From: adams@cobra.Stanford.EDU (Allen Adams)
Subject: When are laws inappropriate (LA Civil Unrest Aftershock) (LONG)
Summary: Are laws meant to be broken??
Keywords: Laws, Rodney King, Civil Unrest, Aversions, Prejudice
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:54:06 GMT

I completed jury duty a couple of weeks ago, and while on it I was a juror
on a case that on the surface seemed rather tame, but turned out to be an
aftershock of the LA Civil Unrest.  We ended a hung jury, with 10 judging
guilt and 2 judging innocence.  Having discussed the case with several
people, it is clear to me that there are times when laws were meant to be
broken, and we as a society should be aware of when those times are.  Below
I try and summarize what we faced as jurors, and then pose a couple of
questions.  There were several societal issues that came out of our 
deliberations and in my discussions with friends afterwards.  I would be 
interested to see what people think the societal issues are, and then I'll
post what I think the societal issues are/were.  It is my hope that the
discussions will be somewhat 'flame proof', so please try and keep your
wits about you if you participate :-) .

Law being applied:

California vehicle code XXX which states something like - When a person is
operating a motor vehicle with the intent to evade, willfully flees a
peace officer, with wanton disrespect for the safety of themselves and
others and the following 5 items are in effect (1) Police light is on; (2)
Police siren is on; (3) Car that is in pursuit is clearly a police car; (4)
People inside marked vehicle are in uniform; and (5) operator of motor
vehicle is driving recklessly; then if all of the above is true, then person
is guilty of breaking California vehicle code XXX (which happens to be a
felony).

Case as presented by State of California:

On Saturday, May 2, 7:15 PM (3 days after first civil unrest; 45 minutes
before curfew went into effect), Mr. Leroy Green, a twice convicted felon 
who was out on parole and driving on a suspended license (these facts were
made known as to a possible reason for Mr. Green's actions) and a passenger
were driving their car, when part-time police officers, who were on duty,
thought that they saw Mr. Green's passenger wave a handgun out the window.
The police made a U-turn, turned on their lights and siren in an attempt to
pull Mr. Green over.  Mr. Green not only did not pull over, he proceed to
run a red light onto on on-ramp leading to the freeway.  The police
followed Mr. Green onto the freeway and pursued him for a mile when the
commander told the police to stop the chase.  This first unit complied,
pulling off the freeway at the next exit.  

The driver of the police car testified.  During his testimony it was 
brought out that the partner removed the shotgun from the rack and held 
it at a 45 degree angle, with the butt of the shotgun on the floor of 
the car, the barrel at the window's edge.

A second police car then becomes involved.  Mr. Green himself leaves the 
freeway at the following exit where the first police car exited, and 
begins driving on the wrong side of the road.  He encounters the second 
police car, coming within 4 car lengths of running into the second police 
car.  They both swerve, and the police car makes a U-turn to begin 
pursuit.  They radio that the car they are pursuing is possibly the same 
black cadillac that the first police car discontinued the chase with.  
The first police car hears this and makes a U-turn to try and re-establish 
contact.  Mr. Green continues to drive to an intersection, where there 
are 3 cars stopped at a red light; one in the left hand turn lane, the 
two others in the remaining travel lanes.  Mr. Green goes around
the 3 cars on the right side, causing two other cars who were going
through the green light they had to slam on their brakes, coming within 
at most 10 feet of running into Mr. Green.  Mr. Green then proceeds two
more short blocks when an attempt is made to pull into a parking lot.  Due
to his excessive speed, he is unable to make it, tries to get back to the
street, but unfortunately cannot, and comes to a rest between a tree and
brick wall.  The second police car follows Mr. Green through the
intersection.  The first police unit is on the street that Mr. Green has
turned onto, and sees both Mr. Green and the second police unit go through
the intersection.  Mr. Green admits that he probably was driving
recklessly, and made a mistake.

No handgun was found.  The police suspected that the occupants of the car 
were under the influence of cocaine.  However, the occupants were not 
medically tested for being under the influence of cocaine.  An officer from 
the second police car testifies that even though no drug paraphernalia was 
found in the car, sometimes the police decide not to write down this fact 
even if there is drug paraphernalia found (this really reduces his 
credibility).

Case as presented by Mr. Green:

Mr. Green was out taking his friend to work (he's not sure where the friend
works, and why the friend has to go to work when there is a curfew is not
determined).  Mr. Green sees the police behind him and thinks they are
going to pass.  Not only do the police not pass, but they pull along side
Mr. Green and aim there shotgun.  Mr. Green tells the passenger to duck,
and he proceeds to try and find a safe haven where there are people around
to make sure that he will not be mistreated by the police.  Normally the
freeways in LA are jammed, but unfortunately since it is close to curfew,
there are not many people on the freeway.  According to Mr. Green, not only
does the first police car not discontinue the chase, but there is a second
police car on the freeway who is aiming a shotgun at Mr. Green.
Fortunately for Mr. Green, there is a blue Mustang between he and this
second police car.  He is forced off the freeway and by chance it is at an
off-ramp.  He almost crashes going around the off-ramp, but manages to keep
going.  He is driving on the wrong side of the street, and remembers maybe
a truck he almost runs into, but not a police car.  He sees some people in
the distance, and since he is looking for a safe haven where he can pull
over and then submit himself to police, he attempts to get to those people.
Unfortunately, the light at the intersection is red, but he must pull over
soon, so he goes through the intersection.  He heads down the street
finding the entrance to a parking lot where the people are.  Unfortunately
his speed does not allow him to enter under control, so he stops at the
tree and brick wall.

Questions:

Since Mr. Green claims to have feared for his life, was this 2-3 mile
excursion acceptable under the law??  Was Mr. Green trying to evade??
What is the definition of evade (you'd be surprised how many people are not
sure)??  

I was one of the 10 who judged that Mr. Green violated the vehicle code.  
I'd invite people to give reasons why that should/should not be the case.
I hope this starts some interesting discussions, and soon I'll follow with
what societal implications I feel this case brings out.

Allen Adams