Courthouse Buffoonery

Take a look at these two pictures. Which would you consider to be a dangerous weapon?Evidently, the security elites at the Wake County Courthouse are not sure. As a police officer, it is customary for me to wear my .45 caliber pistol when attending court, as the rooms are usually full of no less than two hundred people I either arrested or pissed off. Before entering, everyone has to walk through a metal detector. Now, lets ignore the obvious question: "If you're in uniform and wearing a pistol, what is the purpose of walking through the metal detector?" Don't even ask that one. Common sense doesn't apply here. Just arbitrarily following some written directive regardless of any circumstance.

Even funnier than this policy is that I have to take off my radio and run it through the metal detector so the consummate security professionals, usually involved with other activities such aseating, talking loudly, or cosmetology, can determine if my Motorola is a bomb.

So, let's dissect this. They have no problem with me carrying a .45 caliber firearm with forty rounds of ammunition into the courtroom, but the radio worries them. Interesting...

Pink Dildo Rampage

Working off duty at the mental health treatment facility brings back memories. I used to moonlight at mental hospital when I was with the Department of Correction, and I do the same now as a police officer. If you listen to those around you, soon you'll amass an endless supply of strange stories.

One such story involved numerous reports of a man harassing swimmers at several local pools. This guy would come to the pool wearing a trench coat, one I imagine he stole from a Thrift Store, and no shirt. He also wore a ball cap and sunglasses like those artist renderings of the "Uni-bomber" from several years back.

He'd approach the pool and produce a large pink dildo. He would then target specific people at the pool and try to touch them with the dildo, usually creating quite a disturbance. This happened several times in a short span of time. Now, every time I get a call to a swimming pool, I can't help but think I might get accosted by a dildo wielding freak.

Rims

Domestic dispute calls are ever increasing. I guess the divorce rate must be up to about 90% by now. Several days ago we went to a call involving a splitting couple. The woman alleged her husband, an unemployed aspiring rapper, was cheating on her with another woman. She insisted his name was not on their lease and wanted us to remove him immediately.

The guy responded to her anger by repeatedly smacking his lips and muttering, "Whatever." He agreed to pack up some things for the night. Now here's the great part. He didn't go inside and pack clothes, toiletries, money, etc. He went to the backyard and loaded up his SUV with four 20" tires and rims. That seemed to be the only thing he was concerned about. His rims.

More Nonsense

Just another example of how our educational system is failing miserably:

I stop a car that has no brake lights. The driver nervously tells me, "It's his car. We're going to the grocery store to get bandages for his hurt foot."

"Let me see your license," I say.

"I'll give you his. It's his car." The driver looks over to his morbidly obese passenger and extends a hand.

"You're driving, sir. I need to see your license."

"Uh," he stammers. "I don't have it with me, but I know my name."

"You know your name?" I ask. "That's convenient. How about stepping back to my patrol car and we'll run it on my computer."

"Okay," he says, smiling broadly, like we're old friends.

I sit him in the back seat of my car and shut the door. I then pull up the search browser on my computer. "What's the name?" I ask. He gives me something that just doesn't sound right. Stumbles on the spelling of the middle name. He's now sweating profusely.

"How old are you?" I ask.

"Forty four," he replies.

We talk for a few more minutes and I ask about his work, if he's married, anything to distract him from the age question. Then, without warning, I quickly ask, "What's your birth date?"

"Huh?"

"You heard me! What is your birth date?" I can see his eyes go up and to the left, as if he's calculating the answer. "Just tell me, sir."

"Uh, January 27, 1927."

"Really?" I ask. He seems satisfied with his answer.

"Yeah."

"So you're eighty one years old?" The guy is obviously in his thirties. "Man, you look real good for your age."

"Oh, I meant to say January 27, 1964."

"There's a big difference between 1927 and 1964," I say.

"I'm just nervous, man. Sometimes I get nervous."

He stuck to his lies until the bitter end, which came when I arrested him and searched the car. Underneath the driver seat (the most convenient hiding place) I found his wallet. Inside, I was able to identify him by his N.C. Department of Correction identification card. He was also wanted for Probation Violation and several other warrants for arrest. A real genius.

Odd Statements

Sometimes, while at work, I hear ridiculous statements made by people that make me wonder, "Did I just hear that? What the hell could that possible mean?" Like when Lewis Black recalled overhearing a woman say, "If it weren't for that horse I'd have finished college..." Then he pondered, "What the hell did she mean?"

I hear things all the time that make me wonder, "What the hell? How am I going to go forward with life without knowing what the hell he/she meant?"

Several examples:

"If you'd have let me some, my legs would'a started working."

"My case-worker called and, the next thing I knew, I was spending two years in Rocky Mount."

"That Port-a-Potty smelled so bad I was almost unable to masturbate."

Moral Absolutes

I had a class last week on Ethics and Morality. The instructor pondered the morality of lying on the witness stand or utilitarianism The ends justify the means) in general. His opinions, and, by that I mean the material he was given to teach, was oversimplified. It was apparent he was trying to quantify moral absolutes in police work. Glossing over science and religion, he seemed to target the philosophy of moral relativism. Defining it as morality relative to the individual, he quantified it with the statement: "If you believe it's right, then it's right." His example was of a man that believed murder was okay, therefore it was okay. What he seemed to miss was relativism not only applies to the individual, but also the situation during which choices are made.

The following scenario was provided. There is a murderer loose in Raleigh. Every Sunday the murderer kills an innocent child. You are a police officer. The department believes they know the identity of the murderer, but, as always, they don't have sufficient probable cause to make an arrest. A common theme in police work. You develop informants who tell you, "That's the guy," or information that identifies a potential suspect. But, without video, fingerprints, or any corroborating evidence, arresting the suspect would result in an acquittal at trial. Therefore, you are left in the unfortunate juxtaposition of having to wait for more information before making an arrest. Which means you might have to wait for him/her to commit another crime. Not a pretty scenarion if the guy is killing children, or anyone else for that matter.

So, the scenario is you stop the guy on Saturday, knowing he'll kill again on Sunday. You don't have any reason to make an arrest, but, as luck would have it, you made a drug arrest several hours before and have three crack cocaine rocks in an evidence baggie. Do you plant a rock on the suspect to keep him from killing on Sunday. Or do you follow your sworn code of ethics and let the guy go?

I found it disconcerting everyone in the class decided to let the guy go. I don't think the instructor thought the scenario through. He even chided prior officers who'd pondered planting evidence on the criminal. "You can't lower your ethical standards in any situation." This sounds great. Personally, I'd never lie under oath or cheat someone, but to save a child's life? Given the absolute of knowing the guy would kill again the next day? I think he (and the class) simplified the choice.

Were it not for the fact we were about to be released for the day, and I-loving my time off-wanted to go home, I'd have posed a few questions to muddy his pool of morality. "What if you were to stumble upon a time machine, sir, and travel forward to Monday, only to find out the child killed was your own? Would you be so pious in your decision if it affected you, personally?" Of course you wouldn't! The rock would be planted and the kid saved. Morality is easy if you have nothing to lose personally.

Or let me pose this conundrum. You stumble upon a time machine and are transported back to 1928 in Germany. You just happen upon a young Adolf Hitler before he becomes the powerful Nazi leader. You are alone with him. Would you commit murder to save millions of lives? How could you not? Is it wrong to murder under such conditions?

Utilitarianism views the outcome. I love the phrase: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," even though it has religious overtones of which I do not subscribe. Why, just because your motives are for good, are bad decisions not attributed to those with good intentions? Case in point: AIDS. The most viable theory we have concerning this virus is that, upon working on a vaccine for Polio, scientists used Chimpanzee kidneys to culture the vaccine. Thereby mixing monkey viruses with human inoculations. Ethically, is this evil? The scientists working on the vaccine were most certainly striving for the good of humanity? But they might have killed millions of people. Utilitarianism uses the outcome to judge, not the intentions.

Understanding this principle, murdering one to save millions might be the ethical choice, right? Not according to my instructor. Evidently, adhering to moral absolutes is more important than millions of lives. But, as I demonstrated with my examples, if the scenario hits home the decision almost certainly changes. I guess relativism isn't such a bad word after all.