The Visit of the Young Lady

A knowledge of dramatic literature comes in handy sometimes. There have been murmurs around my adopted state of Texas that a Lysistrata-like sex strike might be the only way to convince the privileged white males of the state that treating women a little worse than barnyard animals might not be the most effective strategy. Surely even intelligent opponents of abortion balk at the bullying and disingenuous tactics employed by Rick Perry, David Dewhurst and their minions to finally ram a bill through the Texas legislature to severely restrict the availability of not only abortions, but mammograms, pap smears, contraception, and other basic women’s health services.

Now it appears that a variation on the theme of the Friedrich Dürrenmatt classic Der Besuch der alten Dame (literally The Visit of the Old Lady, but generally translated into English simply as The Visit) might seem to be in order. Whereas people in Curmie’s business ought to know the play, this is not necessarily true for you, Gentle Reader, so here’s a quick synopsis.

The little town of Güllen (literally, to spread liquid manure) is struggling, but the fabulously wealthy Claire Zachanassian, a former resident, is paying a visit, and the townspeople hope she’ll come to their rescue. Anton Ill, her former lover, is enlisted to head up the appeal. Gradually, however, we learn that young Claire had left the town in disgrace, impregnated by Anton, who suborned perjury from two witnesses to evade justice and to be free to marry the shopkeeper’s daughter.

Claire was forced into prostitution, but a series of alliances to increasingly wealthy men who died and left her their fortunes turned her into a billionaire. We learn, too, that she is primarily responsible for the town’s financial struggles: she’s been buying up businesses and shutting them down, that sort of thing. Her traveling entourage includes a butler (the judge in her paternity suit who ruled against her) and two eunuchs (the perjured witnesses). She offers the town a billion (well, the unit of currency isn’t made clear, if I recall correctly, but we’re talking a lot of money), half to be given to the town per se, half to be divided among all the town’s families. There’s one condition: someone in the town must kill Anton Ill.

At first, it seems like bluster, and the townspeople reject the offer. Claire then calmly intones one of the most chilling lines in dramatic literature, “Ich werde warten.” (“I’ll wait.”) Inexorably, the town becomes obsessed by the money and Ill realizes that there is no escape. The mayor announces that the town’s imminent wealth is all due to Ill’s generosity. Ill is indeed killed by a townsman, but the doctors are quick to pronounce it a heart attack: he “died of joy.” Claire keeps her promise, writes a check, and boards the next train out of town. In the original production, the scenery shifted before the audience’s eyes from the dreariness of the first 99% of the show to clean and shining splendor. And… curtain.

I thought about this play when reading about the plight of Katie Barnett, an Ohio woman whose house was repossessed for non-payment of her mortgage… trouble is, the idiot repo guys went to the wrong house. They didn't want Ms. Barnett's house at all; they were supposed to go to the place across the street. Undeterred by competence, they removed, which is to say stole, all her possessions, which were either sold, given away, or simply trashed. Ms. Barnett remained remarkably calm under the circumstances. She called the police, but the chief, weeks later, declared the case closed because the culprits were the First National Bank of Wellston. Exactly why that matters is beyond my feeble ken, but I suppose it all makes sense if you’re an idiot small town police chief (as usual, apologies for the redundancy) like Tony Wood.

So Ms. Barnett assessed her losses, estimated at a little over $18,000, and went to the bank for reimbursement. The bank president, Tony Thorne (a lot of jackasses named Tony in those parts), admits that the situation was the bank’s fault—at least indirectly, in that they hired the moron repo crew—but still doesn’t want to pay up: “We’re not paying you retail here, that’s just the way it is,” quoth he (according to her, at least). He also whines that the “written list of items that she provided to us ... is inconsistent with the list and descriptions of items removed that was prepared by the employees who did the work.”

OK, two things. 1). I think we’ve already determined how competent and trustworthy those “employees” are. 2). as of now, she’s being nice, but Ms. Barnett owns your future as surely as Claire Zachanassian owned Güllen’s. Why is it that the assholes and the idiots are so often the same people, and they’re so often in positions of power in petty and parochial small town settings? Do you really think any jury in a civil suit is going to care whether the list of items Ms. Barnett claims were illegally confiscated from her legal residence without the slightest cause conforms to what the clown show you hired for the repo wrote down? The circumstances all point in one direction: Ms. Barnett is an aggrieved party, and you, sir, are dumber than a stack of burnt toast. As she says, “I’m not running a yard sale here. I did not tell them to come in my house and make me an offer. They took my stuff, and I want it back.” And that seems reasonable enough, to the extent that the “stuff” is replaceable… and there ought to be a little penalty for destroying what is not replaceable, too.

You might, might, have a chance to get out of this for the 18 grand she says you owe her. But if I were her, I’d put some punitive damages onto that lawsuit I’d be virtually certain to win… say, 100 times the value of the items taken. Call it $1.8 million. And here’s where The Visit comes in. Tomorrow, O Bank Board of Directors, you can settle this for $18,000. Next week, it’s $18,000 and Tony Thorne is fired (killing him would be a bit much). The week after that, the dollar figure doubles, and it keeps doubling until the bank settles. Thorne? He had his chance. He’s gone, or we jump straight to seven figures. I kind of get the feeling the board of directors, being corporate types, after all, would be perfectly willing to throw Thorne under the bus if given half a chance. If I were Ms. Barnett, I’d be interested in finding out. (I might be tempted to sue the city, too, with Wood’s job as a bargaining chip.)

But Ms. Barnett is no doubt much nicer than Curmie. She’ll probably just take what she’s owed and try to get on with her life. For now.

[Note: there’s a Daily Kos petition about this, but the recipient is one Eric Emmert. He’s listed as President and CEO of Midwest Bancshares, the First National Bank’s parent company, in one place, as CEO of the bank in another. But it certainly seems to be Thorne who’s the idiot at front and center.]

Curmie Goes Contrarian (again): Don't Blame the Jury

Curmie is about to break with personal tradition and just rant. The key word here, of course, is “just.” Curmie rants a lot, but this time there are no links to news sources or other blogs, because you, Gentle Reader, either already know the relevant facts or don’t care.

It’s been well under 24 hours since the verdict in this month’s Trial of the Century, but everyone and his great-aunt Tillie has by now weighed in on the George Zimmerman acquittal. Most of Curmie’s left-leaning friends (which is to say most—not all—of Curmie’s friends) have opined about “justice” and the “racist society” and similar high-sounding but ultimately hollow catch-phrases.

No one—correction: none of the principals—looks good in this case. Curmie’s netpal Jack Marshall over at Ethics Alarms has repeatedly called this an “ethics train wreck”; sometimes Jack errs on the side of understatement. (I promised you no links—you are adept with net browsers, Gentle Reader: employ one at your discretion.) Trayvon Martin was not the angelic youth he was portrayed as being. His girlfriend lied before changing her story (or, possibly, told the truth and then lied because it was more efficacious to do so). Martin’s parents politicized the case, suggesting with little evidence that the lack of prosecutorial vigor was purely based on race, and far too many politicians—up to and including the POTUS—rose to that bait.

The police who first investigated the case glanced at a dead teenager and released his admitted killer after a few perfunctory questions, failed to conduct an appropriate investigation, and generally screwed up at every conceivable opportunity. Their stupidity, sloth, and general lack of commitment may or may not have been grounded in racism. There are racist cops. But not every case involving people of different races—or religions, or sexes, or whatever—is specifically about that difference. And racism is only one of many forms of stupidity.

The media incompetently and quite likely intentionally distorted the case—remember when the doctored tape of Zimmerman’s call to the police made it seem like he volunteered information about Martin’s race, when in fact he was responding to a question? There are other examples, but that one, to me, was the most egregious.

The DA’s office dithered, punted, and was ultimately over-ruled by authorities who, it could be readily and credibly be argued, were at least as interested in advancing either their own political careers or at least their political agendas. The prosecution in the actual trial appears to have been roughly akin to that in the O.J. Simpson trial: utterly incompetent. (I say “appears to be” because, frankly, I do not share CNN’s obsession with this case. I’d look at news reports suggesting that the prosecution had lost ground on a particular day, but, frankly, there are a lot more important things in the world than whether one guy in Florida “gets away with murder.”) Yeah, yeah, yeah. I get it: it’s an emblem for a larger problem. I’m not arguing that point. But comparisons to Emmett Till and Medgar Evers? Give me a damned break.

On the other side, there are the idiotic post-trial pronouncements by the lead defense attorney that Zimmerman wouldn’t have been prosecuted had he been black. Even if true (and I doubt it), this is in an utterly irresponsible thing to say, one which aggravates an already tense situation with no concomitant upside unless we think of lawyerly narcissism as a good thing.

All of which leads us to George Zimmerman. Was the death of Trayvon Martin directly attributable to his actions? Definitely. Could this situation have been avoided if Zimmerman weren’t such a jerk? Yep. Did Zimmerman’s actions stem from some combination of racism, arrogance, paranoia, and self-entitlement rather than conscientiousness? Almost certainly. Did he profile Martin, stalk him, precipitate the confrontation, and aggravate the situation on numerous occasions when he could have released rather than increased the pressure? Again, almost certainly.

OK, now the big questions. Is George Zimmerman morally and ethically responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin? I think so, yes. Is he legally, under Florida law, guilty of a felony? Probably. And the distance between “probably” and “yes” is known as “reasonable doubt.”

The cops were inept. The DA’s office was nearly as bad. The prosecution couldn’t convict a roast beef sandwich of containing meat. But the jury? From where I sit, they got it right. (Side note: when I wrote about the Casey Anthony trial—you can look that one up, too, Gentle Reader—I said I’d never question an acquittal. I meant it.) The foundations of the criminal justice system are the presumption of innocence and the abiding belief that it is better to free the guilty than to convict the innocent. Is George Zimmerman “innocent”? Nope. Is he “not guilty”? Yes. Yes, he is: legally, at least.

The howls of my friends are largely about “justice” for Trayvon Martin. He certainly deserves it, but his chance for that disappeared over a year ago, with the bumbling of every authority figure involved. To suggest that the verdict yesterday confirms anything is silly. The acquittal was simply the result of the jury’s doing the job they were charged to do. The legitimate resentment of those who believe that Martin was denied justice is properly channeled elsewhere. George Zimmerman deserves justice, too, simply by being a human being. He will probably—à la OJ—face a civil rights charge and a civil suit. Chances are, with a lower burden of proof in the latter, he won’t escape scot free. Does that constitute justice? No, but it’s as good as we’re going to get. And that is not an indictment of the system.

On Cops and Pets (sort of)

Curmie is proud of being an educator and therefore hosts the Curmie Award for the teacher or administrator who most embarrasses the profession. Similarly, he acknowledges that there are thousands of selfless, hard-working and compassionate police officers—unfortunately, I got to see a couple of them perform a particularly grim duty last week—but that makes it all the more important to remember that wearing a badge and a gun doesn’t make one a good policeman (or –woman) any more than standing in front of a classroom makes one a good teacher.

So…

There have been a lot of disturbing stories of late about overly testosteronic cops and pets (well, one of the stories isn’t about pets per se, but about partially-domesticated kittens. Close enough for jazz). What’s newsworthy and disturbing about these incidents isn’t necessarily directly linked to the animals involved, but that motif does give us an opportunity to examine some of the worst (we hope) in police behavior over the past few weeks. I’m even skipping two cases from California: the shooting of five caged (but at least aggressive) pit bulls by a Selma cop in January and the recent incident in Hawthorne in which the police were certainly at fault for escalating what needn’t have been a tense situation, but may indeed have ultimately acted appropriately (considering the position they had put themselves in) in shooting and killing an 80-pound Rottweiler.

We start, then, with a story out of Miami in late May. Police assaulted, handcuffed, and choked a 14-year-old boy with little if any provocation. The boy, Tremaine McMillian, had apparently been “roughhousing” with friends. Although they quickly realized “there was no sort of altercation or fight going on,” police nonetheless wanted to talk to McMillian’s parents.

But that’s when things turned bad, and when descriptions begin to diverge: he was walking away, or he was leading police to his mother, who was nearby. I’m going to pretend for a moment that I believe a single word of the police description: if for no other reason than that my raised eyebrow of skepticism might be interpreted as a “de-humanizing stare,” which is apparently enough to get you slammed to the ground and choked by a gaggle of over-stimulated jackasses working on their machismo merit badge. Well, of course, young Mr. McMillian has, shall we say, a darker complexion than I, so I might have been fine.

Anyway, the police don’t seem to dispute the claim that the teenager was carrying his six-week-old puppy in one hand and was bottle-feeding it with the other. The best they can do is argue that after police “[grabbed] him,” McMillian’s “body language, of stiffening up, closing the fist, flaring his hands, trying to pull away, well, now, you’re resisting an officer at that point.” Presumably, this is intended to constitute a defense of the officers’ stupidity and brutality. “At this point, we’re not dealing with, or concerned with the puppy,” quoth Prevaricator in Charge Detective Alvaro Zabaleta, “what we’re concerned about is the immediate threat to the officers.” Seriously, he said that.

Here’s the best-case scenario for the police account. McMillian was doing nothing illegal and the police were being a little over-officious. They then grabbed him, although he had committed no offense and was under no obligation to cooperate with them. He shrugged them off, telling them not to “touch [him] like [he’s] done something,” all the while holding the puppy. While doing so, he apparently sprouted another set of appendages, complete with clenched fists and flaring arms (whatever the hell that means), and constituted an “immediate threat” because… um… well, he did. Seriously, if a 14-year-old kid holding a puppy in both arms makes a police officer afraid in any way, maybe we ought to be looking for some cops with backbones made of sterner stuff than overcooked linguini.

Oh, wait. I forgot about the “de-humanizing stares.” Snort. These people should be writing trashy novels. They sure as hell shouldn’t be cops.

We move now to North Ridgeville, Ohio, where a police-attached Human Officer reporting to the Police Department shot and killed a litter of kittens in the presence of a group of children, and the idiot Police Chief decided there was no problem. Move along. Nothin’ to see here.

There seems to be little dispute about the facts. A homeowner called the police to see if they could do something about a litter of feral kittens that had taken up residence in a woodpile behind her house. Enter one Barry Accorti, retired police sergeant and current part-time Humane Officer (yes, Gentle Reader, Curmie is aware of the irony of the job title). According to WKYC television,

He allegedly told the homeowner that shelters were full and that the cats would be going to kitty heaven. He then pulled out his gun and shot to death the five, 8- to 10-week-old kittens.

Accorti allegedly told the homeowner that he isn't supposed to do this, but it was justifiable. The woman ran into the house to shield her children who were screaming and crying.

There are some minor discrepancies with the details, but what isn’t in dispute is that Accorti used a gun to “euthanize” kittens no more than 10 weeks old. Interestingly, the police department’s defense of Accorti’s stupidity and arrogance cites the proximity of the woodpile to the house and presence of children in the home as reasons why the kittens would have to be killed to begin with. Presumably, it never occurred to him that firing a gun into a woodpile is inherently unsafe (lots of opportunities for ricochets in a residential area) and that traumatizing children might not be the best available option. No, correct that, he just didn’t care. He’s been carrying this gun around for a while and hasn’t had the chance to show off what a tough guy he is by firing it to the admiration of all. After all, nothing says “manly” like shooting a kitten.

Here’s the deal. He’s got cages, heavy gloves, catch-poles, all that stuff available to him. These are kittens. The fact that they hissed at someone doesn’t mean they’re dangerous. And he’s supposed to be a professional. Assuming it’s true that euthanasia was the only (or best) option—hardly a given, by the way—then there are a lot of safer, more humane means of dealing with the situation… not to mention avoiding the possibility virtual certainty of giving those kids nightmares for months.

Most disturbingly, nothing a cop ever does seems to be questioned by those in authority, whether it’s pepper-spraying innocent people or doing something transcendently stupid like firing a gun in a residential neighborhood to deal with a feral cat problem. (Note: the photo at left purports to be of the kittens in question, meaning a). they're partially domesticated and b). the alleged complaints about a chronic problem are either fabricated or disingenuous.)

Here are the key sections of the official police statement by Chief Mike Freeman:

Research and other animal organizations accept shooting as an acceptable means of euthanasia.

After visiting the scene, talking with the responding officer and re-interviewing the complainant, I have decided his actions were appropriate and have decided not to impose any disciplinary measures for the incident.

OK, Chief. So show me that research and at least two (you used the plural, after all) “other animal organizations” that consider using a handgun an acceptable means of euthanasia. I’d suggest that you not start with the Ohio SPCA, however. Here’s the statement on their Facebook page:

No HUMANE organization would recommend that non-threatening animals be shot as a method of euthanasia. The use of gunshot to end an animal's life should only be used when an animal is attacking or has been injured so seriously that ending suffering must be immediate. The 8 to 10 week-old kittens posed no immediate threat to anyone. Trap, Neuter, and Release Programs (TNR) have been in place in a multitude of cities and towns throughout Ohio and the United States for years. Humane societies and shelters not choosing TNR as an option, should only be using Euthanasia by Injection (EBI).

Karen Minton, Ohio director of the Humane Society of the United States, agrees: “it is hard to fathom any circumstance where fatally shooting young kittens is necessary or justified.” So—given the pretty strong dissenting statements from representatives of the two universally recognized “animal organizations” in the country, the SPCA and the HSUS—please produce anyone with a quarter as much credibility. Or admit that you’re a lying asshole and resign. Your choice.

Later, Freeman defended Accorti’s actions as legal: “there were no children present outside the home when this occurred.” Oh, well, that’s all right then. As long as they were looking out the window instead of… you know… there, then everything is just peachy. And besides, behaving stupidly, arrogantly, recklessly and probably dishonestly is just fine as long as it’s legal. I doubt that what Officer Accorti did actually was legal, although it might have been. But it’s certainly grounds for firing. The idiot police chief and the pompous and disingenuous mayor ought to be on the unemployment line, too.

Note: it is now being touted as a silver lining that the city has revised their policies, will no longer kill cats, and will form an alliance with the Friendship Animal Protection League to develop new procedures. Of course, this move is founded more on petulance than on pragmatism: the police will now do nothing to help. You see, if they can’t go around firing pistols at kittens, this game just isn’t any fun anymore.

And so we move on to South Holland, Illinois. This incident took place nearly a year ago, but a related lawsuit is moving through the system now, so it’s making news again. Last July, Randy Green’s dog, Grady, somehow popped his chain and apparently ran around the neighborhood for a while before settling down on the front porch of the Green residence.

Here’s what happened, at least according to the lawsuit (I’m tightening up some of the paragraphing):

Upon information and belief, a caller had identified the dog at large as ‘a big old gray dog runnin' around.’ The caller made no mention of the dog being dangerous, vicious, or aggressive....

The two South Holland officers arrived while plaintiff Randy Green and his family were asleep inside of their home, and where Mr. Green’s Cane Corso dog, Grady, was sitting on the front porch. Upon information and belief, the chain holding Grady in the Green family backyard had popped, allowing Grady to be off leash on and around Mr. Green's residence.

Both South Holland officers were equipped with dog-catching poles in the trunks of their vehicles, but neither attempted to use the dog-catching poles to capture the purported dog at large. South Holland officer Chad Barden stood, with his gun drawn, near the Green family home while the dog Grady sat on the front porch. The accompanying South Holland officer stood, leaning against his own police vehicle, approximately 100 feet away from Officer Chad Barden.

The dog Grady walked past both officers on more than one occasion without incident, thereafter lazily returning to the front porch of the Green residence. At no time did the dog Grady make physical contact with either officer.

The South Holland police officers stood outside the Green family home for approximately twenty minutes. At this time, the dog Grady approached Officer Barden again as he was standing nearest the Green family home. Shortly thereafter, Officer Barden shot the dog Grady three times for no reason.

OK, so far it sounds like Mr. Green is behaving a little defensively: surely his beloved canine wouldn’t act threateningly, right? Trouble is, he says he’s got an expert report on video evidence.

"…video surveillance footage from the Green family residence revealed the absence of any charging, lunging or showing of teeth by the dog Grady and instead showed the dog Grady seeking ‘greater distance between the officer and himself,’ displaying ‘calming [body] signals’ by ‘looking away from the officers and showing his [Grady's] flank,’ and moving in a ‘trot.’ (Brackets in complaint.)

You see, the thing is, no lawyer would make, or let her client make, claims that can’t be backed up. The chances are really, really good that the video shows exactly what the plaintiffs in this case claim it shows: a lazy, smug, self-entitled cop shooting a harmless dog because he can. I can find no evidence that Barden or his partner were as much as given a private scolding. And then, of course, the assholes at the police station, a month later, charged Green with having a “dangerous dog.” Yeah, I’m calling bullshit on that one.

Finally—I’m sure there are dozens more cases to choose from, but I’m already over 2000 words—there’s this case from El Monte, California in which a policewoman shot a German shepherd and then—based on all the available evidence—lied about the details.

Police were an hour late to a scheduled meeting with Cathy Luu and her husband Chi Nguyen at their home. They claim to have followed procedure for entering premises where dogs might be present, but they sort of neglected to think through the possibility that people who can afford to live in that neighborhood just might have their own security cameras, which back up their claim that the cops just barged into the enclosed yard area without either calling the house to announce their arrival or making any reasonable attempt to determine if there were dogs about. That huge orange-on-black “Beware of Dog” sign smack in the middle of the damned gate shown in the photo at left might have been regarded as cautionary by an average person. Not by El Monte’s finest, apparently.

And then there is the usual chicken-shit “no choice” justification. Barking is barking. Attacking is attacking. They’re different. It’s impossible to tell from the evidence available to us which was the case here. As in the Hawthorne case mentioned in passing earlier, there are two separate questions to be answered: could this situation have been prevented by more competent police work? And, in the moment it happened, was shooting a large, potentially aggressive dog justified? The answers in both cases are “yes” to question #1 and “maybe” to question #2. So why write about this one instead of the other? Because in the Hawthorne case, the police are only probably lying (about the cause for the arrest of the dog’s owner), whereas in this case the video footage apparently indicates clearly (“beyond reasonable doubt” and all that) that the officers didn’t follow procedure (their jackass boss, of course, believes them rather than the actual evidence, but no one else does). If they’re willing to lie about X, they’re willing to lie about Y.

The good news is that, unlike in the Ohio kitten-shooting incident, at least the mayor in question seems to have some sense, even if the police power structure doesn’t:

[Mayor Andre] Quintero reached out to the family to talk about working something out to find them another German shepherd or other type of dog, even offering to pay for vaccinations, sterilization and any other fees associated with getting a new dog.

“There is no question, we cannot replace Kiki. We know that,” Quintero said as he read a statement during Tuesday night's City Council meeting. “But we would like to do what we can to help fill the void that has been left by the death of this family's pet.”

Quintero called for a “quick and appropriate solution” to the internal investigation into the incident.

“Our community and the Luu/Nguyen family deserve answers and closure quickly,” Quintero added.

You see, this is a good man, or at least an intelligent enough politician to understand that spending a few hundred dollars that might avert a law suit is probably a good idea.

So what do all of these incidents indicate? Well, certainly a handful of cases across a country this size don’t indicate much of anything. But there’s a troubling undertone emerging:

• a lot of cops really like to shoot things and beat people up

• police chiefs and captains and such will lie to cover up for their idiot underlings

• whereas “animal rights” proponents often go too far, they’re right about most of this kind of cases

• there are far too many police who think their job is to swagger around with a gun

• even female officers seem to have testosterone poisoning

But enough of that. Time to scritch my cats’ ears.