Pharmaceutical Executives Face Reality

The former COO (Chief Operating Officer) of drug company InterMune may be in some serious trouble. InterMune got jammed up for illegal off-label marketing of their osteoporosis drug Actimune, claiming it also worked against a fatal and incurable lung disease. The company signed a "deferred prosecution agreement" with the Department of Justice; the company and executives thought that would be the end of the matter (as it generally would be, with bush's Department of "Justice" and the administration's love for Big Pharma).

Scott Harkonen thought he was home free.

But the investigation was still proceeding.

When Harkonen realized he was probably going to face criminal charges, he crapped.

Judith Waltz, a lawyer who represents drug companies, had this to say:

"The government may be trying to make an example," Waltz said. "That scares the hell out of everybody once they start talking about individuals."

Yes, I can imagine it does. God forbid that in george bush's Murka, any big bidniss zecative should be held responsible for anything he says or does, no matter how egregious. Business executives, after all, are the ones who contribute to the Rethuglicans; hence, they expect protection from fair retribution for their illegal acts.

Oh, Those Wacky Brits!

What'll they think of next?

Tasha Maltby, a 19-year-old British Goth, says she is the "pet" of her boyfriend Dani Graves. Graves, showing his devotion to his "pet' walks her on a leash, complete with dog collar.

This was all fine and dandy, until they got on a bus. The driver objected to her attire and to the chain, and threw them off the bus, saying, "We don't let freaks and dogs like you on."

As Maltby put it:

"I am a pet," she told the Daily Mail. "I generally act animal-like and I lead a really easy life. I don't cook or clean and I don't go anywhere without Dani. It might seem strange but it makes us both happy. It's my culture and my choice. It isn't hurting anyone."

Yup, them Brits are some wacky folks.

I can imagine Dani's Pet Blogging posts........

They Took a Lesson from DHS

The fine folks at the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Department (or ABCD) has apparently taken a valuable lesson from the fine folks at the Department of Homeland Security: instead of doing something useful, let's do something horrendously stupid, something that will have no effect on the health and safety of our citizens.

The Commonwealth of Virginia, in its infinite wisdom, has sicced the ABCD onto establishments that serve real sangria. Yup, mixing brandy, triple sec, and wine will mean the terrists have won.

Instead of cracking down on the drunk Virginia assholes driving up and down the roads, let's concentrate on the yuppies in the fancy restaurants.

More Mayoral Frivolities...

A few days ago, I wrote about Grace Saenz-Lopez, the mayor of Alice, TX, who has managed to jam herself up with allegations that she and her twin sister stole a dog.

Now we learn, via the Detroit Free Press (the "good" freepers) that Detroit's mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is once again in trouble. Kilpatrick has been in trouble more or less since he took office, what with allegations of strippers at a party at the Manoogian Mansion (the mayor's official residence), claims he tried to get the police department of a bankrupt city to pay for a Lincoln Navigator for his wife, and a whole slew of other complaints. Last summer, two former cops (one a former deputy chief) sued the city under a whistleblower statute, claiming they had been fired for participating in an internal affairs investigation that might have revealed the mayor was having an affair with his chief of staff. Kilpatrick and chief of staff Christine Beatty denied, under oath, that they were having an affair. The Free Press managed to get transcripts and images of text messages sent back and forth on city-paid Sky pagers, that indicate the two were, in fact, making the two-backed beast.

Kilpatrick was supposed to be attending a mayor's conference in Washington, DC, when the story broke; it turns out, however, he was at a home his family had just purchased in Florida. As one local blogger put it, "he was, not surprisingly, unavailable."

Local DA Kym Worthy held a press conference, promising her office would look into these allegations. The effect was diminished, however, by Worthy's obvious disgust at being "bothered" by this whole thing. State Attorney General Cox is staying out of this for the time being, pending developments in Detroit. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for either of these folks to act.

Kilaptrick, echoing every other politician who gets caught with his pants down, is begging the press to "respect his family's privacy" and claiming that this mess is just a "personal matter." Unfortunately, that doesn't wash. Kilpatrick has been a slime since his first days in politics, and using city resources -- especially the resources of a city in as bad a shape as Detroit -- takes this out of the realm of family matters.

If you are the mayor of a major American city, you should understand going in that you are going to be living in a fishbowl. Politicians, because of their high public profile, have no privacy. Don't believe me? Ask Rudy, the Clenis, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, and God knows how many others.

And speaking of Foley, Kilpatrick should have learned from Foley's shenanigans - don't email, text, or IM anything you wouldn't want to see on the front page.

Lying under oath, my friends, is called perjury. It is a felony in every jurisdiction I'm aware of. A conviction for perjury generally involves prison time, and is grounds for losing any professional licenses a person may hold (ranging from EMT to dentist to attorney). Kilpatrick, as an attorney and member of the bar, should be disbarred immediately; by committing perjury -- especially in an effort to conceal his personal peccadilloes -- has forfeited any right to a position of public trust. Beatty, who is a law student, should be expelled and prohibited from holding any public trust position.

What's Wrong With THIS Picture?

From WDIV-TV (Channel 4, Detroit):

A 15-year-old Detroit girl was killed and another critically wounded in a drive-by shooting early Monday morning on Detroit's northwest side.

According to police, three girls, all 15, had flagged down a car occupied by a 34-year-old man and a 16-year-old youth at around 4:30 a.m....

Okay, maybe I'm old-fashioned, but what the hell were three 15-year-old girls doing, going to the store at 4:30 AM?!? That's four-frickin'-thirty in the frickin' MORNING.

Yes, kids may be maturing much earlier these days, but this is Just. Plain. Wrong.

TSA Strikes Out One More Time...

This is starting to get monotonous. Can't these frickin' MO-rons get anything right?



The fine folks at TSA ("Thousands Standing Around") are continuing to wage the good fight against liquids aboard planes, while still managing to miss legitimate threats. It appears a man managed to get through the all the security checkpoints at Reagan National Airport with a gun.

Before the passenger boarded his flight about 7:30 a.m. Sunday, he realized that he had the gun and returned voluntarily to the checkpoint... Yingling [a spokesman for the airport] said that the agency's officers took the gun and issued a summons and that the man was allowed to continue his trip.

A TSA spokesdrone had this to say: "...testing shows that the agency has a "very high success rate" in detecting firearms." Yeah, if the screeners know they're being tested. See, for instance, here, here, here, and here. These are, of course, the same TSA screeners who are too busy groping a woman's breasts and stealing from passengers (see here, here, here)to focus on their primary job, which is "keeping us safe from terrists."



Bringing liquids on board a plane brings down TSA on you like the wrath of God. But bombs, guns, and knives? Eh, everybody's human, right?

Everything's Bigger in Texas...

Guy is in Fort Worth for a business convention.

He signs in at his hotel, and finds his single room is over 1500 square feet. He asks the desk clerk, who says, "Everything's bigger in Texas."

He orders a steak for dinner, and is served a four-pound monster T-bone. the waiter says, "Everything's bigger in Texas."

Guy orders a shot at the bar; the bartender plops a 16-ounce tumbler full of Jack Daniels in front of him. Yup, "Everything's bigger in Texas."

After a few hours in the bar, the guy heads back to his room, but he's so drunk, he falls into the pool.

"Don't flush! Don't flush!" he screams.

Well, they're right, everything is bigger in Texas... even the venality of their politicians.

Grace Saenz-Lopez, the mayor of Alice, Texas, is in deep doo-doo, facing allegations of a faked death, an attempt to hide the evidence, and a cover-up.

And because everything is bigger in Texas, the stupidity is bigger, too. All this is over a dog. A Shih Tzu, to be exact.

Saenz-Lopez has been indicted oon two counts of tampering with physical evidence.

For stealing a dog.

She had agreed to take care of the dog for friends while they were on vacation. A day or so later, she told her friends their dog had died.

But Puddles wasn't dead.

Saenz-Lopez decided to keep Puddles, and renamed her Panchito. The original owners sued and filed a criminal complaint. The mayor's response? "The dog is missing."

The missing dog was found at the mayor's twin sister's house... after a "mysterious lady" had found the dog.

Just to make matters even more interesting, it's now being reported that the mayor's lawyer threatened the DA handling the case, saying, "You [expletive deleted] with my client, I'm going to [expletive deleted] with you."

Gotta love them Texans.

What is with these people anyway? Most Texans are about as useful as screen doors in a submarine. And no Texan -- NO Texan -- should ever be allowed to run for President. The last two Presidents we've had from Texas -- Johnson and the decider -- were both tacky, cheap, trailer trash. Of course, the Commander Guy isn't really from Texas; he was born in New Haven, CT, before attending such well-known Texas institutions as Exeter Academy, Yale, and Hahvahd.

Schticks of One, Half a Dozen of the Other

The Cops Are Cheating…

According to AP…

A motorist who paid a speeding ticket he got from a state trooper who used out-of-state license plates on his unmarked patrol car wants his money back “What gives police the right to drive illegally on the highway?” said Dave Milbrandt, a company finance manager. “Do they have a special exemption?”

It appears Washington State Patrol Trooper Bradford A. Moon was driving an unmarked Dodge Charger with Oregon plates. Moon had removed the plates from a personal vehicle (presumably his, although the article didn’t specify it) after he moved to Washington from Oregon.

Now, when I was a cop, using license plates on a vehicle other than that for which they were issued was called “Misuse of Marker Plates.” In Connecticut, that was an arrest, rather than a ticket. Also, the plates were to be seized, and the car was to be towed. In addition, the car was considered to be (a) unregistered, and (b) uninsured. Operating an unregistered vehicle was a ticket, operating uninsured was another arrest offense. Generally, the penalties were fines: $250 for misuse of plates, $250 for operating uninsured, $50 for operating unregistered, and a one-year drivers license suspension, plus towing and storage charges. Oh, and you didn’t get your vehicle back until you showed up with valid plates, which meant paying the registration fee and buying insurance. Subsequent violations generally doubled all the fines.

So, if there were any justice in the world, the state of Washington would refund Milbrandt’s money, charge Moon with the appropriate violations, and fire his ass.


National Security Trumps All. Well, Almost All…

The telecommunications companies have justified their participation in NSA’s warrantless wiretapping on the basis of “national security.” And I’m willing to admit that national security is important, although not to the extent of sacrificing our liberties.

Unfortunately, a blogger at CSO Magazine found a little monkey wrench in the works:

Telephone companies have cut off FBI wiretaps used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the bureau’s repeated failures to pay phone bills on time.

A few of the juicy details:

• A wiretap used in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) investigation “was halted due to untimely payment,” the audit found. “We also found that late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence.” [The blogger, Jeff Bardin, commented, “chain of custody and rules of evidence don’t mean squat if you can’t pay”]
• The ACLU also took a swipe at the telecommunications companies: “It seems the telecoms, who are claiming that they were just being ‘good patriots’ when they allowed the government to spy on us without warrants, are more than willing to pull the plug on national security investigations when the government falls behind in its bills,” and “To put it bluntly, it sounds as though the telecoms believe it when FBI says the warrant is in the mail but not when they say the check is in the mail.” [Bardin has another pointed comment: “We’ll violate laws as long as you pay for us to violate them.”]

Now remind me again why the telecoms are saying they should be granted retroactive immunity for engaging in national security investigations?


No More Good Hands in Florida…

This just in from Business Insurance Magazine:

Florida’s insurance commissioner said on Wednesday that he had suspended Allstate from writing auto insurance policies in the state because it had not complied with a subpoena to testify about its property insurance business.

State officials called off the hearing… when the company officials refused to answer questions and to provide specific documents.

We all know bush, Cheney and their sycophantic thugs are doing everything they can to turn the United States into a wholly-owned subsidiary of Corporate Thieves R Us, so I’m thrilled that Florida (now that Jebbie is gone, thank God) is telling Allstate to stuff their good hands.


Some Future Date in Fire History…

Via the Washington Post, we learn that the brand-spanking new Baghdad embassy is a fire trap:

The firefighting system in the massive $736 million embassy complex in Baghdad has potential safety problems that top U.S. officials dismissed in their rush to declare “mission accomplished”, err... construction largely completed….

“[No] one has ever inspected the electrical system, the power plant” and other parts of the embassy complex….

The Justice Department, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Halliburton, is investigating.

For all the good that will do…

The fire system was installed by First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting (probably a wholly-owned subsidiary of Halliburton). The pipes burst during a routine test. The State Department, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Halliburton, turned to “an outside consulting firm,” which although unidentified, is almost certainly a wholly-owned subsidiary of Halliburton.

The Justice Department “probe” is said to focus on James L. Golden, a contract employee (probably from Halliburton or one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries) and Mary M. French, the project coordinator based in Baghdad.

Once again, corporate profits come ahead of life safety.


Republicans: The Party of Honesty. Aw, BULLSH*T…

Those friggin’ Republicans – the ones who claimed to have restored “dignity” to the White House and the rest of the government – just cannot resist being sleazy and pulling sleazy tricks, no matter how unnecessary:

A mailer from a congressional candidate’s campaign contains a photo of his head attached to an image of a different body that makes him look thinner.

The photo is presented as a true image of Dean Hrbacek, a Republican former mayor of Sugar Land.

Campaign manager Scott Broschart acknowledged to The Houston Chronicle that the
image is a fake.

Is there anything about which a Republican would be truthful?

To borrow Great Orange Satanist Bill in Portland, Maine’s one-word answer…

NO.

This Date in Fire History - Jan 13

Today marks the 100th anniversary of yet another tragic fire, one that killed almost one-tenth of a town’s population, and directly affected everyone for miles around. Yet, because it happened in a small town near Philadelphia, instead of a major city like Chicago, Atlanta, or New York, very few people are aware of it.

Even more shamefully, after mentioning this fire many times over the years, I just discovered that I – along with many others – had been misspelling the name of the building where the fire occurred.

Many writers have mentioned the Rhodes Opera House fire. Even the National Fire Protection Association – the world’s leading fire safety and prevention organization – calls it the Rhodes fire. The building where the fire occurred, however, was owned by the Rhoads family (or maybe Rhoades, although the Boyertown Historical Society omits the “e”).

Additionally, it appears the opera house itself not named for the Rhoads family; the Boyertown Opera House merely rented the second floor of the Rhoads Building.

Boyertown, PA, is a small town (population 3702, according to the town’s website) located twenty miles east of Reading and 41 miles northwest of Philadelphia.

On the evening of January 13, 1908, about 350 people were in the Opera House to see a production of The Scottish Reformation, a religious play sponsored by a local church. According to the New York Times account of the tragedy, stereopticon operator H. W. Fisher “must have turned the wrong valve. There was a long, drawn out hissing noise that frightened the women and children.” In the ensuing rush, someone overturned a kerosene tank, which fueled the stage footlights; the kerosene ignited and set fire to the scenery and curtains.

The fire flashed over quickly, causing the audience to panic. Insufficient exits, locked exits, flammable decorations and furnishings, and the lack of a fire sprinkler system resulted in 170 deaths. Additionally, the two existing fire escapes were difficult to use, since escaping patrons would have to climb over a three-foot window sill. This would have been virtually impossible for an audience that has been described as primarily older women and young children – two populations that have (for different reasons) limited mobility.

According to the Times, the proportion of victims was about nine females to one male.

Contemporary news reports tell of men trampling women and children in their rush to get out. And – as we have seen at the Iroquois Theatre, the Triangle Shirtwaist factory, the Cocoanut Grove, the Rhythm Club, the Beverly Hills Supper Club and the Station Nightclub – rescuers found bodies piled high by the primary entrance.

This fire affected the Boyertown community much more than it would have in a major city. Boyertown, at the time, had about 2000 inhabitants; the small-town setting ensured that everybody in town had a personal relationship to at least one victim.

WFMZ-TV (Channel 69, Philadelphia) produced a one-hour documentary on the fire; it may be available for purchase through the station.

The NRA Tries Again. Morons.

Back in March of 2006, I wrote about the "forced entry" laws being pushed by the gun nuts at the NRA. That post concerned the general concepts of "forced entry" laws: laws which require property owners -- regardless of their own wishes -- to allow others to bring guns onto their private property.

The way these laws are drafted, there is no requirement that the gun owner have a logical reason for carrying, there is no requirement that the gun owner have a valid carry permit, there is no requirement that the gun owner notify the property owner he is carrying a gun in his vehicle. There is no requirement that the gun owner be free of mental disease. There is no restrictions as to the type of premises into which the gun owner brings a deadly weapon. There is no requirement that the gun owner even be sober, fer crissakes. The only restriction is that the gun owner cannot be a convicted felon. This means that it would be illegal to ban handguns from the premises of a workplace, school, bar, church, or even a prison.

The gun-totin' idiots from the NRA are trying, for the second time, to get this law passed in Georgia (and if Georgia, rebel stronghold that it is, didn't pass this the first time around, you know it's a bad law).

The last time I posted on the NRA, I received a number of comments (and a couple of thinly-veiled threats) from NRA supporters. Let me deal with that right now. If you want to support the NRA, that is your right and your business. If you want to carry a gun everywhere you go, to make up for your minuscule little prick, that is your business.

But bringing YOUR deadly weapon onto MY personal, private property is MY business... and I say, "No frickin' way, Bubba."

"If we get it this year, that's fantastic and a big win for law abiding Georgia gun owners," said NRA spokesperson Ashley Varner. "But if we don't get it, we'll be back."

Well, good for you, Varner.

A large number of private companies and professional associations are opposed to these laws, and for good reason. One interesting defense that has been raised is the "general duty" clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which requires employers to "furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees." Handguns are certainly likely to cause death. After all, that's what they're MADE for.

These laws would also violate any number of "Zero Tolerance" policies in place in schools and workplaces. (For more on "zero tolerance", see Randy Cassingham's website, http://www.thisistrue.com/zt.html).

These "forced entry" laws being promulgated by the NRA are just one more indication of how badly out of touch the NRA is when it comes to reality.

From the "Credit Where Credit is Due" Dept

I saw Mike Huckabee on The Colbert Report last night, and I have to give the man credit. Huckleberry is a dominionist, Bible-thumpin' southern cracker. But he had the intestinal fortitude to go on Colbert, knowing full well (I hope) that it is a satirical look at the news. He knew (or should have known) that he would be ridiculed before a couple of million people.

And he went ahead and did it.

Being able to laugh at themselves is a skill that most Republicans will never have. But Huck did it, and seemed to have a good time doing it.

The man deserves credit for that.

No, I'm still not going to vote for him. Personally, I think women should have just as many rights as I do as a male. he's too damned conservative for me. And his dominionist leanings scare the shit out of me.

But he does have balls.

"Prearing for the Last Attack," Part Whatever...

A number of times in the past, I have accused the bush administration, the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration, and/or FEMA of "preparing for the last attack," a phrase I swiped from security guru Bruce Schneier.

A recent blog post at the NY Times shows Schneier and I are not alone in this belief. Writing in Jet Lagged, commercial airline pilot Patrick Smith (who also writes Salon's "Ask the Pilot" column), makes the point that the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were successful not because the terrorists were able to smuggle weapons aboard commercial jets, but because the hijackers broke the existing paradigm of hijackings:

In years past, a takeover meant hostage negotiations and standoffs; crews were trained in the concept of “passive resistance.” All of that changed forever the instant American Airlines Flight 11 collided with the north tower. What weapons the 19 men possessed mattered little; the success of their plan relied fundamentally on the element of surprise. And in this respect, their scheme was all but guaranteed not to fail.

Smith continues:

For several reasons — particularly the awareness of passengers and crew — just the opposite is true today. Any hijacker would face a planeload of angry and frightened people ready to fight back. Say what you want of terrorists, they cannot afford to waste time and resources on schemes with a high probability of failure. And thus the September 11th template is all but useless to potential hijackers.

Yet it is this "template" to which DHS and TSA fanatically adhere.

Smith's piece -- which should be another must-read (Gawd, I'm finding a lot of those these days) -- is a thoughtful, detailed analysis of why our current airline security program is destined to fail.

One You MUST Read...

Jurassic Pork has a post up at Pottersville entitled "Are You a Victim of Domestic Violence?" It concerns the situation encountered by the daughter of one of JP's regular readers. Taylor, the daughter, "was brutalized by her (now) ex-boyfriend."

The piece is a must-read, especially for anyone who has dealt with a domestic violence survivor.

Obviously, I do not know what it's like from the victim's perspective; I guess I've been fortunate that way. But I have been involved with a couple of DV survivors, and it is not an easy thing to deal with.

As JP points out, many DV survivors feel they cannot escape the abuse, because they have children, or they have nowhere to go, but sometimes they also believe -- no matter how mistakenly -- that they somehow "deserve" it. It should go without saying that no one "deserves" this kind of treatment.

Let me repeat that:

NO ONE "DESERVES" THAT KIND OF TREATMENT.

Back in the days when I was a cop, I responded to many domestic violence calls (and even got whacked myself, with a cast-iron skillet, as I tried to arrest a guy when his wife wanted him left alone). The training in those days (the 70's and 80's) was much less comprehensive than it is now, but even then, battered women returning to their batterers -- or finding new abusive relationships -- was a common occurrence.

Today, fortunately, there are many more resources available to battered women. JP has links to a number of them; you can also get additional information from local social services agencies, the police, and countless websites.

In my case, I dated a woman who was a DV survivor (we lived about a thousand miles apart, so initially it was a long-distance relationship). She told me early on that her ex-husband had smacked her around, and had exhibited all the other behaviors JP discusses. She had two grown children who were out on their own, so she had a somewhat easier time making her break. She said she couldn't figure out why she always made him so angry. Having been through many DV training sessions as a cop (although I was by NO means a specialist), I explained that it wasn't her, it was him, that his sense of failure and low self-esteem was manifesting itself in violence towards her.

About a year into our relationship, after I had moved to the city where she lived (yeah, I know... way too early, under the circumstances, but....), I discovered that she had not divorced her husband as she had claimed; she had simply moved out. She hadn't even gotten a legal separation. I also found she had continued to go out with her husband on dates, even though he continued to abuse her both verbally and psychologically (although not physically).

She told me one day she was moving back in with him. After all, he had been in treatment for "over a year" and -- apparently -- she considered him "cured." She also said she didn't deserve anyone like me (like I'm any great shakes as a person). She also confessed that he hadn't hit her, he had merely shaken wet hands in her face.

I saw them about a month later in a shopping mall. Her arm was in a cast, and the big sunglasses she was wearing didn't begin to cover the black eyes. I did a little snooping and discovered neighbors had called the cops during one of their fights. The cops arrested him; the next morning, she threw his bail.

I learned a lesson from that.

I swore to never again become involved with a DV survivor, no matter how wonderful, or smart, or beautiful (or rich) she might be. I had seen something special in my lady, something that she couldn't see herself. To lose her back to a drunken, violent asshole like her husband was almost more than I could bear. The emotional and psychological toll was tremendous. You see, I have self-esteem issues also, so I had to deal with thinking "This schmuck, this worthless pile of shit, was better for her than I am?!?"

Was that cowardly of me? Was it selfish? Yes, it was. But I knew I could do nothing more for her; if she wanted to try again to escape, she would need much more help -- emotional, psychological, legal, and practical -- than I could provide. And losing her under these circumstances left me so drained emotionally that I withdrew from society for a couple of years.

I went off on that tangent not to trivialize Taylor's experiences (remember Taylor? This post is about her), but to add the reminder that domestic violence affects not only the immediate victim, but those around her, be they family or friends.

The scars -- physical and mental -- last forever.

Benazir Bhutto Assassination

Yesterday's assassination of Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto raises some interesting questions:

• WHO is responsible for the killing? I've seen reports that al-Qaeda was claiming credit, but other sources point at Musharraf.
• WHAT will happen next? Musharraf had just recently restored "constitutional" government to Pakistan, after suspending the constitution -- and most civil rights -- in an attempt to hold onto power. Not surprisingly, Pakistan is currently being wracked by rioting, but what is further down the road? Will Musharraf reinstate martial law? Will Bush be forced to move troops into Pakistan to maintain some semblance of order? And if so, where will he find those troops?
• WHAT exactly happened, anyway? Initial reports indicate Bhutto was shot, prior to the bomber detonating himself (what used to be called a "not-so-smart bomb"); there have been conflicting reports as to whether a handgun or long gun was used. In addition, the early report I saw from the hospital indicated trauma as the cause of death, with no mention of bullet wounds.

One thing that should go without saying is that Bhutto has been martyred for her cause. It is likely that she will exercise more power and more influence dead than she could have alive.

One other thing: Bhutto's assassination will make an already-muddled situation in that part of the world much. much worse.

Merry Christmas, One and All

Yeah, it's been a while since I posted, and I appreciate the people who stop by every day. You know who you are.

From the lovely yet talented Mrs 618, and from Emily, Joey, Mr Bailey, and yr hmbl and obt svt,


MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

See you in a few days!

Cocoanut Grove: Part II

I had been planning on writing more in the previous post, but something came up. You know how that goes, right?

Anyway, to get back to the tragedy that happened 65 years ago today, we have seen the same factors cause multiple deaths in fire after fire... and we never seem to learn.

Life Safety Issues

The only access to the Melody Lounge was a narrow staircase. Once the fire started, this stairwell was jammed with people. Although there were at least two other potential exits from the lounge, they were known only to the staff members; few people were able to escape using these routes.

The revolving door on the Piedmont Street side of the Grove was the main entrance. As with all the other revolving doors of the era, the leaves were fixed in position. As panicked patrons attempted to exit through that door, their bodies jammed it, rendering it completely useless. Boston police officer Elmer Brooks recalled that when rescuers tried to pull bodies from the door, arms and legs came off in their hands. Stephanie Schorow, in her book The Cocoanut Grove Fire: New England Remembers, cites rescuers looking through the glass panels, watching victims burn before their eyes. Primarily as a result of the fire, revolving doors were redesigned with "break-away" leaves, meaning the leaves would fold out of the way under sufficient pressure.

A fire exit was located at the top of the stairs leading from the Melody Lounge, but owner Barney Welanski had locked and bolted this door to prevent people from leaving without paying their tabs. The door had been equipped with panic hardware (a so-called "crash bar"), which should have allowed the door to open. Investigators found dozens of bodies stacked up by this exit.

As I noted in the previous piece, the only usable exit from the Broadway Lounge opened into the club; the crush of fleeing customers jammed this door solid, and again, dozens of bodies were found here. Several researchers have postulated that as many as 300 additional people might have survived, had the doors opened outward -- with the flow of traffic.

A number of survivors complained of a "sweet" odor to the smoke. While the source has never been conclusively proven, many believe it may have been a product of the burning imitation leather used on the walls. Additional sources of toxic by-products included the seat covers and many of the furnishings. Burning plastics emit such toxic gases as benzene, toluene, butane, and xylene, along with the more-common toxic gases like carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, and phosgene. It may have been any of these gases -- or a combination of them -- that caused the "sweet" odor.

Another aspect of the fire that has never been satisfactorily explained is why the fire spread so fast. Some researchers cite sources indicating that the Melody Lounge was completely engulfed within two minutes, and that the fire had spread from the basement to the Broadway Lounge -- the opposite end of the building -- in as little as five minutes. Such fire spread is highly unusual. Of course, the flammable decorations had much to do with it, but some witnesses also claim to have seen unusual colors in the flames and/or smoke. Again, this could be caused by the fuels feeding the blaze.

Recently, attention had turned to the refrigerant in the cooling systems at the Grove. It is claimed that methyl chloride -- a highly flammable and toxic coolant which had replaced Freon during the war -- was responsible for both the rapid spread of the fire and for many of the fatalities.

With the exception of the methyl chloride, we have seen the same factors time after time. Whether it was the Iroquois Theatre (1903), the Rhythm Club in Natchez, MS (1940), or the Station in West Warwick, RI (2003), flammable furnishings, blocked exits, and overcrowding continue to claim lives to this day.

There were also witnesses who stated the walls felt "unusually warm" the night of the fire. This may have indicated a fire smoldering within the walls. Subsequent investigation determined that at least some of the wiring in the club had been installed by an unlicensed electrician; obviously, defective wiring could have either caused the fire or contributed significantly to it.

Medical Isues

On the medical front, perhaps the most amazing story of survival was that of 20-year-old Coast Guardsman Clifford Johnson. Johnson received second- and third-degree burns over approximately 75% of his body. In the 1940's, that was virtually a death sentence. Johnson, brought to Boston City Hospital, was given up for dead. Doctors administered morphine to ease his pain and moved on to victims with "better" chances. Four days later, however, Johnson was still alive, and doctors decided they had to help this tough sailor. Johnson was one of the very few survivors who did not have serious lung damage. Over six thousand tiny skin grafts were applied to Johnson's back and seemed to be holding. Unfortunately, doctors turned Johnson over too soon, and the grafts on his back failed. All told, Johnson suffered through twenty-five to thirty-five thousand "pinprick" skin grafts. He also had to deal with a kidney infection, edema, high fevers, and a codeine addiction. Johnson was finally discharged from the hospital in November... of 1945. Johnson wound up marrying one of the medical students at Boston City, and took his new bride home to Missouri with him. Johnson's miraculous story ends on a bitter note, however: in 1956, Johnson -- now working as a park warden -- rolled his jeep into a ditch. He was pinned in the overturned vehicle; leaking gasoline ignited and he burned to death.

Another notable name at the Grove that night was famous before the fire: Buck Jones, cowboy movie star. Jones, one of the famous "Rough Riders" was appearing in Boston to sell war bonds. He had also appeared at Boston Children's Hospital, where he signed autographs for thrilled fans, before attending the BC-Holy Cross game. After the fire, it was claimed that Jones had re-entered the building several times, rescuing trapped patrons. It was subsequently determined, though, that he was rapidly overcome by smoke. He was pulled from the building and died several days later. Jones' local publicist, journalist Martin Sheridan, received such severe burns on his hands that he had special cards printed up: "Not that it's any of your damned business, but my hands were burned in the Cocoanut Grove and don't ask any more questions!!" An understandable reaction, of course, but not what one would expect from a professional publicist.

In addition to proving the value of penicillin, the disaster was validation of several medical research projects being undertaken at Boston City and Mass general. Up to this time, burn victims had been painted with tannic acid to form a leathery scab, sealing the wound to reduce the chances of infection. The new protocol -- gauze impregnated with a mixture of petroleum jelly and boric acid, administered with intensive intravenous fluids -- was proven quite successful. It was also proven that treatment for shock and internal injuries was just as important -- if not more important -- than treating surface injuries.

Many victims suffered severe damage to their lungs and airways, due to the toxic chemicals inhaled during the fire. Much of the internal trauma was located below the vocal cords. Dr Stanley Levenson suspected the presence of phosgene in the smoke, a belief buttressed by Suffolk County Medical Examiner William J. Brickley: "Many of the victims had the appearance of soldiers I had seen gasses in the First World War."

So much medical knowledge was gained as a result of this tragedy that the entire June 1943 issue of The Annals of Surgery was devoted to a wide-ranging symposium discussing the injuries, fatalities, and findings of the medical professionals involved.

Enforcement Issues

A number of sources report that just a weekbefore the fire, Boston Fire Prevention Lieutenant Frank Linney, who declared the club's condition to be "good;" Linney declared the club had sufficient exits and non-flammable decorations. It became obvious, however, that Boston's building and fire inspectors in 1942 were no better than those in Chicago in 1903. In both cases (the Grove and the Iroquois), buildings that were inherently unsafe were allowed to be open to the public (which was also the case with the E2 Club in Chicaho, which experienced 23 fatalities in a 2003 crowd stampede); it was never determined whether incompetence or corruption was to blame (experience would lead me to say both).

Furthermore, a Boston police captain, James Buccigross, was in the club that night, along with Suffolk County assistant district attorney Garrett Byrne. The presence of two high-ranking public officials, in a club with such a questionable legal history, is at best suspicious. The club had originally been financed by a "Jack Berman;" Berman was actually Jack Bennett, a professional con artist and stock manipulator. A later owner of the club, Charles "King" Solomon, was described this way by Stephanie Schorow, quoting an unidentified source:

[Solomon] was at the peak of his crime renaissance, with a complete sideline of alki-cooking, morphine, heroin, cocaine and the dandruff-like little granules which produce delirious uproar. He hogged the bail-bond market, owned a large loan shark company at usurious rates, held full partnership in the white slave industry, a cut in a growing lottery racket and drivers and such like et ceteras built on human mischief."

In 1933, Solomon was murdered in the bathroom of the Cotton Club in Roxbury, another of his clubs.

Tomorrow, in Part III of this article, we'll look at what changes came out of this fire.

This Date in Fire History: Nov 28 - Cocoanut Grove

[See Update at end of piece... I forgot one of the most interesting pieces of trivia...]

NOTE: Due to the horrific nature of the Cocoanut Grove disaster, and the fact that survivors of this tragic fire are still alive, I want to empha­size once again that the use of quotations, excerpts, illustrations, or materials created by others in this post does not imply, and should not be construed to imply, their agree­ment with the opinions expressed elsewhere in 618 Rants.

Saturday, November 28, 1942, Boston… the day of the annual grudge football game between Boston College – going into the game undefeated – and arch-rival Holy Cross from nearby Worcester. BC was favored six-to-one as the winner, having outscored their opponents in the previous four games by a whopping 168-6, but Holy Cross – with a 4-4-1 record – pulled off a stunning 55-12 [1] upset at Fenway Park in front of 40,000 fans. The Boston College team cancelled their scheduled celebratory bash at the Cocoanut Grove nightclub, and went home to lick their wounds.

Losing that game probably saved the lives of most of the Boston College team [2].

Boston’s Cocoanut Grove nightclub was named after the famous Cocoanut Grove in Los Angeles, although the two clubs were not affiliated. The Boston club was owned by Barnett “Barney” Welansky, who claimed ties to the Boston Mafia as well as a close relationship with Mayor (and future Governor) Maurice Tobin. Located at 17 Piedmont Street, in what is now called the “Bay Village” neighborhood, the Grove was a mecca for Boston’s modern urbanites, as well as service members either on leave or preparing to ship out to serve in World War II. The Boston Globe, described the club this way: “Lined with palm trees, it was a tropical paradise. In summer, the roof could be rolled back electrically for dancing under stars.”

This somewhat blurry picture, from the Boston Fire Museum,
shows the interior of the main dining area.
(http://www.bostonfiremuseum.com/exhibits_cocoanut_grove.htm)

The main part of the building dated from about 1916 and had been used as both a garage and motion picture film exchange, prior to its incarnation as a night club. By 1942, the club had expanded to cover much of the block bordered by Broadway and Piedmont, Shawmut and Church Streets. The club operated both on the ground floor and in the basement of one portion. The area shown as “new cocktail lounge” below was also known as the “Broadway Lounge” and was the latest expansion of the club, having been completed in the fall of 1942. The main entrance to the club was through a revolving door on the Piedmont Street side. A separate entrance to the new lounge opened onto Broadway.

The overall décor of the club has been described as a Casablanca style – paper palm trees, cloth panels on the ceilings, and imitation-leather wall coverings, among other items. This “tropical paradise” had a price, however: some of the decorations obscured emergency exits and exit signs. A number of the exits had been locked to prevent patrons from leaving without paying their bills, and the plate glass windows on the Piedmont Street side of the building had been boarded over.

That Saturday, the Cocoanut Grove was filled beyond capacity, with well over 1,000 people crammed into a club with a nominal seating capacity of about 600 [3]. Additional tables and chairs had been placed to accommodate customers. Among those customers were a young serviceman and his girlfriend; many reports indicate the serviceman unscrewed a 7.5 watt light bulb (the wattage of a nightlight) to give himself a little more “privacy’ with his lady. A busboy, 16-year-old Stanley Tomaszewski, working in at the club illegally, was sent to replace the bulb.

At this point, there are conflicting stories of what happened: some people say Tomaszewski dropped the bulb and lit a match to find it, while other reports say he used the match to find the socket, which was concealed in the palm fronds. Witnesses said they saw flames spread out from the vicinity of the light socket, although others claimed seeing flames near the floor. Several survivors stated that the walls also appeared unusually warm to the touch (possibly indicating a smoldering fire within the walls). As the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) put it in their fire investigation report, “… the exact source of ignition was a factor of considerably less importance than was the inadequacy of exit facilities and the extensive use of combustible decorations.” [4]



By most reports, fire had fully engulfed the Melody Lounge within five minutes, before traveling up the stairs – which acted as a chimney – and exploding into the main dining area and continuing to the Broadway Lounge. The revolving door at the main entrance quickly became jammed as panicked patrons attempted to flee; more than 200 victims were found piled up at this door. An additional one hundred or more victims were found by the Broadway Lounge exit – a door that opened into the club. More lives were probably lost as people blundered about after the lights went out.

The scene outside the Cocoanut Grove.

Russell Priestley is on the right,

holding up the stretcher

Russell Priestley, who was in the Army Air Corps and awaiting deployment, was one of many people pressed into service that gruesome night. Excerpts from his account, which appeared in the Melrose Mirror, are repinted here with his permission.

Personally, I remember the disaster because I, with two friends, had attended a stage show at the RKO Boston. As we left the performance, sirens of fire engines and ambulances filled the crisp night air. We were compelled by the intense din to walk toward the source, a few blocks away. With my companions, John Bunker, now deceased and Ralph Pierce, now residing in Rye, New Hampshire, we edged our way close to the fire scene. We were close enough to be commanded, "Hey you, grab this stretcher!" We rushed to help. A stretcher for each victim was loaded into an ambulance, others were placed on the pavement, awaiting more vehicles ... in some cases cars, trucks and cabs were used.

I don't recall how long we stayed there to offer assistance, but I do know it was beyond the time for using public transportation. We ended our night by walking home from Boston, explaining to our parents where we had been, then going to bed for some sleep.

The final tally was 492 dead and several hundred more injured. Unlike most major conflagrations, those at the cocoanut Grove were more likely to be killed than injured; about 50% of those present died, while only 20-30% were injured. Usually, it's the other way around.

As noted above, the exact cause of the fire has never been conclusively proven, and probably never will be. The causes of the deaths, however, are all too familiar:

• Overcrowding
• Blocked, locked, and/or obstructed fire exits
• No fire sprinkler system (sprinklers had been protecting Massachusetts factories for about 75 years in 1942)
• Flammable decorations
• Delay in notifying the fire department

As is the case with other major fires, however, some good came out of the tragedy. Two local hospitals -- Massachusetts General and Boston City -- were well-prepared for a disaster of this magnitude, thanks to their war preparations. Additionally, Mass General had been experimenting with new protocols for treating severe burn victims; these new protocols, after being validated by the Grove fire, were instituted in most American hospitals. Furthermore, the Grove fire was the first wide-spread use of a new "wonder drug" -- some stuff called "penicillin."

There is an apocryphal story that the city of Boston passed a law prohibiting any business within the city limits from using the Cocoanut Grove name. Several researchers have debunked this theory, but no business-owner in his right mind would choose such a "jinxed" name.

UPDATE: This is something I should have mentioned originally. The bookkeeper at the Grove, Rose Gnecco Ponzi, was the ex-wife of Charles Ponzi, who achieved fame at the inventor of the financial scam that bears his name, the "Ponzi scheme"). As Paul Harvey might say, "now you know the rest of the story."

Additional Resources

Boston Globe archives of the fire
National Fire Protection Association NFPA Journal articles on the fire
Books on the fire on Amazon.com:
The Cocoanut Grove Fire (New England Remembers), Stephanie Schorow
Fire in the Grove: The Cocoanut Grove Tragedy, John C. Esposito
Fire in Boston's Cocoanut Grove: Holocaust, Paul Benzaquin
Cocoanut Grove: A Spellbinding Account of the Most Famous Fire in American History, Edward Keyes


FOOTNOTES:




[1] Much has been made of the “fact” that the final score, 55-12, “eerily” mirrors the jersey numbers of the BC co-captains. The cover for the game program is shown here: http://at.bc.edu/slideshows/familyfeud/5.html


[2] BC equipment manager Larry Kenney is the only person directly associated with the game who is known to have died in the fire.

[3] Various sources show differing seating capacities, ranging from 450 to over 600; most show 600.

[4] Moulton, Robert S, The Cocoanut Grove Night Club Fire. Boston, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1962, p 5

Comments on Some of Digby's Commenters...

Some comments on the comments posted to Digby’s piece mentioned earlier… [All spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc, in indented text is from the original comment]

I can't even recall how many psycho cops I've run into during my years as a skateboarder. Yes, technically I was tresspassing by skateboarding in the supermarket parking lot after closing time, [….]

The legal terminology for this situation is attractive nuisance: “a person who creates or permits to exist on his or her land a dangerous condition attractive to children, as an unfenced swimming pool, is liable for their resulting injuries, even though the injured are trespassers.” [Emphasis added] This is probably the same mope who would sue the supermarket if he wiped out.

Tazers need a little video camera that records from the time they 'paint' wit the laser till fired, easy and cheap with new technology, this should be viewed by an independant review board after every taze! this will at least help both the cops and the tazee plead there case.

At least one county in Florida is doing just that. One result has been a decrease in the number of lawsuits being filed over Taser use. Apparently, lawyers view the video and tell their clients to “forget it.”

Based on the ACLU link (I'm a member by the way) the driver reacted all wrong (and unlawfully) to the situation. The officer was within his rights to arrest the driver. What were the officer's choices besides the taser? Use his gun? Beat the driver with fists or nightstick? Let the driver get back in the SUV, without really knowing anything about him or what the situation was? What if the driver had a gun hidden?

An earlier commenter posted a link to a card provided by the ACLU, “What To Do If You’re Stopped By The Police.” The card reinforces the points I made in my post.

I'm amazed that the second cop didn't intervene...was nowhere to be seen during the incident, and I'm also amazed that the woman did not get handcuffed as a precaution, considering how upset she was.

This commenter didn’t look closely enough at the video. At time stamp -3:19, the second officer can be seen approaching the stop from directly in front of the motorist – it’s the Explorer pulling off to the opposite side of the road.

In most states, an officer is obliged to arrest a person if they do not sign the citation. That has been true in the state of Maryland, for example, for nearly twenty years. The roadside is not a place to argue a traffic citation. That's what court is for. It's dangerous to have a prolonged discussion on the side of a bush highway, as plenty of "Shocking Video" television program can demonstrate quite capably.

This commenter brings up a valid point: the dangers inherent in arguing on the side of the road. The “Shocking Video” reference is 100% accurate.

Someone should just murder this cop. Seriously, as some point it has to come to that. If we don't start killing them, pretty soon they will start killing in even greater numbers.

Granted, this commenter was subsequently tagged as a troll, but it is this kind of comment – which has been made seriously by people like the Black Panthers and others – that explains why cops tend to have itchy “trigger fingers.” There really are people out there who believe this is a perfectly legitimate answer to “police brutality.” And yet these same people wonder why cops now approach cars with their hands on their guns (assuming the gun isn’t out and down by the side of the leg).

That and a flak vest (easily available) will protect against taser needles, rubber bullets, and body strikes from a baton...even some small arms fire (handgun, not rifle).

Another reason why cops tend to be more vigilant than in years past… more and more “bad guys” are wearing body armor, so, yes, the cops have to be prepared to deal with some scrote with better firepower and the same level of protection.

I travel through Utah a lot and now I am carrying weapons at ALL times. I would've popped a fucking cap in that officer and then emptied the entire clip, grabbed his taser and his wallet and gone home to taz the fuck out of his family. […] DEATH TO ALL FUCKING COCKSUCKER POLICE LIKE THIS. Thank fucking Jeebus I'm concealed-carry and I am going to purchase that for ALL friends and family for Christmas. And they will carry at all times.

Yup, that’s certainly the way to get cops to relax. I’ve got news for people who think this way: if you think it’s perfectly all right to kill me, then don’t be surprised if I make it as difficult as possible for you. My right to go home in one piece at the end of my shift outweighs your “right” to try to kill me. And if you do try to kill me, I’ll kill you… without a moment’s hesitation.

The cop WAS arresting him, and thus DID have to mirandize him, contrary to your statement that "this cop was not looking to [arrest him &] . . . proceed with a custodial interrogation."

Umm, WRONG. Read the Miranda decision, clown. It's amazing how many people "quote" the law, without knowing what the hell the law says. You've been watching too much Law & Order and CSI, dude.

And people wonder why the cops aren’t like Andy and Barney anymore…..

Utah Tasing: Another Perspective

This past Wednesday, Digby posted an article at Hullabaloo, discussing a You Tube video of a Utah Highway Patrol officer tasing a motorist. The original article appeared on InfoWars.net, and was written by Steve Watson. Digby's article garnered almost 300 comments.

Here's my take, as a former police officer, on the situation. Bear in mind, I was not present at the scene. Nor, for that matter, were any of the commenters at Digby's. My comments are based on the video as posted to You Tube, Watson's article, Digby's comments, some of the responses Digby received, and my experience stretching over 14 years in law enforcement. Excerpts are from the Watson article as posted on InfoWars, unless otherwise noted.

Mr Massey tells the officer he does not understand why he has been stopped or what he is being charged with, at which point the officer orders Massey to get out of the car.

The trooper can be clearly heard telling Massey (the motorist) that he had been stopped for a speeding violation (time stamp -9:16, "You were going kinda fast"). Massey apparently refused to provide his license and registration to the trooper, which is a violation in every state (time stamps -9:15, -9:10, "license and registration, right now"... -9:01, "No..."). The driver was ordered from the vehicle after he refused to sign the speeding citation (time stamp -7:39, "I'm not signing anything"). Signing the citation is not an admission of guilt; it is an acknowledgement that the motorist has received a copy of the violation. In most states with whose laws I am familiar (and I'm not a lawyer), if a driver refuses to sign the citation, the violation moves from an infraction to a situation requiring a custodial arrest. This is a decision made by either the Legislature of the state or, more commonly, whichever Commissioner has jurisdiction over motor vehicles in a particular state; it is not left to the officer's discretion.

The officer then puts down his clipboard and immediately takes out his Taser and points it at Mr Massey without any provocation whatsoever, yelling "Turn around and put your hands behind your back" as Massey attempts to point out the speed limit sign and engage the officer in conversation.

Based on what is seen in the video, I would tend to agree that the trooper probably was not justified in drawing his Taser at this point. However, we did not see whatever the trooper may have seen when he approached the car and looked inside while dealing with Massey. There may have been indications that led the trooper -- based on his knowledge and experience -- to believe that Massey presented a potential threat.

The Plains and Western states are home to a tremendous number of militias, survivalists, "Christian Identity" followers, neo-Nazis, white supremecists, "sovereign citizens", "redemptionists", and assorted other anti-government extremists, many of whom view the police -- or any semblance of authority -- as a dictatorship to be overthrown by force (see, for instance, the Anti-Defamation League's page on extremism). There may have been indications within the vehicle -- not visible to the dash cam -- that Massey potentially subscribed to some of those beliefs. (And, yes, it is equally possible that there were no such indications; I'm simply saying that we cannot see what the trooper saw).

Insofar as Massey had already evidenced his unwillingness to cooperate, the trooper was within his rights, under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), to consider searching Massey for weapons. Additionally, if the trooper had a reasonable and articulable concern for his own safety, he would be justified in handcuffing Massey. Handcuffing, under these circumstances, does not constitute an arrest.

A shocked Massey asks "what the hell is wrong with you?" and backs away, turning around as the officer had demanded[....]

The video, as I view it, does not show Massey "turning around as the officer had demanded"; rather, it seems to me that Massey is walking away from the trooper and returning to his car (see time stamp -7:23; he is, in fact, walking away from the trooper). Again, based on what the trooper may have seen in the vehicle, he might have reasonably concluded that Massey was returning to the vehicle to retrieve a weapon.

He then asks for his rights to be read and points out that the officer cannot arrest him without doing this.

Also, see time stamps -4:34 and -3:44, "You cannot arrest me until you tell me my rights..."

This is a misconception that has affected society for years. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) does not require "Miranda" warnings at the time of arrest. Miranda comes into play only during "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody...."

In other words, the warnings are required only under these circumstances (as laid out in the Supreme Court decision):

The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Pp. 467-473. [Emphasis added]

In this case, Massey was not in custody as defined by Miranda, nor was he being subjected to "custodial interrogation." On television, Miranda warnings are an integral part of the arrest process; in the real world, however, many arrests do not require the warnings as there in no intention of conducting a custodial interrogation. Certain information -- name, date of birth, address, driver's license, etc -- may be requested without triggering Miranda safeguards; refusal to provide this information is generally considered a separate offense, generally custodial in nature (if the person refuses to identify himself, the officer is usually required by statute to take the offender into custody).

The officer had no legal right to make Massey sign any document he did not understand.

Every state, and the Federal government, view driving as a privilege, not a right (despite what most teenagers claim). This is why drivers licenses may be suspended or revoked after one or more convictions for driving offenses. Part of the legal background to obtaining a license is what could be called an "implied knowledge" of driving laws and regulations -- the "ignorance is no excuse" theory. Generally, these laws and regulations include what the driver's responsibilities are in violations. Again, once Massey refused to sign the citation, the trooper probably was required to take Massey into custody.

In commenting on Watson's piece, Digby says:

Word to the wise. Do not ever question the police, no matter whether they are violating your rights, ignoring the constitution or breaking the law. It is perfectly legal for them to torture you on the spot if you do.

From viewing the video, and applying what I learned over fourteen years, I have the following comments:

"...they are violating your rights..." The operator of a motor vehicle, on a public highway, does not have the right to refuse to provide his/her drivers license, registration, and/or proof of insurance to a police officer investigating a traffic violation. The operator does have the right to refuse to sign a traffic citation, but the operator must be prepared to accept the consequences, generally laid out in state statutes or regulations, for such a refusal. As noted above, the consequences generally include being taken into custody.

"...ignoring the constitution..." The trooper did not violate Massey's Constitutional rights. As I explained above, Miranda warnings are not required at the time of arrest, but rather at the time of custodial interrogation (if any).

"...breaking the law." At no point during the video, as posted, did the trooper violate the law. It was Massey who violated not one, but many laws.

Also, there are at least three obvious breaks in the video as posted: once when the trooper is writing the citation (time stamp -8:00), and others at time stamps -2:48 and -0:48. It is entirely possible that those "breaks" showed circumstances that would tend to undermine Massey's claim (or they could just be dead space that was edited out for brevity).

One of Digby's commenters, a former police police officer calling herself Carol, had this to add:

I forced myself to watch that clip, and as a retired peace officer, =my [sic] opinion is both the trooper and motorist were at fault. [...] I've had similar incidents in my career where the subject refused to cooperate and turned to leave before we were done. In each case, I explained quickly and briefly the options and consequences of their leaving without completing the detention - warrant for arrest, incarceration, huge fines, etc. At worst, I'd have to have a warrant issued for them to be stopped farther down the road, including escalation of force. But in no case was I warranted to use deadly force in preventing them from leaving.

I agree with Carol completely. Many people are perfectly willing to refuse to cooperate with cops (which is, after all, their right), but are unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions.

I had one such situation that still sticks in my mind. Sometime back around 1979, I stopped a vehicle for speeding. The operator refused to show any documentation -- license, reg, etc. I informed him that if he persisted in his refusal, I would apply for an arrest warrant for him. He refused, so I applied for a warrant. I served the warrant on him at work, placed him under arrest, handcuffed him, and led him from his office (he was a physician). He told the judge that he did not believe a police officer had the legal authority to make a speeding arrest, based upon Biblical and "constitutional guarantees of freedom of travel." He also told the judge the "only real law enforcement officer was a duly-elected sheriff." He further claimed that Superior Court, as an "equity court," (based on the presence of a gold fringe on the American flag) did not have jurisdiction over him. These claims are all part of the sovereign citizen creed. Needless to say, the judge did not buy his finely-honed legal reasoning. The man's license was suspended for a year for the motor vehicle charges, and he was incarcerated for seven months in the county jail for resisting and interfering. He received an additional four months for contempt -- he argued with the judge at sentencing.

Is it possible the trooper acted improperly or unreasonably? Yes, of course it is. However, I am not going to make that judgment call unless and until I have access to the full video of the confrontation. Nobody else should jump to conclusions without all the facts, either.

UPDATE: There is some interesting give-and-take in the comments to this post at PoliBlog, between the post's author, Dr. Steven Taylor and a commenter calling himself Paul. In comment #3, Paul makes many of the same points I made above, but he puts a different spin on a couple of them. Also, he brings up a couple of court decisions I had forgotten about: New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) and Atwater v. Lago Vista, 000 U.S. 99-1408 (2001).

Paul makes another interesting and valid point in comment #7:

You seem concerned here with the officer’s obligation to diffuse the situation. I wonder: In your opinion, did Mr. Massey have any obligation to diffuse it? And couldn’t he have done so by simply signing the ticket and then seeking his day in court? Apparently, you would have the officer coddle Mr. Massey. I would not. The officer is not Mr. Massey mommy, and Mr. Massey is not a child.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Badtux and My Missus....

Badtux has a post up with a picture of his accomodations whilst he's on vacation (hope he doesn't mind that I swiped his pic).

Badtux probably considers this to be "living the high life:"

The lovely yet talented Mrs 618, on the other hand, considers this to be "roughing it," if the TV doesn't get SoapNet:

Personally, I tend more towards Badtux's point of view.