From: adams@cobra.Stanford.EDU (Allen Adams)
Subject: Laws and LA Civil Unrest [Part II]
Summary: Are laws meant to be broken??  Why/Why not.
Keywords: Laws, Rodney King, Civil Unrest, Aversions, Prejudice
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:47:06 GMT

This is LONG again, as I am enjoying myself.

Thanks to those who have responded so far to the original posting.  Those
that did so have begun to scratch the surface of the 'can of worms' that 
came out during jury deliberations and since.  For those who did not read
the original posting, a quick summary (the original posting elaborates
these summaries).  Mr. Leroy Green was on trial.

Law: While driving a motor vehicle with the intent to evade, driver
willfully flees peace officer with wanton disregard for safety of
themselves and others.

Prosecution: Defendant's passenger seen with handgun.  Defendant runs red 
light onto freeway on-ramp, drives 80+ MPH down freeway.  First police car 
instructed to stop chase.  Defendant exits freeway, meets second police car
as defendant drives down wrong side of street, almost resulting in crash.
Defendant continues on, eventually going around right side of 3 cars 
stopped at red light in order to make left hand turn; two other cars 
avoid accident by slamming on brakes as defendant enters intersection and 
they have green light.  After traveling 2 more blocks, defendant tries 
to enter parking lot, but due to excessive speed unable to do so and 
comes to rest between tree and brick wall.  Police suspect both occupants 
under influence of cocaine, due to eye pupil test.  Defendant is twice 
convicted felon out on parole, driving on suspended license, 45 minutes 
before curfew.

No handgun found;  No formal blood/urine drug test made.

Defense: Defendant saw police with lights and siren, thought they were
going to pass.  Defendant saw police with rifle, feared for life.  Wanted
to find safe haven where he would not be mistreated.  Enters freeway
because it is usually crowded;  Unfortunately it wasn't, due to nearness of
curfew.  Police very aggressive on freeway and force defendant off road,
coincidentally was at off ramp.  Defendant almost loses control going
around off-ramp, ends up on wrong side of road.  Sees a truck and begins to
drive on correct side of road.  Sees group of people in distance, and must
get to them so he can submit himself to police.  Goes through intersection
where 3 cars are stopped at red light, avoid collision with another 2, 
and begins search for parking lot entrance.  Finds it, but due to excessive
speed cannot enter driveway under control, ends up between tree and brick
wall.  Defendant admits to driving reckless saying, "I made a mistake".

Jury ended hung; 10 judge guilt of breaking vehicle code (I was among 
those that judged guilt); 2 judge innocence.  Case will be retried at 
some later date.

As I said in my original posting, some very interesting societal 
implications were brought out during deliberations and since with
conversations with friends.  So that the discussion on the net doesn't 
break down into a flame war, I'll open the 'can of worms' in my next 
posting.  Those that responded so far have brought up some interesting 
points.  Since I am interested in an intelligent discussion, I have 
removed the names of the views; Those that made them are welcome to claim 
them on the net.

-----

Point 1:  When one becomes a juror on a case, they are sworn to uphold the
law, whether they agree with the law or not.  This is very tough to do, as
a couple of respondents have said below.  If one does not agree with a law,
they are to see their representative (in this case State of California),
and have their legislature change the law (this is what the judge in the
case told us).  Also, it is up to the judge to decide sentencing, not the
jury.  So the jury's main job is to decide guilt or innocence as it applies
to the law in question.

Point 2:  While on the jury, the juror may not bring prejudices/aversions
into their decision of guilt/innocence.  They are allowed to bring in their
life experiences to judge the 'truthfulness' of the testimony given on the
witness stand.  Separating when one can/cannot do this is very difficult.

[Note: I have put other's observations between [<" ">].  Also, in order 
       not to 'taint' the discussion too much, I am trying to refrain from 
       expressing my viewpoint too much until future postings. ]

[<"The defendant claimed that the law was unjust, because he had a fear of
police misconduct.  He claimed he simply tried to find a crowded place
with witnesses to avoid this possible misconduct.  I believe this is wrong
because of several reasons.  First, the defendant's actions put the lives 
of others in danger.  Second, the defendant had no specific evidence that 
the police were about to engage in misconduct.  Third, in order for 
society to function, we must submit to authority, or else there would be 
chaos.  If everyone got to choose the time and place they could pull over 
for the police, the police would need to spend all of their time chasing 
cars all over town, and be under the extreme stress of possibly being shot 
at or crashing during these chases.  Also, any car on the road would be 
in danger of being hit by all of these fleeing cars.  Therefore, I believe 
that type of defense is wrong.">]

This is seems to be a very logical way to look at laws in general.  Why do
we have laws??  Is it because people make mistakes so they should be
stopped??  Is it because as human beings, we are a jumbled mix of emotions,
both good, bad, and indifferent, and in order to put a 'check' on the bad
ones, laws are a means to discourage incorrect behavior??  What would the
result be if there were no laws (it seems to me that most societies
throughout the world have their own version of 'law and order'; So
it appears generation upon generation must have experienced 'crimes' 
to warrant laws)??

--

[<"What Mr. Green did was definitely "illegal", but this is a case were the
philosophical meaning of that term comes into play.  In the old USSR,
simply running a profitable business was considered "illegal", too--and 
heavily punished.  It could be said that in NAZI-controlled Germany, 
being Jewish was illegal...

I would have said, privately, that he was guilty of violating
the vehicle code.  I also would have judged in his favor.  I think it's a
jury's duty to keep the State in check in this way.  If I'm ever called to
jury duty and get a drug case, or some other victimless crime, I'll always
vote to acquit, no matter what the facts say: this is because I would not
consider the defendant guilty, even though he might have "broken the
law"...">]

This type of view was brought up during our deliberations (Saddam Hussien
(sp?) actually entered our deliberations!!).  In reference to Points 1 and
2 above, this point of view can be potentially dangerous.  First, in order
to serve on the jury, the person with this view would have to commit 
perjury to stay on the case, because they would not be able to remove any
prejudices/aversions from their decisions.  Second, this person runs a risk
that if they were on trial, and 'were' innocent, they would be at the mercy
of a panel of their peers with 'axes to grind', and would have no chance
of being found not guilty.

In order to overcome this point of view, one of my friends has suggested
that in a criminal trial, a unanimous decision should not be required, but
rather an 11-1 or 10-2 vote, for exactly the sentiments expressed above.
His feeling is that there will always be jurors who will not be able to
perform their sworn duty; So removing this unanimous requirement would
offset any 'perjurers' on the jury.

-----

Point 3:  What does 'intend to evade' mean??  I must admit that when the
defense attorney spent many minutes trying to convince us that we did not
know ourselves what evade meant, I almost laughed out loud; However, to my
surprise, she had done her job well, as several of the jurors really did
not know what evade means.  First, my definition is 'to try and avoid'.
Now 'elude' or 'escape' means to get away entirely.  The defense attorney
was very clever.  "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury.  We all know that
evade means to get away and not get caught.  My client came to rest between
a tree and brick wall, so he did not get away, therefore he did not try to
evade (first time I had to bite my lip).  Now we are all familiar with the
term 'Tax Evasion'.  Anyone that is 'doing' tax evasion means they are not
paying taxes.  So evasion means to get away with (second time I bit my lip;
if one is caught for tax evasion, it means that for some period of time
they were not paying taxes, but eventually got caught; if they are not
caught, then they are still evading paying their taxes)."

[<"First I'll start with the easy part.   Evasion is an attempt to avoid
something.  To evade a police pursuit, you attempt to avoid being caught 
by the pursuing officers by running, hiding, etc.  I believe the facts 
objectively show that the defendant did try to evade the police 
officers.">] 

This seems to be a point of view similar to the one I expressed above.

Another point of view:
[<"I admit to being among those who isn't familiar with the specific legal 
usage of the the term evade.  However, it seems to me that Green *was* 
trying to evade.  But is this important?  If he had good reason to believe 
he was in danger, then he *should* IMO try to evade.  I know that "evade" 
has as part of its definition the notion of getting away using 
deceitfulness, but I think that if Green's life were in jeopardy he would 
be right in trying to avoid his captures using any wits he had about him 
(hopefully without unduly endangering others).">]

This is another interesting point of view that will lead to my next point
below.

-----

Point 4:  Who is responsible for enforcing the law??  This point is why I
feel that this case, and future cases, are an aftershock of Rodney King's
handling by police and the civil unrest that followed.  There is a very
prevalent feeling that the police are just as bad as the criminals, if not
more so (sorry, but the 'can of worms' is starting to leak open; I'll shut
it for now, and open it again in the future).  Is it the responsibility of 
the police or citizens to enforce the law??  What are the implications if 
it is up to the citizens (I have seen many articles on the net for the 
implications of being up to the police)??  What caveats are needed in the 
laws that allow citizens to enforce the law upon themselves (how do we 
know when the citizens are not enforcing it on themselves)??  Do we even 
need the police (i.e. will good always triumph over evil; it seems to me
that this would be a good way to reduce expenditures so that we could start
to make a dent in our deficit)??  When should police act; Should they 
only be reactive and never pro-active??  What situations should they be 
reactive/pro-active??

I can think of other questions, but I'll end with other's observations.

[<"The defendant claimed that the law was unjust, because he had a fear 
of police misconduct.  He claimed he simply tried to find a crowded place
with witnesses to avoid this possible misconduct.  I believe this is wrong
because of several reasons.  First, the defendant's actions put the lives 
of others in danger.  Second, the defendant had no specific evidence that 
the police were about to engage in misconduct.  Third, in order for 
society to function, we must submit to authority, or else there would be 
chaos.  If everyone got to choose the time and place they could pull over 
for the police, the police would need to spend all of their time chasing 
cars all over town, and be under the extreme stress of possibly being shot 
at or crashing during these chases.  Also, any car on the road would be 
in danger of being hit by all of these fleeing cars.  Therefore, I believe 
that type of defense is wrong.">]

Another view: [<"Since Green probably did see the shotgun, his attempted
escape and later erratic driving do have a possible explanation.  I'm not 
sure I buy Green's version of the story, but I can understand anyone in
LA being easily spooked by cops brandishing guns, given recent events.

Like I said before, I don't wholly buy Green's version of things but, 
given that the cops' actions were easily misunderstood and that their 
story has major gaps in it as well (e.g. no gun, no drug test), I think 
that there is reasonable doubt as to whether he did anything wrong.

Still, he *did* evade (IMO) and broke the law, so whether he was right 
or wrong may not play a part in the legal end of this.  I think that 
the law on evasion needs to include a clause indicating that the 
pursued party be able to reasonably assume that it will not be in danger 
when it submits.">]

This shows the real moral dilemma facing people.  Should there have been an
attempt to pull the defendant over in the first place.  If not, then does a
person in our society have the 'right' to decide at what location a 
determination of this can be made??  If the police think they see a handgun,
do they have the right to try and determine this??  If not, at what point,
if ever, do the police have that right??

Another point from above is that 'no one got hurt' in the incident.  So
instead of arresting Mr. Green, should he be presented a medal honoring
him for the ability to break so many traffic laws and no one was injured
in him doing so??  What about the people that came within 10 feet of
crashing into the defendant??  If they had not been so lucky, should one
change their judgement of guilt/innocence??  If someone had died, do we
tell loved ones that 'too bad, but it is a jungle out there; even though
they saw a green light, you should always slow down in case there is a
police chase in progress.'??

One final point: [<"Your example is one of how Law and Order has broken down
in LA.  The police are as guilty, and should be feared as much as the 
criminals--and thus the line between criminals and innocent people has now 
blurred--as it did in your case.  The "solution" is for all the innocent 
people to get the hell out of there.">] 

Should we as a society continue our 'Woe is me' attitude about life (not
just about this, but the economy, ecology, etc.)??  Is life just one big
hopeless nothingness??  Should we even bother anymore with trying to 'fix
things'??  Maybe we should be more like ostriches and put our heads in the
sand.  It seems to me that the 'heat is turning up in the kitchen.'  If the
'cooks' cannot stand the heat, how do we get them out, rather staying in
the 'kitchen' to wilt away??

----

I am sure this will bring more opinions, especially more of the ones
brought out in deliberations and since.  Sorry for the length, but this is
interesting to me.

Allen Adams