Building the foundation for Idiocracy

This is how the end of the world looks… It looks like the slow disintegration of our society as we reward people who make stupid and selfish decisions. Single mom, on welfare, with 14 children; and now they are making her into a role model.

Octuplets mom gets TV, book offers
By JOHN ROGERS, Associated Press Writer
Monday, February 2, 2009

The mother of the longest-living octuplets in U.S. history is being deluged with offers for book deals, TV shows and other business proposals, but has made no decision on what she might do other than care for her children, her newly hired spokeswoman said Monday.

Hundreds of requests have poured in from all over the world since Nadya Suleman gave birth to six boys and two girls a week ago, said Joann Killeen, president of Killeen Furtney Group, a public relations company.

[ad#adsense-horizontal]

Cheating the Balance

Yesterday I wacked together a piece titled Imbalance in the system that discussed my feelings that a police officer should not get to ‘plead the fifth’ in regards to actions ‘on the job’.

After I wrote that piece, I did a bit more research and discovered that my feelings are already incorporated into law. A police officer may decline to make an official statement of events to the police investigators working on the original incident. The police officer is required to make a statement to Internal Affairs if they request one, and that statement is inadmissible in court should the officer be charged as a result of their actions while on duty. I have to admit, that is a reasonable balance.

Given that this mechanism exists for the police to investigate the actions of the officer in a way that can not be used against them in court, it baffles me that the officer in question quit his job rather than follow through with his duty as an officer:

Officer in BART shooting quits force, avoids internal affairs quizzing
Demian Bulwa,Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 7, 2009

(01-07) 19:14 PST OAKLAND — The BART police officer who shot an unarmed man to death on a station platform early New Year's Day quit the force Wednesday, avoiding an interview with police internal affairs investigators who were trying to get to the bottom of a videotaped incident that has prompted broad outrage.

And, of course, the riots are beginning:

Protests over BART shooting turn violent
Demian Bulwa, Charles Burress, Matthew B. Stannard,Matthai Kuruvila, Chronicle Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 7, 2009

A protest over the fatal shooting by a BART police officer of an unarmed man mushroomed into a violent confrontation tonight, as a faction of protesters smashed a police car and storefronts, set a car on fire and blocked streets in downtown Oakland.

Imbalance in the system

Perhaps you have heard of the fatal shooting that occurred here in Oakland on New Years. Perhaps not though, as I hear that mainstream media outside of the Bay Area is not covering the story. I’ll give some links at the bottom if you are interested, but they are crucial to this post so I’m not quoting any of the stories here.

The short story is that there was a fight on a BART train. BART police arrived and broke up the fight. The BART police had the participants of the fight face down on the station floor, and were in the process of handcuffing them. For unknown reasons, one of the officers drew his side-arm and shot one of the suspects in the back, from point blank range, as he lay there face down on the floor. The bullet passed through his abdomen and ricocheted off the concrete back up into his lungs. He died. Those are the established facts.

Why? That part of the investigation is at a stand still. Five days later, and the officer in question has not made a statement to investigators.

Before I go any further, I want to say that in principle I believe VERY strongly in the Bill of Rights. They are the foundation of our relatively free society. I also understand that there are limitations to those rights, and that there are circumstances where rights can be lost. As an example of this, a person can lose their second amendment right to bear arms for a whole range of reasons with the most commonly known reason being convicted of a felony. So, while I believe in the Bill of Rights, I do understand and agree with some reasons where those rights can be lost.

The officer has not been required to make a statement because he has a fifth amendment right against self incrimination. This is something that bothers me. We are not talking about an average citizen here. We are talking about an officer of the law, whose actions that evening were on the job, paid for by the people of Oakland and California to serve the law. This is my personal opinion, but if we already agree that some rights can be lost by the choices people make, then I propose that a police officer who is on duty must be required to make a full accounting of their actions even if such statement could be considered incriminating. If you chose to put yourself in a position of enforcing the law, you should have to accept that your actions while on duty are 100% the business of those who entrusted you with their safety.

We need, as a society, to be sure that our police enforce the law, and are not above the law. Perhaps my idea isn’t the best way to accomplish that, but I’m open to your thoughts if you have a better idea.

-Chris

References:
BART officer has yet to give account in shooting
As BART shooting videos go viral, experts try to figure out what went wrong
BART shooting victim’s family files $25 million claim
M&R: Death threats against BART officer
A shot in the dark

I use Amazon affiliate links in some of my posts. I think it is fair to say my writing is not influenced by the $0.40 I earned in 2022.