Klarinet Archive - Posting 001125.txt from 2002/06

From: Mark Gresham <mgresham@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Music vs. drug testing
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 17:22:34 -0400

Bill Hausmann wrote:
>
> At 01:49 AM 6/30/2002 -0400, Mark Gresham wrote:
> >This is where I have to weigh in with a personal experience:
>
> (Story clipped)
>
> But you see, you HAD done nothing wrong, and told them everything. If you
> had stubbornly refused to speak, even though you had done nothing wrong, it
> would have looked highly suspicious to them and a less desirable outcome
> might have resulted. And if that had happened, regardless of your right not
> to incriminate yourself, it would have been YOUR fault for being a jerk
> about it.

Not at all. You know, you're so completely far off base it isn't
funny.
There was no cause for a pile of squad cars in the first place.
The jerk in the scenario was the solo cop, who didn't even bother to
check inside the convenience store to see if anyone was injured,
bleeding or dead (since he was so fired up about there being a possible
crime), much less to find whether a crime had taken place at all.
He was so "loaded for bear," so anxious to "get someone for something"
that he was going for anything, even if thoroughly unfounded. The fact
of wearing a uniform does not allow him the use of unrestrained personal
power. This was an abuse of that power.
The fact that I cooperated with the questioning officer does not make
the fact that it happened "reasonable" at all -- much less by 5 uniforms
in 3 squad cars -- regardless of how astute my own reactions might have
been.* If that's your idea of "reasonable" suspicion for a crime that
never happened, then you're completely wacko.
If the store *had* actually been robbed, then there would have been
cause to question someone who had been there at or near the time, even
if as a possible witness rather than a suspect. (But need not normally
corner such a witness with 3 squad cars.)
But when there was not only *no* crime but clear evidence available
beforehand that *none* had taken place, then that is a severe and
wrongful abuse of police power.

*Part of that is the fact that I recognized the officer who was
questioning me was not the idiot who called it in and who sped away
burning rubber because he was shown to be a jackass. The others were
cooly polite and somewhat embarassed over the incident, but not
apologetic. Had it been the solo jackass by himself, the outcome might
have been very different (as in physical injury to my person) even with
fact of my cooperation.
There are police in my extended family, as well as career military, so
I know a little about how to deal with "out-of-control uniforms" or
potentially caustic situations -- and I know too that the idea of
"authority" that comes with wearing a uniform can attract sociopaths of
all kinds just as easily as it attracts some genuinely noble and heroic
personalities. It still doesn't make the police action in question any
more warranted or justifiable.

--
Mark Gresham, composer
mgresham@-----.com/
Lux Nova Press http://www.luxnova.com/
LNP Retail Webstore http://www.luxnova.com/lnpwebstore/

---------------------------------------------------------------------