Brighton Case Still Raises Questions, Despite an Apology

Well, I applaud the Brighton (Colorado) Police Department for conceding that this arrest was overkill and for offering an apology. But . . . .

What we're seeing in this case and others suggests to me that you have officers out there, and maybe departments, that will blindly follow orders and enforce "the rules" even if those rules defy common sense and are of dubious legality and Constitutionality. 

I know individual cops can't be expected to study the legality of every stupid law they are asked to enforce. But come on. They are sworn to uphold The Constitution, not to blindly and robotically do the bidding of whomever signs their paychecks, so this is still very alarming to me despite the apology that a backlash brought. 

Will the cops side with the people or the power-drunk "authorities" when push comes to shove? I would like to think most cops (and soldiers, for that matter) would at some point balk at being a party to tyranny and obvious rights-trampling. But 20th Century history tells us a scarier story.

Confessions of a Puffer

Many a winter morning, sometime between that first cup of coffee and my drive to work, I break the law in Colorado. That's because I'm a "puffer," in police parlance -- meaning someone who leaves the car running, unattended, to take the chill out, warm the engine, and, on some mornings, save myself a case of ice-chipper's elbow. But until recently, when I read this story in The Rocky Mountain News, and this story in The Aurora Sentinel, I had no idea this made me an outlaw.

Puffing is against the law because an idling car presents an irresistible temptation to car thieves, which makes us (or is it we?) puffers accessories to crime. It's the upside down way America works today -- the law-abiding are penalized for the actions (and potential actions) of law-breakers. The cops can't or won't stop car theft, but they can stop puffers. It's a lot of hard work -- it's a big hassle --apprehending bona fide criminals, but easy deterring crime by punishing and hassling potential crime victims. It's profitable, too, at $75 a ticket.

And puffing cases are easily cracked: the cop spies a vehicle without a head in it, but with a tell-tale puff of exhaust (thus the name "puffer") rising from the tailpipe. Wham. Busted. Ticket time. Take that, car thieves! McGruff to the rescue.

When I leave a car idling in the driveway on an icy winter morn, I'm vaguely aware that it's a little iffy -- I understand that some creep could take it. But it's a calculated risk that I, the car owner, willingly take -- one of a dozen I take every day -- because the benefit that comes from getting into a thawed-out car outweighs the tiny risk of a carjacking. It's my property. It's in my driveway. And why it's the business of cops to override my judgment on such matters baffles me.

One woman snared in the anti-puffer dragnet described in the Rocky was warming up her car for an elderly aunt she was driving to chemotherapy. "She's dying of cancer," the woman said. "She can't very well get into a cold car."

Excuses, excuses: she got a ticket anyway. Shedding tears was to no avail. It's the law! If we begin bending the rules for chemotherapy patients, who else will want special treatment? Woman with sick infants? People with the common cold?

This sort of preemptive crime-fighting puts us on a slippery slope. Where does it end when the cops start ticketing people for engaging in actions that might tempt criminals? Why not ban purses, as a deterrent to purse-snatchers? Holiday shoppers make tempting targets; why not place limits on how many shopping bags they can carry out to the parking lot, since bag-grabbers might lay in wait? I leave my windows open on summer nights to let the cool air in. Should I be ticketed because a burglar could also climb in?

Absurd, you say? Read the newspaper -- all absurdities are now officially within the realm of possibility. America is an asylum -- most of the patients just don't know it.