Okay, so let me throw my scandalous, edgy opinion out into the burning fire.  What’s the big deal?  Now, I am in no way attempting to justify the actions of these individuals, nor am I condoning what they did in any way.  I think what they did was very hateful and wrong and should have never been done in the first place.  Having said that, I don’t see why people are getting so enraged at these individuals.  Sure, they thought what they did would be funny, humorous, cute, and obviously the rest of the UCSD community, and even the state of California strongly disagreed with their opinion.  Things like this happen all the time.  People are rude, spiteful, racist, sexist, and hateful about many topics, not just black people.  People are entitled to their own opinions, regardless of whether or not the opinions they possess are hateful or offensive to other people.  The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees an American citizen the right to Free Speech (except of course in the case of shouting fire in a crowded theater) despite whether or not that speech is hateful.

The politicians suggesting “sensitivity training, revoking Pike’s charters (from all UC’s!), and requiring students STATEWIDE to learn how to be racially correct” (Facebook Group: UCSD Students OUTRAGED By The Compton Cookout) are completely ridiculous in their attempts to prosecute the individuals involved in the ‘Cookout.  I don’t see how it is possible to punish the individuals through either the legal system or through the college.  Now, if they used University funding to pay for the party, then they deserve to have the book thrown at them and have them expelled from every conceivable place they can be.  If they did not, however, what is there that anyone can do besides say “You did a bad thing”?  They had a party off-campus, not sponsored, funded, or condoned by any UCSD group or organization.  What can the school do to these individuals without Unconstitutionally infringing on the rights of the individuals?  The Constitution doesn’t just apply when you want it to, it applies in all cases as the “supreme law of the land.”

Just recently, many of my first-year Thurgood Marshall classmates and I turned in a 6 page paper to our “Dimensions of Culture” class entitled “Justice.”  This paper asked us to evaluate the significance of “American democracy, the implicit promise of and criteria for membership in the American social contract, and whether there should be limits on majority rule” (Source), specifically in regards to the two Supreme Court cases of Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) and West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).  In the first of these two cases, the Supreme Court upheld that “State’s interest in ‘national cohesion’ was ‘inferior to none in the hierarchy of legal values’” (Wikipedia) and therefore was of more importance than the individual freedoms and rights guaranteed to the Gobitis children by the Constitution.  This decision was later overturned in the Barnette case, where the Supreme Court upheld that individual rights were more important than this “social need for conformity” that the State was trying to impose.  This case signified a large shift in the Supreme Court’s upholding of individual rights claims, and marked a significant precedent that would be referenced many times in future decisions.

Now, having just (within the last week) written a 6 page paper on the topic of individual freedoms and rights guaranteed to individuals by the Constitution, I can personally say that I think the individuals in their actions were well within their Constitutional rights to express themselves in whatever way they see fit.  Now, even though the majority of people in the UCSD community extremely disagree with the actions of these individuals, I think that there are no legal ramifications that can be imparted upon the individuals involved in event.  Pike members, if you are retaliated against by the University or by powerful politicians, I encourage you to stand by your Constitutional rights and fight back.

Like I have said repeatedly, I personally think the individuals should not have acted how they did, and I believe they should issue an apology to the African American community at UCSD (however small their numbers may be).  But, having said that, I do not think it is right for anyone to attack the individuals because of their actions.  Sure, it may seem hateful and racist, but this is the United States of America, where even haters and racists are protected by the Constitution and it’s pesky Amendments.  No matter how hard it is to say, I think this is the way it should be.  The Constitution should not be extended only to people that conform, only to people that think the way that you or I may think; but nonetheless should be guaranteed to all citizens of America.  John Locke’s principle of a “social contract” implies that “individuals give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law,” and it is this “rule of law” that guarantees that “the law is above everybody and applies to everyone.”

You may or may not agree with the opinions I have expressed in this (lengthy) post, and I respect that you may have your own opinions about the issue.  Heck, I may come back tomorrow and think something completely different, but I felt that this was something that should be said by somebody in this whole debacle.  If you know me personally, you know that I am a person who respects other people’s feelings and beliefs, even if I do not agree with them.  I think people should be justified to their own thoughts, and having an opinion about an issue (be it politics, religion, etc) that differs from my own does not make me dislike that person.  If you don’t know me personally, you’ll just have to take my word for it. ;)

-B

P.S. I will say it once again in case you didn’t hear me: I do not agree with, condone, justify, associate myself with, or even like what the individuals did in planning this event, but nonetheless, I believe that the Constitution still applies to their hateful words and actions.

2/19 3:22am Update 1: To clarify a little bit, I mean the “what’s the big deal?” questions at the politicians and people who are trying to go after the individuals. Like I said many times, I think what they did was hateful, racist, and stupid. Of course the individuals being racist towards the UCSD African American community is a big deal, and I don’t mean to undermine that point. -Brandon

2/19 4:34am Update 2: I will be the first to admit, I definitely have a differing opinion on this matter than may people because I am not directly affected by the issue.  I was not here for the weekend that the event happened, nor am I African American.  I did not mean any of what I said above to be mean, disrespectful, or hurtful to anybody in the African American community.  I am basically voicing an outsider’s opinion on the issue, as that is what I am: an outsider.  I normally try to stay out of fueled situations, and I already think I have said too much.  The last thing I need is more people hating me for what I think or do.  More fuel for the fire I guess… -B

CVC § 40802:

(a) A “speed trap” is either of the following:
(1) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.
(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.

So, basically, in order for you to be caught in a “speed trap,” the following must be true:

• The road must have a prima facie speed limit (ie, not above 65mph or 25mph in a school zone)
• The road cannot be a “local road,” defined as:
  • Road not more than 40 feet wide
  • Not more than 1/2 mile of uninterrupted length
  • Not more than one lane in each direction.
• There must be a valid Engineering and Traffic Survey conducted within 5 years that justifies the posted speed limit.

So, what I pointed in my written case was the following:

• The road did have a prima facie speed limit (posted as 45mph)
• The road was not a local road (two lanes in each direction)
• The latest Engineering and Traffic Survey was conducted on April 21, 2004, which is more than 5 years prior to the date I was cited (May 7, 2009)

Now, if you can justify that you were indeed observed in a “speed trap,” there a couple awesome things that the California Vehicle Code states:

CVC § 40801:

No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code.

CVC § 40803:

(a) No evidence as to the speed of a vehicle upon a highway shall be admitted in any court upon the trial of any person in any prosecution under this code upon a charge involving the speed of a vehicle when the evidence is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a speedtrap.

CVC § 40803:

(a) In any prosecution under this code upon a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, an officer or other person shall be incompetent as a witness if the testimony is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a speed trap.

CVC § 40805:

Every court shall be without jurisdiction to render a judgment of conviction against any person for a violation of this code involving the speed of a vehicle if the court admits any evidence or testimony secured in violation of, or which is inadmissible under this article.

So basically, if the officer cites you in a “speed trap,” it is illegal, he cannot submit radar or laser evidence into court, and he is considered “incompetent as a witness,” and the court does not have “jurisdiction to a judgement of conviction.”  Isn’t the law wonderful? :D

Well, after typing this up and including written evidence justifying how I was indeed observed in a speed trap (according to the out-of-date traffic survey), the judge still found me guilty. Jerk… He ignored the law… Let’s just say I was not happy about this decision.

One thing I forgot to mention about a Trial by Declaration: the CVC states that if the defendant is “dissatisfied with the decision of the court,” he can request a “Trial de Novo,” which is basically a fresh start, a brand new trial. I decided to opt for a Trial de Novo. :)

(to be continued…)

See all posts in this series.

It's the po!

Well, let’s see.  It was a Thursday afternoon, May 5th of 2009 to be specific.  I had a meeting at school at 4 and, of course, I had taken a nap and woken up late.  This was an important meeting too… I jumped in my truck and headed off to school.  Of course, on the one day I am in a hurry, there happens to be an officer of the law on my route.  Not paying attention, I coasted down Fairmont Blvd at (apparently) 60 miles per hour.  Coming down Fairmont Blvd from Bastanchury, I noticed Officer Conner parked right about…

…there with a laser gun in his hand pointed right at, well, …me. >:(  Great, exactly what I needed… A speeding ticket and a reason to be even later… I pulled over to the side of the road, put on my puppy-dog face and then spoke with Officer Conner. He informed me of my speed, and I kinda just took it, whatever, I didn’t care. I drove off after frustrated, but I absolutely made sure to obey all traffic laws for a while.

When I got home, I put the ticket in my desk and tried to forget about it for a while…

(to be continued…)

See all posts in this series.

The Great State of California

For the next few days, maybe week or so, I’m gonna be describing my most recent brush with the law.  Stick around, the story should be pretty interesting.  I’ll even tell you how I was caught going 60 mph in a 45 mph zone and yet, according to a judge, I was not breaking the law. :)

Stick around for more updates!

Updates:

• Part 1: The Afternoon of May 5th
• Part 2: Trial by Declaration