Manhood...or Madness?

Perhaps the dominant view among prosecutors is that gangbangers seem to run on 100-proof Testosterone. Prosecutors appear to think that they are literally intoxicated by their towering arrogance and ignorance. Shackled by their dinosaur-like brains, empty of both imagination and intelligence, they think anything unwanted, out of order, or just wrong can be addressed and resolved by yelling at it, cursing it, physically resisting it, fighting and battering it, or simply shooting it dead. Some of my gangbanger clients had thrown their Gang Injunction Violation citations on the sidewalk in anger and defiance when the police officer who had stopped them requested their signature on the citation as acknowledgment that he had cited and arrested them for violating one or more of the many prohibitions of the City of Los Angeles's criminal group suppression order named the "Gang Injunction."

My untimely advice to them was that they should have signed the police form and, more important, filled out its "Investigative Action/Statement" page that provided space to write their side of the story. Yes, I know. This advice is better given as a preventative to being arrested, not after the arrest has occurred. Some of my clients get arrested repeatedly; so the next time that happens, perhaps they will fill out the portion of the form that gives them almost three paragraphs-worth of space in which to tell their side of the story. Should they walk around with a pen or pencil just in case they are arrested? Well, that's better than walking around with a gun...right? "I didn't have a pencil to write with" is a poor excuse for not writing--versus telling and yelling--your innocent side of the story. You can ask the arresting officer for his pen and write your version of events to your Tupac Shakur's heart's content. Officers probably have a pen extended at the ready, in case the person detained needs it.

Why is it so important to fill out the portion of the Gang Injunction form wherein you can dispute the officer's version and declaim your own account of the goings-on that precipitated your arrest? First, because the opportunity to do so is given to you, by the arresting officer, as your legal right. Second, it is the written, not verbal, accounts that get heard and dealt with in a court of law. So, get your statement in writing; that way, the jury must hear it. The prosecutor (district attorney) arguing against you cannot suppress it. He or she has to bring up your side of the story in court. And you only have a "side" if you write it down. It does not exist otherwise. Arguing your non-involvement, yelling your innocence, braying like a mad bull, and cursing the police are not the behaviors of an innocent temporarily lost or a savior desperately seeking a phone booth in which to don his flying cape but merely the crazed antics of a human-meteor headed directly for the state pen.

In the end, where the drama is really played out (in court), the jury will merely see that act of anger and defiance as evidence of guilt. "If he is so innocent of the charges, why didn't he write out his version of events? They gave him almost half a page to tell his side," will be the driving opinion that supports a verdict of guilt. Certainly, an argument can be made (as it often is) that the arresting officer wasn't polite or courteous, or exhibited other behaviors that baited the anger of the arrested gangbanger and set him "off". Before we go there, though, let's go back to square one: The arrested gangbanger had already previously been served with a Gang Injunction; it is a court order set in motion by the City Attorney that prohibits the commission of certain illegal acts. These acts have been well-known and well-defined as imperiling the lives and limbs of individuals and shooting fear through and paralyzing entire communities. The arresting officer is not on the staff of Publisher's Clearinghouse; he or she is only required to cite and arrest the gangbanger, after ascertaining that he has broken one of the prohibitions of the Gang Injunction. The arresting officer's behavior is not required to be that of a person excitedly brandishing your winning million-dollar ticket or thrusting a congratulatory spray of robust roses in your face.

Because most gangbangers are desperately holding onto their idea of manhood and, in their distorted imaginings, think that force, violence and rudeness are the tools for surviving life, their refusal to sign the citation places them in a position of having the last word, whatever the Sam Hill that means. However, by not filling out the generous space for telling their side of the story is their way of not being "punked" or giving in to a system that they feel constantly torments and brutalizes them, and denies them fair trials in its courts. Said another way, they view their Neanderthal-like stance as being far preferable than explaining anything. Or, as they might say: "I ain't gonna ask nobody for nuthin'!" Telling their side of the story, in writing, is the equivalent of a weak person asking somebody in a dominant position for something. Oh, yes. They will complain, but they won't explain (in writing). Go figure. Again, it is important to note that the jury will see this omission as defiance and evidence of guilt. Totally lost on the jury will be counterpoints or hypotheticals about the police officer's demeanor at the time of the arrest, the manner in which he served the citation, and whether or not he proclaimed it a good day for baseball or fishing.

In this same vein, a good many of my clients are waiving their McLaughlin Rights. Very important. Very fundamental. Why? It is the "McLaughlin Probable Cause Hearing Rights" that afford an arrestee/detainee the right to have the circumstances of his arrest reviewed by a Judge or Magistrate of the Court to determine if there was probable cause for his arrest. It is this "Probable Cause Hearing" that may or may not benefit his case. But it is worth a try, especially for persons who harp about their innocence and enlist their families and friends to besiege the police department, district attorney, and city hall with torrents of claims about their innocence and the false grounds upon which they were arrested. If the gangbanger does not waive his McLaughlin Rights, but instead, takes advantage of them and states his desire for a Probable Cause Hearing, what can happen? Well, if the Magistrate determines that there was not probable cause for the arrest, the gangbanger will be released from custody immediately, as long as there are no other "holds" (legal restraints to detain) or warrants on the person. It must be noted that waiving one's rights to a "McLaughlin Probable Cause" hearing is not seen as evidence of guilt, nor does it affact the gangbanger's right to arraignment on the charges. Again, however, I would emphasize that if the gangbanger doubts there was probable cause for his arrest, he ought to go forward with the "Probable Cause Hearing." He should not let his arrogance, any feelings about weakness, or thoughts that he'd be asking the system for something barricade him against taking advantage of his legal rights.