularly points out that the first objective for any police officer is to make it home safely at the end of his shift. That objective sometimes causes officers to overreact to a situation and see it as more dangerous that it really is.

We can assume that the old man was not packing heat because he wasn't shot. I think it's also safe to assume that the old man wasn't threatening an officer with his "offensive weapon" because, once again, he wasn't shot. This would seem most likely to be a situation in which an officer tells someone to drop whatever's in his hands and drop to the ground; but the object of the officer's attention doesn't heed the command or doesn't move fast enough to satisfy the officer.

If an officer has to choose between using his gun or a billy club, chances are he will use his gun because it enables him to take command of the situation from a safer position. If a suspect has a knife or a pipe, moving in with the club exposes an officer to the risk of injury - but using a gun allows the officer to stay out of the line of fire. The taser gives the officer a third option - now he can stay at a distance and still bring a suspect to his knees without killing him.

Thus, an officer becomes more likely to rely on his taser as a first resort rather than as a last resort.

It's only coercive if I say it's coercive

co·erce

 [koh-urs]

–verb (used with object), -erced, -erc·ing.

1.

to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition: They coercedhim into signing the document.

2.

to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.

3.

to dominate or control, especially by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.

Supposedly the idea behind implied consent is that when someone applies for a driver's license, he is giving his consent to provide a breath or blood sample upon demand should a law enforcement officer request one following an arrest for driving while intoxicated. But that same motorist has a choice when, and if, that moment actually arrives. A motorist is "rewarded" for blowing over a .08 by having his license suspended for a shorter time period than someone who decides he'd rather not blow into the little black box.

Consent must be given voluntarily by the motorist. The police are not allowed to coerce him into blowing. To prevent the appearance of coercion, officers are required to read a piece of paper with a warning from Section 724.015 of the Texas Transportation Code -- the so-called statutory warning. Should the officer fail to keep to the script he runs the risk of a judge throwing out a breath test result.

Of course what one person perceives as coercive may very well differ from what someone in law enforcement, for instance, might find coercive. The statutory warning informs the motorist that should he choose not to blow into the breath machine, that refusal might be used in a subsequent criminal prosecution. So much for innocent unless proven guilty, huh? And anyone who's ever tried a DWI has heard the prosecutor tell the jury that their client had the opportunity to prove his innocence but chose not to - because he knew he was guilty.

So much for lack of coercion.

Then we had the evolution of Screw the Constitution No Refusal Weekends in which prosecutors lined up judges who were more than willing to rubber stamp search warrants authorizing forced blood draws on misdemeanor cases. They even found judges who were willing to make a complete and total mockery of the Fourth Amendment by accepting "affidavits" by fax - so they wouldn't be inconvenienced by actually having to listen to an officer recite why a blood draw was so necessary in a case that began with a routine traffic stop.

But I digress...

The publicized threat of being strapped down and having a needle jabbed in one's arm just because Officer Bob smelled alcohol on your breath might be seen as having a coercive effect on motorists' decisions whether or not to blow in the black box. In fact, the Texas Municipal Courts Education Center told judges who attended a seminar that

"If a suspect consents to a blood test in the face of a threatened warrant, the voluntariness of the consent may be an issue."

And that's from an organization whose mission is to assist municipal court judges, court staff and prosecutors in screwing defendants "maintaining professional competence."

The Texas Legislature, however, doesn't view it the same way. In its neverending quest to put everyone in the state under court supervision, our brilliant lawmakers in Austin decided to amend the statutory warning provided to anyone arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated to include the threat of a forced blood draw as a means of coercing motorists to blow.

SB 1787, which goes into effect on September 1, 2011, adds the following language to the statutory warning:

If the person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen, the officer may apply for a warrant authorizing a specimen to be taken from the person.

State Sen. Dan Patrick (R-Houston) authored a bill because he was worried that some judge might find the threat of a forced blood draw to be coercive. Apparently in Mr. Patrick's world, a coercive statement's not coercive if the government says it isn't. This comes from a man who claims to be a champion of limited government. Mr. Patrick's idea of limited government seems to be limited to how much the state can tax or spend but not how much the government can intrude when it comes to law enforcement.

It's a good day

So much of our job is thankless. We're firefighters -- rushing to put out the blaze and limit the damage. But every once in a while something happens that makes you smile and remember why you do what you do day after day.

I had one of those moments today. I had a client whose family couldn't afford to bond her out of the county jail. She wasn't a citizen -- but she was here legally. She had a decent job and a family who depended on her income.

This morning the judge lowered her bond and she qualified for release through pretrial services. She'll be sitting at the dinner table with her loved ones tonight.

After I told her she'd be going home this afternoon she said: "Thank you."

How long until they decide to outlaw trial by jury?

The backlash against the not guilty verdicts in the Casey Anthony case has reached Texas. State Sen. Chris Harris (R-Arlington) has let the world know that he intends to introduce a bill that would make it a felony to fail to report a missing child.

That's just what we need in the Lone Star State, another felony.

And, just so we can be reminded that bad facts made even worse laws - Sen. Harris said he will affix Caylee Anthony's name to the proposed legislation. Because we all know that that's what this knee jerk reaction to a jury verdict is all about.

Sen. Harris doesn't give a rat's ass about Caylee Anthony. He saw the opportunity to curry favor with the wing nuts in his district by slapping around the right wing's latest bogeyman -- Casey Anthony.

Don't blame Ms. Anthony for the jury's verdict, Mr. Harris. Take a closer look at the prosecutors. Did they overplay their hand by seeking the death penalty? Did they have one iota of actual physical evidence tying Ms. Anthony to the alleged crime?

While we're drafting legislation in response to a verdict in a Florida trial -- how about you draft legislation that would make it a felony for a prosecutor to withhold exculpatory evidence like a witness who recants his testimony the night before trial. We could call it the Anthony Graves Act.

We could draft legislation that would make it a felony for a prosecutor to hide forensic evidence in order to prevent the defense from running tests. We could call it the Clarence Brandley Act.

We could draft legislation that would make it a felony for prosecutors to put on scientific evidence that they know is nothing but pseudo-scientific junk. We could call it the Cameron Willingham Act.

But no. Wrongful convictions aren't on Sen. Harris' radar. He has no problem with folks being convicted as the result of prosecutorial misconduct and junk science. He has no problem with juries who convict people on less than proof beyond all reasonable doubt. He has no problem with judges who are more concerned with efficiency than justice.

Apparently Sen. Harris has a problem with juries who follow the law.