How do we do it? How do we justify the willful denial and ignorance we *think* absolves us of the responsibility and karma that is ours for pretending to cloque vengeance as justice?
It's called denial. By pointing the finger at another and saying he deserves a punitive fate is to imply that we who don't are better. We who don't? Anyway - the gavel sounds one and just one chime: that society has judged you via the power of a system as corrupt as anyone it dares to penalize.
I do not say this to suggest that anarchy is the better way. But honesty and integrity are a *prerequisite* to judgment. And any officer of the court, or representative of "the people" who purports to do the hard job of protecting the public from society's dregs must heartily gag on his own chuckles at the absurdity of that irony.
But, I know, I know - "somebody's gotta do it", right? Fine. But let's have the decency and self-respect to call it what it is - revenge. Control. Politics. Placating. When an innocent man can be KEPT in jail AFTER the factual matters have verified something OTHER than his guilt, and yet the legal "rules" (of evidence, et cetera) prohibit the re-examining of said facts, we are not a just and fair system.
Are we just a lazy and hypocritical body politic and citizenry who wishes to pretend that the system always works? Do we really embrace the denial of our own human nature that craves not only revenge, but a narcissistic grandiosity that we who have escaped earthly/legal judgment have so escaped fallibility???
Do we really believe that we're so perfect as to dispense justice flawlessly? Perhaps we just NEED so desperately to believe that that is the reality.
I mean - WE'RE not locked up, right?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Sunday, August 9, 2009
The Heat Shall Feel the Heat
Due Process Shall Hold You Accountable!
This is a stream of consciousness thing because I'm stagnant and not wanting to stay there. I have this tendency to fall into ruts and let a blackness wash over me that literally keeps me from moving. It can be intermittent and it can be short, but it can also catch chance or other hurts or be independently stronger than usual and thus grab hold for longer, harder - and even to what seems frighteningly and despairingly like accelerations that, yes, even do at times have the helping hand of evil people doing evil things.
Evil people do exist. So does despair. And when an already despairing person meets an evil person, the results can and do sometimes include a bloodbath. Sometimes it's the evil person delighting in the ease of conquerability of his prey and the carnage that is his pallet from which he paints the indelible sin onto humanity's history. It's the taste of blood that begets the craving for yet more and more blood, and the carnage is thus an inevitable, even foregone conclusion at the hands of anyone but the most resolutely strong - who shall overcome his desire for violence and another's submission, and submit himself to the will of basic decency.
And sometimes the bloodbath is at the hands of the despairing, those hands that are already soaked with the blood from his own bleeding and aching and dying heart that just wants to find some peace and love and acceptance and a God-damned chance at the right thing and the right people and the freakin' decent thing to win once in a fucking while!
When the despairing become the desperate, through no choice or will of their own, it is the primal scream of all the basic and bassest and noblest of desires too that the will of a good heart should and must be indulged when that deed has no price borne by anyone else. When said right thing and happy warmth are denied out of the arrogantly and aggressively misplaced sense of the authority to do it just because you can - well, then Lord help the son of a bitch who puts such a vain and sinful exercise of human pride over the fulfillment of a destiny of sheer living and loving and expressing and enduring that is set by God Himself.
When that deadest of rocks that is the hope and hopes of the despairing meets the hard place that is the heart of he who should dare to assume the authority to deny the deserved happiness to another - then the only recourse is for one or the other to either move aside or become stronger.
What did I say about the primal scream? What did I say about the blood bath that is not desired but that will and should come as the non-moving, non-yeilding, stubborn regard of authority undeserved yet holds its groundless ground? As this not moving is the enveloping blackness that shall consume me whole lest I beat or consume it, as surely as the coming of death itself, I must take the action and break the stalemate. As this rock and hardplace stare each other down, the blackness does gain its own strength. That cannot stay. It must not stay. It WILL NOT STAY! That is *my* promise. I said and say that this state must NOT endure, and that as one course has not taken place, so must the other.
SO MUST THE OTHER!
Look out Officer Christopher O'Sullivan. Look out Sergeant Anne Holland. Look out Massasoit. I am bloody well coming!
This is a stream of consciousness thing because I'm stagnant and not wanting to stay there. I have this tendency to fall into ruts and let a blackness wash over me that literally keeps me from moving. It can be intermittent and it can be short, but it can also catch chance or other hurts or be independently stronger than usual and thus grab hold for longer, harder - and even to what seems frighteningly and despairingly like accelerations that, yes, even do at times have the helping hand of evil people doing evil things.
Evil people do exist. So does despair. And when an already despairing person meets an evil person, the results can and do sometimes include a bloodbath. Sometimes it's the evil person delighting in the ease of conquerability of his prey and the carnage that is his pallet from which he paints the indelible sin onto humanity's history. It's the taste of blood that begets the craving for yet more and more blood, and the carnage is thus an inevitable, even foregone conclusion at the hands of anyone but the most resolutely strong - who shall overcome his desire for violence and another's submission, and submit himself to the will of basic decency.
And sometimes the bloodbath is at the hands of the despairing, those hands that are already soaked with the blood from his own bleeding and aching and dying heart that just wants to find some peace and love and acceptance and a God-damned chance at the right thing and the right people and the freakin' decent thing to win once in a fucking while!
When the despairing become the desperate, through no choice or will of their own, it is the primal scream of all the basic and bassest and noblest of desires too that the will of a good heart should and must be indulged when that deed has no price borne by anyone else. When said right thing and happy warmth are denied out of the arrogantly and aggressively misplaced sense of the authority to do it just because you can - well, then Lord help the son of a bitch who puts such a vain and sinful exercise of human pride over the fulfillment of a destiny of sheer living and loving and expressing and enduring that is set by God Himself.
When that deadest of rocks that is the hope and hopes of the despairing meets the hard place that is the heart of he who should dare to assume the authority to deny the deserved happiness to another - then the only recourse is for one or the other to either move aside or become stronger.
What did I say about the primal scream? What did I say about the blood bath that is not desired but that will and should come as the non-moving, non-yeilding, stubborn regard of authority undeserved yet holds its groundless ground? As this not moving is the enveloping blackness that shall consume me whole lest I beat or consume it, as surely as the coming of death itself, I must take the action and break the stalemate. As this rock and hardplace stare each other down, the blackness does gain its own strength. That cannot stay. It must not stay. It WILL NOT STAY! That is *my* promise. I said and say that this state must NOT endure, and that as one course has not taken place, so must the other.
SO MUST THE OTHER!
Look out Officer Christopher O'Sullivan. Look out Sergeant Anne Holland. Look out Massasoit. I am bloody well coming!
Saturday, August 1, 2009
I Hate Fakes
When Thinly-Veiled Politeness is Just a Coward's Way to Lie
This is a reflection on the small talk and political correctness that so invades day-to-day interactions. It is a description of some of the "tells" and the effect the "unwritten rules" have on intimacy and truth.
Yes. You read the title right. I said I *hate* fakes. That isn't just some hyperbolic brevity pulled out of some "writer's toolbox" - I mean the very word. But, with such a strong affective declaration, I will accept that it would behoove me to at least offer a considerate explanation as to why.
The first thing I need to point out is that I don't "hate" fakes for their deceitful posturing as it reflects on them. That isn't for me to judge or a matter for which I need to or should have any real emotional response other than bemused disgust or a carefully stifled chuckle-snort. What? "Stifled", I say? Yep. Not because I wish to be deceitful. It's one thing to "play the game" and try to pull one over on the other for personal gain, or especially to hurt an innocent. It's quite another to gratuitously run up to somebody whose appearance *you* judge to be inferior and offer up a "truthful" "Boy! Are you ugly!"
Yes, that is an example of *radical* honesty. I first heard the term on an NPR broadcast of Fresh Air with host Terry Gross, as her guest, Dr. Brad Blanton, went on to describe an ultra-honesty, no, a downright *literal* honesty, where the response "Fine, and you?" to the greeting "Hi, Joe! How are you?" is an out-and-out lie unless you do, in fact, feel and are "fine". I long and pine and patiently wait for such a demeanor and communicative comportment to become the norm, but I'm not holding my breath. Nor do I feel that to blurt out a raw and/or painful truth, when unsolicited, and when the utterer is not morally responsible to deliver such guidance or has any other honest choice, or who, as in the case of a young child, just doesn't know any better, is anything other than rude and just plain mean.
Yet, here I will also point out my deeply genuine affection for children in their capacity to "deliver the goods" without an ounce of pretense.
"Mister, how come you have such a big tummy?"
"Ew! My big sister says that she thinks smokers are just soshpally axpectable addicts!"
"Jonathon James Doe! Say excuse me! Do you have to use the bathroom?"
"It wasn't me! It was Grammy! I heard it come from her chair!"
This isn't a piece about the "good old days" sentimentality or a channeling of some Norman Rockwell simplicity that hasn't existed for a long time - and frankly, in this artist's quaintest small-town renderings, never really did.
Well, except for children!
Now, at what point does social sophistication impose itself upon these innocents and render them almost too wordly to divulge any of their lingering naivete? When do they - when do we - learn to put up walls and hide behind the habits advised by such icons as Emily (Price) Post or Judith Martin (better known by her pen name, Miss Manners)? I am not abdicating basic manners outright, as I explained in the second paragraph of this piece. Quite frankly, I feel I've gone a bit too far out on this tangent only out of the desperate need to qualify that fact and get it out of the way so that the point isn't clouded by that separate matter.
Indeed, manners and etiquette are not the only rules and social conventions whose abuses I decry. It is the *expectation* of a facility and untaught mastery of said skill and diplomacy that I find deeply offensive. Heck, it isn't even so much the expectation, but the myriad cruel and scandalously unfair ways in which these expectations manifest.
Jimmy goes to school in the wrong style, or a zit he couldn't cover up, and boom - he's a target. He fumbles in gym class or gets a case of the hiccups during math (and children don't yet have the liberty to discretely disappear to take care of the matter, lest they incur the wrath of the teacher!, unless said teacher is sophisticated enough (and I'll add attentive and empathetic enough!) to catch what's happening), and his social status is reduced.
Smith, who is a wiz at technical trouble-shooting but rather oblivous to matters not articulated in bits and bytes, is unaware that it is the boss's birthday and is the only one who shows up to work without a card or gift. Or worse, he never signed the card that got passed around while he was busy "de-fragging" this or installing that. The irony is that while he ends up looking thoughtless, cheap, or selfish, HIS are the feelings that get bruised the most - and yet again - by colleagues who sputter "Oh, sorry!", while not-so-secretly covetting the slightly more exclusive status they enjoy because they aren't the office geek or inept little clown.
There is another setting in which this expectation of basic social sophistication and the ability to discern the unwritten rules - the "spirit" of the law, so to speak. And that is - well - the law! - ie, our criminal justice system. There is even some pedantic premise imbedded in jurisprudence called "Ignorantia juris non excusat" which is literally translated as "ignorance of the law does not excuse" - or the more common but slightly less accurate translation of "ignorance of the law is no excuse". I'll not go into a bold and blatant contradiction of that unfair and unconstitutional principle (oh, yes, it is - take a look at the 9th Amendment), is another principle called the Void for Vagueness Doctrine. It basically states that you cannot expect the average citizen to discern for himself a law that isn't specifically spelled out, nor can you in good faith punish him for "not knowing that he didn't know".
What ties all three scenarios together is this elitist mindset that if you don't get it, you don't matter. If you haven't learned how to fake it, you're just going to have to learn to *take* it! And that's bull. When did it become a matter of moral or legal or social import for that matter, to learn how to hide who you are and what you love? When did it become stigmatic to openly make a mistake or - God forbid! - just not know something?!
Heh. I guess, on that matter, I'll never know. I'll just have to fake it.
This is a reflection on the small talk and political correctness that so invades day-to-day interactions. It is a description of some of the "tells" and the effect the "unwritten rules" have on intimacy and truth.
Yes. You read the title right. I said I *hate* fakes. That isn't just some hyperbolic brevity pulled out of some "writer's toolbox" - I mean the very word. But, with such a strong affective declaration, I will accept that it would behoove me to at least offer a considerate explanation as to why.
The first thing I need to point out is that I don't "hate" fakes for their deceitful posturing as it reflects on them. That isn't for me to judge or a matter for which I need to or should have any real emotional response other than bemused disgust or a carefully stifled chuckle-snort. What? "Stifled", I say? Yep. Not because I wish to be deceitful. It's one thing to "play the game" and try to pull one over on the other for personal gain, or especially to hurt an innocent. It's quite another to gratuitously run up to somebody whose appearance *you* judge to be inferior and offer up a "truthful" "Boy! Are you ugly!"
Yes, that is an example of *radical* honesty. I first heard the term on an NPR broadcast of Fresh Air with host Terry Gross, as her guest, Dr. Brad Blanton, went on to describe an ultra-honesty, no, a downright *literal* honesty, where the response "Fine, and you?" to the greeting "Hi, Joe! How are you?" is an out-and-out lie unless you do, in fact, feel and are "fine". I long and pine and patiently wait for such a demeanor and communicative comportment to become the norm, but I'm not holding my breath. Nor do I feel that to blurt out a raw and/or painful truth, when unsolicited, and when the utterer is not morally responsible to deliver such guidance or has any other honest choice, or who, as in the case of a young child, just doesn't know any better, is anything other than rude and just plain mean.
Yet, here I will also point out my deeply genuine affection for children in their capacity to "deliver the goods" without an ounce of pretense.
"Mister, how come you have such a big tummy?"
"Ew! My big sister says that she thinks smokers are just soshpally axpectable addicts!"
"Jonathon James Doe! Say excuse me! Do you have to use the bathroom?"
"It wasn't me! It was Grammy! I heard it come from her chair!"
This isn't a piece about the "good old days" sentimentality or a channeling of some Norman Rockwell simplicity that hasn't existed for a long time - and frankly, in this artist's quaintest small-town renderings, never really did.
Well, except for children!
Now, at what point does social sophistication impose itself upon these innocents and render them almost too wordly to divulge any of their lingering naivete? When do they - when do we - learn to put up walls and hide behind the habits advised by such icons as Emily (Price) Post or Judith Martin (better known by her pen name, Miss Manners)? I am not abdicating basic manners outright, as I explained in the second paragraph of this piece. Quite frankly, I feel I've gone a bit too far out on this tangent only out of the desperate need to qualify that fact and get it out of the way so that the point isn't clouded by that separate matter.
Indeed, manners and etiquette are not the only rules and social conventions whose abuses I decry. It is the *expectation* of a facility and untaught mastery of said skill and diplomacy that I find deeply offensive. Heck, it isn't even so much the expectation, but the myriad cruel and scandalously unfair ways in which these expectations manifest.
Jimmy goes to school in the wrong style, or a zit he couldn't cover up, and boom - he's a target. He fumbles in gym class or gets a case of the hiccups during math (and children don't yet have the liberty to discretely disappear to take care of the matter, lest they incur the wrath of the teacher!, unless said teacher is sophisticated enough (and I'll add attentive and empathetic enough!) to catch what's happening), and his social status is reduced.
Smith, who is a wiz at technical trouble-shooting but rather oblivous to matters not articulated in bits and bytes, is unaware that it is the boss's birthday and is the only one who shows up to work without a card or gift. Or worse, he never signed the card that got passed around while he was busy "de-fragging" this or installing that. The irony is that while he ends up looking thoughtless, cheap, or selfish, HIS are the feelings that get bruised the most - and yet again - by colleagues who sputter "Oh, sorry!", while not-so-secretly covetting the slightly more exclusive status they enjoy because they aren't the office geek or inept little clown.
There is another setting in which this expectation of basic social sophistication and the ability to discern the unwritten rules - the "spirit" of the law, so to speak. And that is - well - the law! - ie, our criminal justice system. There is even some pedantic premise imbedded in jurisprudence called "Ignorantia juris non excusat" which is literally translated as "ignorance of the law does not excuse" - or the more common but slightly less accurate translation of "ignorance of the law is no excuse". I'll not go into a bold and blatant contradiction of that unfair and unconstitutional principle (oh, yes, it is - take a look at the 9th Amendment), is another principle called the Void for Vagueness Doctrine. It basically states that you cannot expect the average citizen to discern for himself a law that isn't specifically spelled out, nor can you in good faith punish him for "not knowing that he didn't know".
What ties all three scenarios together is this elitist mindset that if you don't get it, you don't matter. If you haven't learned how to fake it, you're just going to have to learn to *take* it! And that's bull. When did it become a matter of moral or legal or social import for that matter, to learn how to hide who you are and what you love? When did it become stigmatic to openly make a mistake or - God forbid! - just not know something?!
Heh. I guess, on that matter, I'll never know. I'll just have to fake it.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
It Needs to Be Said Once and for All: Police Are *not* Infallible!
A Commentary on Police Bravado, and a Failure to Subordinate to the Rule of LAW
An editorial that comments on a couple of examples of police misconduct, and the refusal, in both circumstances, of the police to admit any wrongdoing or make amends.
Well, well, well. Who'd a thunk I'd have found another excuse to wax on about the corrupt, inept and stubborn arrogance of police culture, and of too many officers within that community who broke their promise to protect and serve.
If only for self-preservation, and because it's true and thus only fair to point out, I of course do not malign every person who wears the badge. I might even concede that more than half are probably decent and law-abiding folks themselves. Statistically, that has got to be true, and frankly, who could sleep at night if the pathetic and disgusting examples of police misconduct that have of course made news were the norm? I know that isn't the case, as it is as true now as it ever was in the news media that "if it bleeds, it leads".
Then, however, perhaps that is as it should be. Why do we consume the news? To point and laugh at "how screwed up the world is" as we delude ourselves out of accepting any personal responsibility for that state of being? I should hope not. Do we "tune in" and "turn on" to hear that today was boringly mild and partly cloudy, that the McKenzie's washer is on the fritz or that Mom or Dad had a good day at work? No. Face it - "that ain't exactly news!". We watch the news, read the paper, visit cnn.com and have access to our email and the web via our cell phones, et cetera, HOPEFULLY so that we can *act* on the information and circumstances in our lives and world.
And so here we are, in the "enlightened" northeast, in perhaps the most liberal state in the union, in 2009, and black men are still being harrassed for doing nothing wrong. And this time the man is a college professor! He was arrested on suspicion of breaking and entering. His own home! Even after he produced 2 forms of identification verifying that fact.
What was the charge? DISORDERLY CONDUCT! Now, having had my own soap opera with another inept and incorrigible police department in what I must now concede isn't as safe and accepting a state as I thought my liberal, northeasterly Massachusetts has been for all of my modest 37 years (30+ in this my home state - my HOME!), I think I know pretty damned well how it went down. Because what we citizens do not know by and large is that the "letter of the law" - indeed the very rule of law, and our very precious Constitution that is supposed to instruct and police the police - is but a "guideline" in the actual practice of (excuse me while I choke on my laughter!) "law enforcement".
Once a cop has jumped to his conclusion, there is no parallel with the 'scientific method' or any other similarly rigid scrutiny.. Huh? That is the process where you are supposed to observe, collect data, and base your conclusions on what the data tells you. It is poor science (and frankly, lazy and dishonest!) to fudge the data to fit YOUR conclusion.
The same is true in police work, on writing a resume, or controlling and keeping order within a classroom. You deal with the facts as they are. Just because you WANT to believe that Johny, who pissed you off earlier when he wouldn't stop talking during your lesson, did indeed take Susie's pencil - unless you saw the thing yourself, or find said pencil in his posession and other REAL evidence and data that leads you to that conclusion, you have no business and NO RIGHT - to presume his guilt and act accordingly. Not even if disposing of the situation quickly means you can get out to your precious smoke break 5 minutes sooner!
And if you're a cop, you have a similar obligation to SERVE the public and the law. Yes, you are bestowed the authority to prevent crime and capture and process accused criminals, but with that authority, and the deadly force with which you are authorized to act under circumstances deamed necessary by your judgment, comes an IMMENSE and unshirkable responsibility to be DOING YOUR JOB - that means making good and fair and judicious decisions and actions THROUGHOUT YOUR SHIFT. You do NOT have the right to indulge your fatigue or impatience or annoyance. NO YOU DO NOT! You are on the clock and you are getting paid to do a job YOU sought and swore to do correctly.
Oh, and that means that your pride has to take a back seat - no - a flying leap! You do NOT have the right to bully the citizenry. You do NOT have the right to intimidate another human being just 'cause he, for God knows what reason - like what - having long hair, or being the wrong race, or not peppering his dialogue with you with "yes, sir", and "whatever you say, sir" - is "antagonizing" you.
I work with children. Needy, loud, impulsive, short-sighted, and medically and developmentally compromised CHILDREN. Yeah - I get frustrated at times. I may even become impatient. Maybe - once in awhile - I might even feel or get a little mad. But do I ever, *ever*, EVER, *EEEEVER* have the right to take that out on the kids?
NO!!! One time would be too many, and it would be fitting to throw me out on my ass for foresaking such a beautiful and special privilege. Such an opportunity. Such a *trust*.
Well, guess what. A cop is in a position of public trust as well. And, I know full well, that the stakes and stresses can be great and dire in that particular profession. Tough. You chose a tough job. We citizens didn't MAKE you go to the police academy. Joe citizen is not the one who causes your spouse to wait up nights praying the phone doesn't ring. Most of us are just as deeply concerned about and committed to our own families and loved ones.
Oh, and guess what else? Sometimes - sometimes - police and teachers alike will have to deal with a vulnerable and even fragile population. Just because Jimmy is mean and tough and a smart-ass and bully who doesn't do his homework and sticks his gum under his desk when he thinks you're not looking, does not mean that you ever EVER have the right to regard Timmy with the same cynicism and contempt! Even Jimmy is worthy of your best effort, but you can be forgiven for the fleeting thought that the punk needs more time in the "wood shed" at home. But, to terrorize and intimidate and be mean to ANY of the children (the people!) in your care and charge, is inexcusable. And to traumatize TIMMY?????? Because you're pissed off that another IEP meeting has been more lip-service than student-service? Because you're fed up that the copier is busted - again? Tough shit. Again - Timmy didn't make you (or I) go to "teacher school"! You (we) chose that ourselves! It is OUR responsibility!
The same goes for cops. Whether you are a Cambridge cop harrassing one professor Henry Louis Gates for daring to contradict you and (gasp!!) ask for your name, badge number and other credentials, or whether you are one Sergeant Anne Holland or Officer Christopher O'Sullivan of the Massasoit Community College PD who make up the law as they go along, issuing ex post facto no trespass orders, make false arrests, fail to give the Miranda warning, extort monies out of the "suspect" in your custody, and falsify police reports to reflect your own conclusions - DESPITE WHAT THE DATA *ACTUALLY* SAYS, you are equally out of line and shamefully derelict of your duty.
You have no right. You have NO excuse. You are in the wrong. Or, as President Obama himself put it "(they) behaved stupidly". Indeed. The Cambridge police are offering no apologies for their disgraceful treatment of professor Gates. The Massasoit police are still denying (me) the lawful access to their (no, the community's!) campus, and continue to violate my constitutional rights (and simple decency!) as they continue to subvert their duty.
Mmmm-hmmm. Yeah. Both departments can stick their heads in the sand or their fingers in their ears and yell "La la la!!! Police good, everyone else bad!". Sure, you can go ahead and do that. The system is such that you may even be allowed to indulge in such narcissistic grandiosity and contempt for the people you're supposed to be serving. You can if you want to.
But, you're still wrong. I know it. And you know it, too.
An editorial that comments on a couple of examples of police misconduct, and the refusal, in both circumstances, of the police to admit any wrongdoing or make amends.
Well, well, well. Who'd a thunk I'd have found another excuse to wax on about the corrupt, inept and stubborn arrogance of police culture, and of too many officers within that community who broke their promise to protect and serve.
If only for self-preservation, and because it's true and thus only fair to point out, I of course do not malign every person who wears the badge. I might even concede that more than half are probably decent and law-abiding folks themselves. Statistically, that has got to be true, and frankly, who could sleep at night if the pathetic and disgusting examples of police misconduct that have of course made news were the norm? I know that isn't the case, as it is as true now as it ever was in the news media that "if it bleeds, it leads".
Then, however, perhaps that is as it should be. Why do we consume the news? To point and laugh at "how screwed up the world is" as we delude ourselves out of accepting any personal responsibility for that state of being? I should hope not. Do we "tune in" and "turn on" to hear that today was boringly mild and partly cloudy, that the McKenzie's washer is on the fritz or that Mom or Dad had a good day at work? No. Face it - "that ain't exactly news!". We watch the news, read the paper, visit cnn.com and have access to our email and the web via our cell phones, et cetera, HOPEFULLY so that we can *act* on the information and circumstances in our lives and world.
And so here we are, in the "enlightened" northeast, in perhaps the most liberal state in the union, in 2009, and black men are still being harrassed for doing nothing wrong. And this time the man is a college professor! He was arrested on suspicion of breaking and entering. His own home! Even after he produced 2 forms of identification verifying that fact.
What was the charge? DISORDERLY CONDUCT! Now, having had my own soap opera with another inept and incorrigible police department in what I must now concede isn't as safe and accepting a state as I thought my liberal, northeasterly Massachusetts has been for all of my modest 37 years (30+ in this my home state - my HOME!), I think I know pretty damned well how it went down. Because what we citizens do not know by and large is that the "letter of the law" - indeed the very rule of law, and our very precious Constitution that is supposed to instruct and police the police - is but a "guideline" in the actual practice of (excuse me while I choke on my laughter!) "law enforcement".
Once a cop has jumped to his conclusion, there is no parallel with the 'scientific method' or any other similarly rigid scrutiny.. Huh? That is the process where you are supposed to observe, collect data, and base your conclusions on what the data tells you. It is poor science (and frankly, lazy and dishonest!) to fudge the data to fit YOUR conclusion.
The same is true in police work, on writing a resume, or controlling and keeping order within a classroom. You deal with the facts as they are. Just because you WANT to believe that Johny, who pissed you off earlier when he wouldn't stop talking during your lesson, did indeed take Susie's pencil - unless you saw the thing yourself, or find said pencil in his posession and other REAL evidence and data that leads you to that conclusion, you have no business and NO RIGHT - to presume his guilt and act accordingly. Not even if disposing of the situation quickly means you can get out to your precious smoke break 5 minutes sooner!
And if you're a cop, you have a similar obligation to SERVE the public and the law. Yes, you are bestowed the authority to prevent crime and capture and process accused criminals, but with that authority, and the deadly force with which you are authorized to act under circumstances deamed necessary by your judgment, comes an IMMENSE and unshirkable responsibility to be DOING YOUR JOB - that means making good and fair and judicious decisions and actions THROUGHOUT YOUR SHIFT. You do NOT have the right to indulge your fatigue or impatience or annoyance. NO YOU DO NOT! You are on the clock and you are getting paid to do a job YOU sought and swore to do correctly.
Oh, and that means that your pride has to take a back seat - no - a flying leap! You do NOT have the right to bully the citizenry. You do NOT have the right to intimidate another human being just 'cause he, for God knows what reason - like what - having long hair, or being the wrong race, or not peppering his dialogue with you with "yes, sir", and "whatever you say, sir" - is "antagonizing" you.
I work with children. Needy, loud, impulsive, short-sighted, and medically and developmentally compromised CHILDREN. Yeah - I get frustrated at times. I may even become impatient. Maybe - once in awhile - I might even feel or get a little mad. But do I ever, *ever*, EVER, *EEEEVER* have the right to take that out on the kids?
NO!!! One time would be too many, and it would be fitting to throw me out on my ass for foresaking such a beautiful and special privilege. Such an opportunity. Such a *trust*.
Well, guess what. A cop is in a position of public trust as well. And, I know full well, that the stakes and stresses can be great and dire in that particular profession. Tough. You chose a tough job. We citizens didn't MAKE you go to the police academy. Joe citizen is not the one who causes your spouse to wait up nights praying the phone doesn't ring. Most of us are just as deeply concerned about and committed to our own families and loved ones.
Oh, and guess what else? Sometimes - sometimes - police and teachers alike will have to deal with a vulnerable and even fragile population. Just because Jimmy is mean and tough and a smart-ass and bully who doesn't do his homework and sticks his gum under his desk when he thinks you're not looking, does not mean that you ever EVER have the right to regard Timmy with the same cynicism and contempt! Even Jimmy is worthy of your best effort, but you can be forgiven for the fleeting thought that the punk needs more time in the "wood shed" at home. But, to terrorize and intimidate and be mean to ANY of the children (the people!) in your care and charge, is inexcusable. And to traumatize TIMMY?????? Because you're pissed off that another IEP meeting has been more lip-service than student-service? Because you're fed up that the copier is busted - again? Tough shit. Again - Timmy didn't make you (or I) go to "teacher school"! You (we) chose that ourselves! It is OUR responsibility!
The same goes for cops. Whether you are a Cambridge cop harrassing one professor Henry Louis Gates for daring to contradict you and (gasp!!) ask for your name, badge number and other credentials, or whether you are one Sergeant Anne Holland or Officer Christopher O'Sullivan of the Massasoit Community College PD who make up the law as they go along, issuing ex post facto no trespass orders, make false arrests, fail to give the Miranda warning, extort monies out of the "suspect" in your custody, and falsify police reports to reflect your own conclusions - DESPITE WHAT THE DATA *ACTUALLY* SAYS, you are equally out of line and shamefully derelict of your duty.
You have no right. You have NO excuse. You are in the wrong. Or, as President Obama himself put it "(they) behaved stupidly". Indeed. The Cambridge police are offering no apologies for their disgraceful treatment of professor Gates. The Massasoit police are still denying (me) the lawful access to their (no, the community's!) campus, and continue to violate my constitutional rights (and simple decency!) as they continue to subvert their duty.
Mmmm-hmmm. Yeah. Both departments can stick their heads in the sand or their fingers in their ears and yell "La la la!!! Police good, everyone else bad!". Sure, you can go ahead and do that. The system is such that you may even be allowed to indulge in such narcissistic grandiosity and contempt for the people you're supposed to be serving. You can if you want to.
But, you're still wrong. I know it. And you know it, too.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Addendum to My Ex Post Facto Piece, and an Embarrassed Apology to D.A Timothy Cruz
This piece is going to be short and sweet. In my longest article to date on AC, "Extortion, Ex Post Facto..." et cetera, I described a disgustingly corrupt incident - an example of police incompetence and defying of the United States Constitution. Read the piece for more details.
Unfortunately, I got one of the details pretty damned wrong. I implicated D.A. Timothy Cruz as the guy who bullied me at what I have recently learned was an actual arraignment session. I figured, he's trying to get me to say I'm guilty and just take his offer of a humiliating little slap, and I'm on the other side of the table where, if I could have afforded it, I'd have had a defense attorney with me.
Thus, I assumed, that the guy on the *OTHER* side of the table must be the prosecuting attorney - or D.A. . Oh, the Plymouth County District Attorney *IS* one Mr. Timothy Cruz, but D.A. Cruz was NOT the guy on the other side of that table, who behaved criminally and callously and yes, very much like a mobster. He treated me like shit.
I got mad. So I decided I'd get justice with the "pen" if I couldn't get it through the due process I now know is not as available to American citizens as I thought.
That scumbag took advantage of a scared and neurologically disabled guy with decent word skills, but AWFUL pragmatic, social and "common sense" capabilities. As such, justice was kicked in the nuts.
And then I kicked Mr. Cruz in the nuts, figuratively. And that was completely unfair. This is not an act of self-preservation, as I now know that Mr. Cruz is and will be in no way directly linked to my continuing conflict with Massasoit or the personnel at Brockton District Court, where this despicable miscarriage of and arrogant winking at justice continues.
I am not about to answer an injustice with an injustice. Well - not when I know better.
I now know better, and it is my moral obligation, and for my own conscience's self-preservation and that of my eternal soul (if indeed there is anything after the last blackness), to apologize publically and sincerely to Mr. Cruz in the same venue I maligned him. After seeing a page 2 picture in the Patriot Ledger of D.A. Cruz with a bundle of microphones in his face (about a kidnapping case in Hanover), I got up, vomitted, washed my face, and got on here. THAT is NOT the guy who mistreated me. CRUZ did not do the things I said he did.
There is much, OH SO much more to say about this situation - and I am about to embark on yet another strategy, with a "little" more teeth, in my efforts to restore my rightful justice. But - I cannot let myself conclude this piece with an "I'm sorry, buuuuttt......". So, to O'Sullivan, Holland, and that grunt prosecutor who extorted me and enjoyed it, fair warning: I'm still coming.
And to Mr. Cruz: I am sorry.
Unfortunately, I got one of the details pretty damned wrong. I implicated D.A. Timothy Cruz as the guy who bullied me at what I have recently learned was an actual arraignment session. I figured, he's trying to get me to say I'm guilty and just take his offer of a humiliating little slap, and I'm on the other side of the table where, if I could have afforded it, I'd have had a defense attorney with me.
Thus, I assumed, that the guy on the *OTHER* side of the table must be the prosecuting attorney - or D.A. . Oh, the Plymouth County District Attorney *IS* one Mr. Timothy Cruz, but D.A. Cruz was NOT the guy on the other side of that table, who behaved criminally and callously and yes, very much like a mobster. He treated me like shit.
I got mad. So I decided I'd get justice with the "pen" if I couldn't get it through the due process I now know is not as available to American citizens as I thought.
That scumbag took advantage of a scared and neurologically disabled guy with decent word skills, but AWFUL pragmatic, social and "common sense" capabilities. As such, justice was kicked in the nuts.
And then I kicked Mr. Cruz in the nuts, figuratively. And that was completely unfair. This is not an act of self-preservation, as I now know that Mr. Cruz is and will be in no way directly linked to my continuing conflict with Massasoit or the personnel at Brockton District Court, where this despicable miscarriage of and arrogant winking at justice continues.
I am not about to answer an injustice with an injustice. Well - not when I know better.
I now know better, and it is my moral obligation, and for my own conscience's self-preservation and that of my eternal soul (if indeed there is anything after the last blackness), to apologize publically and sincerely to Mr. Cruz in the same venue I maligned him. After seeing a page 2 picture in the Patriot Ledger of D.A. Cruz with a bundle of microphones in his face (about a kidnapping case in Hanover), I got up, vomitted, washed my face, and got on here. THAT is NOT the guy who mistreated me. CRUZ did not do the things I said he did.
There is much, OH SO much more to say about this situation - and I am about to embark on yet another strategy, with a "little" more teeth, in my efforts to restore my rightful justice. But - I cannot let myself conclude this piece with an "I'm sorry, buuuuttt......". So, to O'Sullivan, Holland, and that grunt prosecutor who extorted me and enjoyed it, fair warning: I'm still coming.
And to Mr. Cruz: I am sorry.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
The Criminalization of Literal Thinking
The time has come, actually it has long past, for me to brandish my "you gotta be kidding" hat, and take this opportunity to comment not on the most ridiculous of "laws" - most predominantly those hokey rural statutes of bygone days prohibiting, for example, the selling of peanuts in Lee County (Alabama) after sundown on Wednesday, or the prohibition in aforementioned state to "wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church". These are such pathetically easy targets as to compel me to feel less than gentlemanly for calling said "laws" out and verbally pummeling their authors and backers.
I could, but won't, take the liberty of guffawing until my sides ache at the pitiably inept consciousness that brings to bear such public declaration of moral code and the unconstitutional and ridiculously hapless attempt at granting legal precedent the insultingly inappropriate bestowing of regulatory authority on some haggard hack to proclaim, let's say, that "At a wake, mourners may eat no more than three sandwiches". And this is in MY northeastern state of MA, where we proudly hold our noses in the air at just about anybody! What? Watch where we're going? Hush! Another doozy from my own back yard: "An old ordinance declares goatees illegal unless you first pay a special license fee for the privilege of wearing one in public."
Woah! Just imagine what a killing some towns could make at their local Starbucks! We could have paid off the Big Dig in just one relatively hot and chin-strokingly faux-intellectual summer!
While these and, ever so sadly, many more once "legitimate" codes of public conduct were once thinking peoples' bane and outrage, we have in society today not only some equally ridiculous law, and ambiguity, but a nearly tyrannical bestowing of power on law enforcement personnel and district attorneys (prosecutors) to "interpret" the law and its enforcement and adjudication according to their sometimes frighteningly inadequate if not outright ABSENT good judgment. While this problem may not be as "sexy" as matters of Constitutional import (although I believe that the implications and consequences can be JUST that dire in scope) nor as smirkingly befitting a dunce-capped send-off into the abyss of humanity's past and ignorant folly - it is ever deserving of scorn, outrage, AND REMEDIATION!
Did you know that an "officer" of the law can apparently record you as having committed a criminal offense WITHOUT telling you? And he would even call himself "generous" and you "lucky" for his sparing you the awful experience of knowing about it - or having a chance to defend against it! Did you also know that one said "officer" can interpret a behavior as "perfectly legal", if perhaps maybe a bit eccentric, while another officer, even in the same police force (!?) can either, A.) likewise call it okay B.) decide it's not okay and write you up without your knowledge, or C.) arrest you for committing what HE decides is a crime? Oh - I nearly forgot D - and so did certain "officers" at Massasoit Community College in Brockton, MA: informing the "offending" party that he could be in jeopardy of violating a law, and that he should take a course of action to prevent further problems. Or HEY! - even E.) leaving him the hell alone because he is not breaking the law!
What is law? Is it not supposed to be a democratically established standard of behavior that is enforced, interpretted and adjudicated with painfully disciplined, fair, and PREDICTABLE consistency? What is the deterrent effect of a law that flickers on and off like a bad streetlight? What is the benefit to society of having a public code of behavior that is as malleable and morphable as the number of people involved in its upkeep? What society benefits from the granting of unchecked authority to those badged and gavelled PUBLIC SERVANTS who themselves are just as susceptible to the folly they attempt to regulate?
It's no trivial realization made by s/he who first observed that "absolute power corrupts absolutely". In the event that such power is ever given or claimed, the results are always - ALWAYS poor. Sometimes it results in the comically outrageous and just plain stupid establishment "rules" barely utterable for their chuckle-inducing absurdity, to wit: "A woman can not be on top in sexual activities" or "No gorilla is allowed in the back seat of any car". These, we can only hope, are mere fodder for Letterman or Leno, and will ultimately meet their Darwinian fate.
But sometimes, sometimes it results in the criminalization of freedom itself, and the undermining of the dignity of living, and those who try every day to make the most of it.
I'm not laughing, are you? I hope not.
I could, but won't, take the liberty of guffawing until my sides ache at the pitiably inept consciousness that brings to bear such public declaration of moral code and the unconstitutional and ridiculously hapless attempt at granting legal precedent the insultingly inappropriate bestowing of regulatory authority on some haggard hack to proclaim, let's say, that "At a wake, mourners may eat no more than three sandwiches". And this is in MY northeastern state of MA, where we proudly hold our noses in the air at just about anybody! What? Watch where we're going? Hush! Another doozy from my own back yard: "An old ordinance declares goatees illegal unless you first pay a special license fee for the privilege of wearing one in public."
Woah! Just imagine what a killing some towns could make at their local Starbucks! We could have paid off the Big Dig in just one relatively hot and chin-strokingly faux-intellectual summer!
While these and, ever so sadly, many more once "legitimate" codes of public conduct were once thinking peoples' bane and outrage, we have in society today not only some equally ridiculous law, and ambiguity, but a nearly tyrannical bestowing of power on law enforcement personnel and district attorneys (prosecutors) to "interpret" the law and its enforcement and adjudication according to their sometimes frighteningly inadequate if not outright ABSENT good judgment. While this problem may not be as "sexy" as matters of Constitutional import (although I believe that the implications and consequences can be JUST that dire in scope) nor as smirkingly befitting a dunce-capped send-off into the abyss of humanity's past and ignorant folly - it is ever deserving of scorn, outrage, AND REMEDIATION!
Did you know that an "officer" of the law can apparently record you as having committed a criminal offense WITHOUT telling you? And he would even call himself "generous" and you "lucky" for his sparing you the awful experience of knowing about it - or having a chance to defend against it! Did you also know that one said "officer" can interpret a behavior as "perfectly legal", if perhaps maybe a bit eccentric, while another officer, even in the same police force (!?) can either, A.) likewise call it okay B.) decide it's not okay and write you up without your knowledge, or C.) arrest you for committing what HE decides is a crime? Oh - I nearly forgot D - and so did certain "officers" at Massasoit Community College in Brockton, MA: informing the "offending" party that he could be in jeopardy of violating a law, and that he should take a course of action to prevent further problems. Or HEY! - even E.) leaving him the hell alone because he is not breaking the law!
What is law? Is it not supposed to be a democratically established standard of behavior that is enforced, interpretted and adjudicated with painfully disciplined, fair, and PREDICTABLE consistency? What is the deterrent effect of a law that flickers on and off like a bad streetlight? What is the benefit to society of having a public code of behavior that is as malleable and morphable as the number of people involved in its upkeep? What society benefits from the granting of unchecked authority to those badged and gavelled PUBLIC SERVANTS who themselves are just as susceptible to the folly they attempt to regulate?
It's no trivial realization made by s/he who first observed that "absolute power corrupts absolutely". In the event that such power is ever given or claimed, the results are always - ALWAYS poor. Sometimes it results in the comically outrageous and just plain stupid establishment "rules" barely utterable for their chuckle-inducing absurdity, to wit: "A woman can not be on top in sexual activities" or "No gorilla is allowed in the back seat of any car". These, we can only hope, are mere fodder for Letterman or Leno, and will ultimately meet their Darwinian fate.
But sometimes, sometimes it results in the criminalization of freedom itself, and the undermining of the dignity of living, and those who try every day to make the most of it.
I'm not laughing, are you? I hope not.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
You Wouldn't Speak to Me in Plain Language, so Now Let Me Show You What I'm Learning About Yours
This is What Happens when You Motivate a Pathologically Anxious and Depressed Person with the Only Force Greater Than His Dysthmia: FEAR
You could have been decent. Ideally, you could have let, er, sleeping drivers lie*2 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie). Or, you could have woken him and told him to leave. OR, you could have said *NEXT* time, he's trespassing
You could have been decent. Ideally, you could have let, er, sleeping drivers lie*2 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie). Or, you could have woken him and told him to leave. OR, you could have said *NEXT* time, he's trespassing. OR, you could have asked him if he needed medical attention. OR, you could have taken him to the station, voluntarily, to ascertain his fitness to drive. OR, you could have questioned him more thoroughly at the scene - and taken notes when he showed the first officer who ever found him sleeping on your campus (or was it the second time - there were SEVERAL) the prescription bottle that states drowsiness as a possible side effect.
Oh, but don't you worry about that this month. Due to an insurance transition hiccough that is still unresolved, one of my medications (fluoxetine, 100mg/day) ran out about a week and a half ago. So I'm not gonna be at risk for any drowsiness side effect. Can't even say for sure if it effected me that way - but I'm not a doc. All I know is that right now I am as far away from sleeping as I have EVER been. I am SPITZING, BLAZING, barely coherently HOT PISSED right now!!
http://www.helium.com/items/1476054-officer-christopher-osullivan-ex-post-facto-void-for-vagueness-self-advocacy-disability-rights
You could have taken several measures to not only ensure the public safety (okay, sure, and order) and at the same time respect the dignity of a guy who has never been in trouble with the law before but for a speeding ticket and, back when he was 17 (?), when he rear-ended another driver on the way TO SEE HIS OPTOMETRIST!!!
Yeah - I've had many of the mishaps and troubles of the geeky and socially inept clutz. I didn't realize that it was a crime to be "odd". I didn't realize it was a crime to be on the property of a PUBLIC community college (where personal safety is, is it not, likely higher) too dog-tired to just start his car and buzz off.
I didn't realize this. Officer number 5 (I think it was number 5 - you wouldn't let me see the records), who told me that "you know, these have been recorded as trespassing don't you?".
I stammered. I was short of breath. I was shocked and pissed and taken aback and scared and outraged and angry and confused and panicky all at once. You wanna see how that feels? No, you do not. Anyway, that was the first time I realized that I might get myself into trouble if I was found on campus asleep in my car after hours again.
So, I wasn't. BUT, wouldn't you know that, at about twenty after 9pm on the very next Friday, one Officer Christopher O'Sullivan just happened upon my car, among the many others in the parking lot at that time, and approached me with what is now a well-accounted incident. Basically, he was looking for me, it would seem, and rather than tell me that I was forbidden from the campus *period*, of which I was unaware, or believe me, I'd have been to a lawyer or judge or some advocate to press charges against YOUR department for this unjust infingement of my liberty and access to public resources, he chose to be confrontational and sarcastic and insulting.
Yes, even then, apparently, I maybe had the power to avoid arrest. I overheard the conversation O'Sullivan had with the desk/dispatcher - while he was searching my vehicle subsequent to my willful and cooperative consent (and of course resulting in nothing suspicious or incriminating except for the pillow in my back seat - as if that's a crime!) - and he indicated out loud over the radio that he was disposed to "let me go" with a summons to appear to answer for this idiocy.
I must have pissed him off when I answered his question truthfully (and very literally, as is my tendency and neurological pathology)) when he asked me, clearly becoming exasperated with me, if I'd rather discuss this with a judge.
I answered "well, yeah, if that's okay" or "yeah, actually, that'd be good" - or something equally, in hindsight, stupid. But my tone was calm, respectful, and yes, a little scared. But I honestly would have prefered to explain things to a judge (by definition, a scholar) and not a police officer (my general impression of this profession being that it is staffed with those who prefer action to thinking, and don't look kindly upon geeks and other wimps).
I don't like that kind of person. I just feel very uncomfortable around them, whether they are wearing a badge, a football helmet, army fatigues, mechanics overalls, or a hardhat. Yes, these are generalities and as such are not universal. But the feeling I get from a guy who grunts or smirks at my vocabulary, or takes one look at my short, long-haired bespectacled self and visibly - YES, VISIBLY!!! - reduces his respect for me on the spot, is one of familiar anxiety and social isolation the likes of which makes me wish I had beaten up on the jerks in high school who shoved me into lockers and laughed at me in gym class.
But, I'm not that kind of person.
I'm a wuss. I'm pathetic. I'm a victim unless I learn to once and for FREAKIN' all stand up for myself and say NO MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey, O'Sullivan: NO MORE!!!! Hey, Holland: NOOOOO MOOOOOOOOOOOORE!!!!!!!!!!
You are NOT going to scare me. Go ahead, file more bogus charges. I'll add that to my list of transgressions for which I fully intend to compel YOU to answer.
It is my intention to compel you to appear and answer to violations of the following statues, not all inclusive:
-Chapter 268: Section 6A.
-Chapter 268: Section 13B
-Chapter 265: Section 21 (you remember the ATM visit, Chris?)
-Chapter 263: Section 5 (how can I confront or question witnesses who remain where I am forbidden to go??)
There's more, but I don't wanna show my hand.
I am DONE being the victim. At this point, NO consequence could be worse than continuing to cower before bullies, and that includes the possibility of self-inflicted death depending on the outcome of my little court date on July 10th. But, in all honesty, the way my ears are burning and my arms and hands are shaking and my stomach is cramping and my head is pins and needles and my heart is roaring out of my chest right this very minute - and every time I think about this, I may not last until then. If life isn't fair - I am SO done with it. Whether the bullies haunt me from within, whether they are grunting at me as they toss the pig-skin, or whether they cower behind the badge that gives them an authority they clearly don't respect or deserve.
I'm DONE.
I am DONE!!!
I am *FUCKING* DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You could have been decent. Ideally, you could have let, er, sleeping drivers lie*2 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie). Or, you could have woken him and told him to leave. OR, you could have said *NEXT* time, he's trespassing
You could have been decent. Ideally, you could have let, er, sleeping drivers lie*2 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie). Or, you could have woken him and told him to leave. OR, you could have said *NEXT* time, he's trespassing. OR, you could have asked him if he needed medical attention. OR, you could have taken him to the station, voluntarily, to ascertain his fitness to drive. OR, you could have questioned him more thoroughly at the scene - and taken notes when he showed the first officer who ever found him sleeping on your campus (or was it the second time - there were SEVERAL) the prescription bottle that states drowsiness as a possible side effect.
Oh, but don't you worry about that this month. Due to an insurance transition hiccough that is still unresolved, one of my medications (fluoxetine, 100mg/day) ran out about a week and a half ago. So I'm not gonna be at risk for any drowsiness side effect. Can't even say for sure if it effected me that way - but I'm not a doc. All I know is that right now I am as far away from sleeping as I have EVER been. I am SPITZING, BLAZING, barely coherently HOT PISSED right now!!
http://www.helium.com/items/1476054-officer-christopher-osullivan-ex-post-facto-void-for-vagueness-self-advocacy-disability-rights
You could have taken several measures to not only ensure the public safety (okay, sure, and order) and at the same time respect the dignity of a guy who has never been in trouble with the law before but for a speeding ticket and, back when he was 17 (?), when he rear-ended another driver on the way TO SEE HIS OPTOMETRIST!!!
Yeah - I've had many of the mishaps and troubles of the geeky and socially inept clutz. I didn't realize that it was a crime to be "odd". I didn't realize it was a crime to be on the property of a PUBLIC community college (where personal safety is, is it not, likely higher) too dog-tired to just start his car and buzz off.
I didn't realize this. Officer number 5 (I think it was number 5 - you wouldn't let me see the records), who told me that "you know, these have been recorded as trespassing don't you?".
I stammered. I was short of breath. I was shocked and pissed and taken aback and scared and outraged and angry and confused and panicky all at once. You wanna see how that feels? No, you do not. Anyway, that was the first time I realized that I might get myself into trouble if I was found on campus asleep in my car after hours again.
So, I wasn't. BUT, wouldn't you know that, at about twenty after 9pm on the very next Friday, one Officer Christopher O'Sullivan just happened upon my car, among the many others in the parking lot at that time, and approached me with what is now a well-accounted incident. Basically, he was looking for me, it would seem, and rather than tell me that I was forbidden from the campus *period*, of which I was unaware, or believe me, I'd have been to a lawyer or judge or some advocate to press charges against YOUR department for this unjust infingement of my liberty and access to public resources, he chose to be confrontational and sarcastic and insulting.
Yes, even then, apparently, I maybe had the power to avoid arrest. I overheard the conversation O'Sullivan had with the desk/dispatcher - while he was searching my vehicle subsequent to my willful and cooperative consent (and of course resulting in nothing suspicious or incriminating except for the pillow in my back seat - as if that's a crime!) - and he indicated out loud over the radio that he was disposed to "let me go" with a summons to appear to answer for this idiocy.
I must have pissed him off when I answered his question truthfully (and very literally, as is my tendency and neurological pathology)) when he asked me, clearly becoming exasperated with me, if I'd rather discuss this with a judge.
I answered "well, yeah, if that's okay" or "yeah, actually, that'd be good" - or something equally, in hindsight, stupid. But my tone was calm, respectful, and yes, a little scared. But I honestly would have prefered to explain things to a judge (by definition, a scholar) and not a police officer (my general impression of this profession being that it is staffed with those who prefer action to thinking, and don't look kindly upon geeks and other wimps).
I don't like that kind of person. I just feel very uncomfortable around them, whether they are wearing a badge, a football helmet, army fatigues, mechanics overalls, or a hardhat. Yes, these are generalities and as such are not universal. But the feeling I get from a guy who grunts or smirks at my vocabulary, or takes one look at my short, long-haired bespectacled self and visibly - YES, VISIBLY!!! - reduces his respect for me on the spot, is one of familiar anxiety and social isolation the likes of which makes me wish I had beaten up on the jerks in high school who shoved me into lockers and laughed at me in gym class.
But, I'm not that kind of person.
I'm a wuss. I'm pathetic. I'm a victim unless I learn to once and for FREAKIN' all stand up for myself and say NO MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey, O'Sullivan: NO MORE!!!! Hey, Holland: NOOOOO MOOOOOOOOOOOORE!!!!!!!!!!
You are NOT going to scare me. Go ahead, file more bogus charges. I'll add that to my list of transgressions for which I fully intend to compel YOU to answer.
It is my intention to compel you to appear and answer to violations of the following statues, not all inclusive:
-Chapter 268: Section 6A.
-Chapter 268: Section 13B
-Chapter 265: Section 21 (you remember the ATM visit, Chris?)
-Chapter 263: Section 5 (how can I confront or question witnesses who remain where I am forbidden to go??)
There's more, but I don't wanna show my hand.
I am DONE being the victim. At this point, NO consequence could be worse than continuing to cower before bullies, and that includes the possibility of self-inflicted death depending on the outcome of my little court date on July 10th. But, in all honesty, the way my ears are burning and my arms and hands are shaking and my stomach is cramping and my head is pins and needles and my heart is roaring out of my chest right this very minute - and every time I think about this, I may not last until then. If life isn't fair - I am SO done with it. Whether the bullies haunt me from within, whether they are grunting at me as they toss the pig-skin, or whether they cower behind the badge that gives them an authority they clearly don't respect or deserve.
I'm DONE.
I am DONE!!!
I am *FUCKING* DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
