You mean gangsta chic might no go over well in court?  Click on over to this Hector Bacerra article in the Los Angeles Times to see what Richard Rodriguez's attorney is trying to do to his appearance.  Gang membership tattoos may be covered up.

I wrote about Rodriguez earlier - he (allegedly) led cops on a dangerous high speed chase, and at the end of it, got what some cops are calling a "distraction kick" to his head while he was apparently prone - and it was caught on video.

The attorney for a gang member kicked in the head by an El Monte police officer at the end of a televised car chase thinks his client has a great case. On Thursday, Nick Pacheco filed a $5-million legal claim against the city on behalf of the 23-year-old.

Even if the El Monte officer's actions had been completely unwarranted, along the lines of stranger coming up and assaulting Rodriguez, it's not worth $5 million.  A wrongful death case for Rodriguez wouldn't be worth $1 million.

In the booking photo, Rodriguez's head is shaved, and the name of his gang hangs over his lip. Tattoos climb his neck. In the "after" rendition, he's wearing a black suit with a metallic gray tie, neatly combed hair and a lush mustache.

Too bad for him he can’t cover up the video of him driving like he did.

Pacheco, a former L.A. councilman, said his client suffers from headaches and blurred vision, among other symptoms.

Conveniently, they all seem to be entirely impossible to objectively document.  The City of El Monte already has high sales tax rates.  It would be a shame if they had to go higher to pay a gangster who ran from the cops and endangered others.

I don't know about other places, but in the Los Angeles area, there is a familiar pattern when it comes to officer-involved-shootings in which an African-American with a long record is killed in "the hood" - Athens, Compton, northern Long Beach, Inglewood, South (Central) L.A., etc.  This happens regardless of the skin color or ethnic extraction of the officers, but of course it can be intensified if the officers are "white".

Even though the deceased has a rap sheet, and often an extensive, violent, and gang-riddled rap sheet, this is typically what happens:

1. Beginning immediately after the incident, relatives of the deceased (who are almost never eyewitnesses) insist that he was either doing absolutely nothing wrong, or that if he was doing something wrong, the officers' reaction was criminally disproportionate.

2. These same people will stand on sidewalk where this happened to talk to news media, usually sobbing, holding each other, and making a scene, and calling for investigations and "justice".

3. A Victicrat "Community Organizer" with the same skin color (NEVER with a different skin color) who is a professional camera hog will be there, his arm around one of the grieving family members, talking into the cameras.

I don't see this happening in other places, like middle class neighborhoods or various ethic enclaves.  It is almost middle-eastern in the public nature and "show" of the grieving.

Yes, nobody likes to lose a loved one.  Yes, police officers, have, at times, screwed up, and yes, police officers have, at times, intentionally engaged in persecution of poor African-Americans.

But I’m getting desensitized.  Just once, I’d like of these Community Organizers to be shown looking into the camera and saying, "Our community needs to stop accepting violent criminal activity and start shunning criminals - because they cause far more harm to our community than any trigger-happy or racist officer."

Usually, the officers acted appropriately and with restraint, and are vindicated.  But you'll never see an apology given to the officers who keep these neighborhood from descending into complete chaos.

An 18-year-old male, suspected of trying to break into someone else’s place, died in the custody of the Long Beach Police Department.  His family was all over the television news, apparently completely unashamed that they’d raised a criminal.  No, they were out making a scene, no doubt hoping to attract a lawyer who will reach deep into the pockets of Long Beach (big city adjacent to the City of LA) taxpayers.

Los Angeles Times staff writer Victoria Kim reports.

A man described as a suspected burglar who reportedly screamed for help as he was being detained by neighbors died in police custody, Long Beach officials said Sunday.

Officers arrived at the 600 block of Elm Avenue after receiving a report of a burglary at 9:15 p.m. Saturday. They found the suspect, identified by a Los Angeles County coroner's official as Deshoun Kenyon Torrence, 18, injured from his struggle with the neighbors, said Jackie Bezart, public information officer for the Long Beach Police Department.

So according to the police, Deshoun Kenyon Torrence, suspected burglar, was injured in a struggle with his intended victims.  Chances are, though, his family won’t sue them.

The suspect had sustained lacerations to his hands during the scuffle, said Mike Duree, a spokesman for the Long Beach Fire Department, which sent paramedics after receiving a call from the officers at the scene. The man was treated for those injuries and declined to be taken to a hospital, Duree said.

Shortly after paramedics left, the suspect stopped breathing in the back seat of the squad car, Bezart said. Officers performed CPR, but the man was pronounced dead by paramedics who returned at 10:10 p.m.

Before he was placed in the vehicle, the suspect was "alert, oriented and coherent and answered questions appropriately," officials said.

The autopsy could show that he had some innate health problem that was aggravated by illegal drug use, and the police will still get blamed.  Yes, police have a responsibility to those they take into custody, but it looks like this guy's death is beyond the control of the police.  We'll see.

“You want to round up entire communities and deport them!”
“You blame all our problems on immigrants – it’s scapegoating!”
“You just don’t like brown people.”

Are you as tired of hearing these as I am?  Illegal alien activists and certain Democrats should stop using them.  I’ll discuss all three below.

1) We seek to round up all illegal aliens and forcibly deport them.  I don’t doubt that there have to be a few people out there who want to do this, but this is not the position of an overwhelming majority of people who demand enforcement of immigration laws.  What we want is law enforcement.  A) As long as we have employment regulations and payroll taxes, employers here should be punished for hiring people who are not authorized to work in the U.S., severely enough that it discourages them from repeating the violation.  B) Identity thieves, through their fraud, wreak havoc on the lives of others, and should be punished and, if possible, made to provide restitution.  Yes, people who commit serious crimes within our communities who are not citizens should be returned to their country of citizenship.  C)  We have a system that is very generous to people in need, whether they are citizens, legal immigrants, or legal visitors.  That system invites fraud and attracts illegal aliens, very few of whom are in a position to contribute as much to our society as they take.  If we had a more libertarian society, this would be different.

There is no need for mass deportation.  There is also no need for amnesty.  We simply need effective border enforcement, and the problem will take care of itself over time.  People will even self-deport if we do serious workplace enforcement and get rid of public hand-outs.

2) We blame all our problems on immigrants.  Nope.  First of all, “immigrants” are people who come here legally, usually with the intention of becoming citizens.  I welcome them with open arms.  People who come here or stay here illegally are, by legal definition, illegal aliens.  But we do not blame all our problems on illegal aliens.  We blame illegal aliens only for the problems they cause, or for their share of contributing to a problem.  It is ridiculous to ignore the impact that millions of mostly unskilled, uneducated, dependent criminals have on our infrastructure, in our schools, our criminal justice system, and our public welfare systems.  When our jails and prisons are overcrowded, it is folly to ignore that a significant percentage of the inmates are illegal aliens.  Same goes for the students in our schools, the patients in our emergency rooms, the drivers on our freeways, etc.

3) We don’t like brown people.  This is ridiculous.  From what I’ve read, avowed racists do oppose welcoming illegal aliens (they probably like their pets, too), but most people on our side are not racists.  I’m certainly not.  I don’t want white Canadians here illegally, either.  However, I do resent demands that we conform to the culture of illegal aliens, including their language.  Sorry, we shouldn’t have to bow to Canadian French or Spanish.  Our language here is English.  We expect immigrants to adapt – we certainly should not go out of our way to accommodate illegal aliens.  Ultimately, though, whether or not someone is racist is a different issue from whether or not we should have immigration enforcement.

I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

The Religious Right on Defense, Law Enforcement, Capital Punishment, & Gun Ownership

The RR believes that we are obligated to defend ourselves from attack, with force if necessary.  A husband is obligated to defend his wife and kids (and to defend himself so that he can continue to protect them).  Collectively, we are obligated to protect ourselves through law enforcement and militarily force.  Therefore, the RR tends to respect and support a strong military (including most military actions/war efforts) and law enforcement personnel.

Some in the RR have expressed disagreements with some approved actions by Federal law enforcement agencies, however.  Examples of this include the “Waco” and “Ruby Ridge” incidents.  The RR is not united in these opinions.

Indeed, many in the RR are wary of the Federal government having too much power and becoming oppressive, and so promote gun ownership, perceiving that an armed populace is less likely to be oppressed.

Mostly, however, the RR support for gun ownership has to do with the Second Amendment, self-defense, and family defense from criminals.  Most people in the RR do not have a moral problem with hunting, either, even if they do not do it themselves.

Perhaps one of the areas where the RR is least unified is capital punishment.  Churches such as the Roman Catholic Church are officially against it, others join in on “pro-life” grounds, and others in the RR may agree with capital punishment in principle, but think our government may be too flawed or corrupted to be trusted with properly implementing capital punishment.  Capital punishment supporters in the RR do not see it as being in conflict with their pro-life convictions, because they maintain the criminal’s actions warrant the punishment and that executing those criminals protects innocents from further threat from those criminals.

The underlying principles the RR employs in this area is that it is okay to use force to defend your life, the lives of other innocents, your country, and law & order.

I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

The Religious Right & Vice Laws

I covered the RR’s policies on prostitution and porn in earlier posts.  Much of the same thinking applies to their opposition to gambling, recreational drug use (including marijuana), and to a lesser extent, tobacco and alcohol.

Judging from their emphases and apparent priorities, the RR doesn’t care much about tobacco.  Tax money is already being spent in campaigns to discourage smoking, especially amount the youth.  The RR does put effort into opposing the legalization of recreational drug use and drug abuse, including marijuana, fearing that legalization will encourage the use of mind-altering substances and make it more difficult to encourage or force people to get help to stop using them.  Not only does the RR consider the drugs as destructive physically, but it also cites their mind/mood-altering properties as a danger, especially to adolescents and children, and as something that will encourage fornication and other risky/immoral behaviors.  The RR is against tolerance of underage drinking for the same reasons.

But then there’s gambling.

Hey, what problems has gambling ever caused?  Neighborhoods are always improved by gambling establishments, right?

Being a resident of Alta California, I remember when gambling propositions were on the ballot, and the “No” ads tried to scare the voters by saying that the propositions would turn California’s nice suburban neighborhoods into clones of miserable Las Vegas.  Oddly enough, the those ads were sponsored by the folks in Vegas, who apparently wanted to hog the “misery” all for themselves.  The “Yes” crowd – mainly recognized tribal groups who portrayed themselves as poverty-stricken folks who would lead all tribal people into a glorious self-sufficient future if there was a “Yes” vote, vehemently denied the comparison to Vegas.  Now, those same tribes have billboards that tout their casinos as “the shortcut to Vegas”.  And other tribes are saying they are being left out.

Oh, and the lottery in California was going to solve all of our education problems.  Only, it hasn’t.  Schools are still holding fundraisers, parents and teachers are still spending their own money directly on supplies, in addition to the many thousands of dollars per student that are being filtered through the state and Federal governments.

Anyway, the RR tries to prevent the spread of gambling because it is addictive and people will spend money on gambling they should be spending on other things, and with gambling often comes a host of other less desirable things.

I tend to feel that, even though I do not gamble, people should be free to gamble if they so choose, but then again I think those same people (and anybody else for that matter) shouldn’t expect taxpayers to support them when they’re destitute because they weren’t prudent and disciplined in their finances.

Getting back to the drugs…

Hey, everyone knows that marijuana, hallucinogens, heroin, cocaine, etc. expand your mind and never, ever have bad side effects or consequences, right?  None of us know anyone whose life has been diminished by the recreational use of these substances, right?  Teens have never done anything stupid while drunk, right?

The RR also opposes needle give-aways/exchanges, citing such programs as an encouragement to continue drug use, believing that such encouragement is a negative that outweighs the possible prevention of disease infection from consistently using clean needles.

I’m personally tempted to accept the libertarian position on drug laws.  My biggest reservations, though, are linked to the fact that we’re not living in a libertarian society, and so I could picture drugged-out people having a “right” to stay on the job even though they are a danger to others, and all sort of other complications, courtesy of folks like the ACLU.

Again, the RR cites laws as discouraging behavior - that even if the behavior remains widespread, it isn’t as prevalent as it would be if it were legal.  We invade privacy all of the time with restrictions and regulations, including laws governing how you raise children, doctor prescriptions, etc.  So, the RR maintains that laws restricting drug use are good and useful.

From the Traditional Values Coalition website:

We are opposed to the spread of legalized gambling in our society because this behavior frequently leads to addictions, the destruction of families, and the abuse of children. We oppose the legalization of addictive drugs and support strong law enforcement efforts against this societal scourge. We believe it is self-destructive and destructive of our culture, for individuals to become addicted to such behaviors as gambling, alcohol, smoking, pornography, or the use of drugs.

One thing I noticed about this statement - there are plenty of addictive drugs that are already legal, including alcohol.  But I think I get that the TVC was trying to say.  Speaking of alcohol - there are teetotalers and drinkers in the RR.  A disapproval of drunk driving, public drunkeness, and underage drinking are what unifies the RR in this area.

Anyway, the RR genuinely believes we'd all be better off if these vices were (remained) illegal or restricted.  It isn't that they don't want you to have fun - it is that the RR sees these bevaviors as destructive.  It is one of the main things that distinguishes conservative-leaning libertarians from the RR.  Those libertarians may agree that the vices are harmful, but they see the vice laws as doing more harm than good.

I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

The Religious Right: Hate Crime Legislation is Wrong

The RR is against “hate crime” legislation that adds additional penalties when the victims are apparently targeted because of some class, such as their race, sexual orientation, or affiliation with Islam, or that assigns legal culpability to “hate speech” for subsequent “hate crimes”.  They, like many others, maintain that it is wrong to single out certain crime victims for some sort of privileged class, or to legally judge someone’s thoughts or feelings.  Unwelcome violence against others or their property, unless in self defense, should not receive less punishment just because the perpetrator isn’t a bigot or the victim isn’t a member of a specially protected class.

Especially troubling to the RR is legislation that would go against the First Amendment (religious and speech freedoms) by attempting to suppress speech against homosexual behavior, pretending to be the other sex,  and Islam, especially since the RR bases some of their criticisms on teachings from the Bible.

When “hate crime” legislation is used to try to suppress conscientious opposition, the RR will not sit by silently.

Two recent columns on Tonwhall.com by LaShawn Barber and Chuck Colson illustrate some of the thinking of the RR on this issue.

However, Tammy Bruce, a proud lesbian, who is certainly not a member of the RR, has also written extensively against the “thought police” who push for this kind of legislation.

The RR’s solution to “hate crime” attacks is not to restrict speech, but rather prosecute vigorously those to physically attack a person or his or her property, regardless of who the perpetrator is or who the victim is.  That is truly equal protection under the law.