I got a brief mention in an article by Sophia Voravong in the Lafayette Journal & Courier regarding the dismissal of a lawsuit against local police by a woman who was injured in the course of the police response to her 911 call reporting the shooting of her son by her ex-boyfriend.

I represented the Tippecanoe County Sheriff’s Department on this one. The case ended with the Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of the state law claims late last week. My inclination is to just be happy with adding a significant case to the victory column. And, I am pleased. But, I think it’s critical to remind myself that this isn’t a game. I don’t think any litigator can entirely get past the competitive nature of the litigation process. But underlying the process are real people with real problems.

In this case, there is a woman with significant injuries and medical expenses, there are police officers who feel they did the right thing and got sued for their efforts, and there are government officials trying to keep their citizens safe and protect taxpayer dollars.

The short version is that the woman’s ex-boyfriend broke into her house, murdered her son, knocked her unconscious, stuffed her into the passenger’s side of her car and attempted to flee. As he attempted to flee, the police opened fire to stop him. Shortly after the gunfire, the ex-boyfriend hit a parked police cruiser and flipped the car. The woman suffered significant injuries as a result of these events.

If you want the gory details of the case, the federal court’s order finding that there were no federal Constitutional violations of the woman’s rights by the officers is here and it lays out a more detailed factual background. The federal judge remanded the case to state court for consideration of her state law claims. Due to the interaction between federal constitutional law and Indiana’s law enforcement immunity provisions, her legal case would have been a tough one to make in light of the federal court’s decision.

It’s too bad the murderer, as is often the case with such people, had no money. He was convicted of murder and will, therefore, never have any money. His ability to cause harm far exceeded his ability to pay for that harm. With the true wrongdoer unable to pay, someone was going to have to sustain a loss that was largely or entirely of the ex-boyfriend’s making. So, while I’m pleased that I was able to help prevent my clients from having to bear the loss, that happiness has to be tempered with the understanding that the woman has to bear the loss.

My legal writing professor advised us never to ask a rhetorical question because opposing counsel is probably more than happy to answer it. I don’t know if Leo Morris considered his question rhetorical, but I went ahead and offered some possible answers anyway. Leo asks, with respect to health care, “how can anyone seriously argue that further government involvement will reduce costs?”

My response:

1. Lower administrative costs. Government programs don’t have to pay shareholders, CEOs, or – depending somewhat on the nature of the government insurance plan – legions of bureaucrats to flyspeck each claim to see if it can plausibly be denied.

2. Economies of scale. The bigger the pool of insureds, the easier risk is to manage. For a big enough population, you can predict the risks fairly accurately. Additionally, with that kind of purchasing power, you can negotiate good rates.

3. Stitch in time. If uninsureds or underinsureds get treated sooner rather than later, their care will generally be less expensive.

And, as Craig points out, there is empirical evidence. We are not forging new ground here, other countries have pulled this off. Compared to them, however, the United States spends more on health care as a percentage of its GDP than other industrialized democracies that maintain a single-payer system.

Bill Engle has an article in the Richmond Palladium-Item entitled “Labor Day festival promotes fitness.” When I saw that headline, I thought that an old classmate of mine, John Dils, was probably involved somehow. I was, therefore, happy to see that he was the first person quoted for the story.

The Whitewater Valley Fitness Festival, kicks off [on Labor Day weekend] with a 6.2-mile road and trail run beginning Friday, called the Richmond Baking Jailbreak 10k. The event starts behind the Wayne County Jail and proceeds onto the Cardinal Greenway hiking/biking trail.

Other events planned include a nationally sanctioned bicycle road race in the city’s Depot District on Saturday, a triathlon/duathlon near the new Reid Hospital campus on Sunday and a recreational bike ride, called Ride for the Greenway, on Labor Day.

So, if you’re in the area, you might check out one of the events.

The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one. — J.D. Salinger

For some reason, this quote has been coming to my mind when I read about the rantings of the far right. And, to be clear, by “far right” in this case, I’m not talking about those who merely have policy differences with President Obama and the Democrats. I’m talking about the ones who seem to be constructing an alternate reality in response to his election: those who need to believe he was born in Kenya; those who need to believe that that he is proposing to create government mandated death panels.

And, I suppose the reason I think of that quote is because the deathers and birthers remind me of the Branch Davidians (and others with Apocalyptic religious views) and Timothy McVeigh – people who were willing, in some cases apparently eager, to die “nobly” based on delusional anti-government beliefs. And I think people get to this place because anger is a very seductive emotion. (That’s almost the whole point of the Star Wars series, right?) And “the government” is real, yet abstract, enough that it’s an entity upon which you can conveniently project all sorts of antipathy.

I remember, when I was a younger man, the sort of rush I got from arguing with a heated outrage about the evil of government action at Ruby Ridge and Waco. I had only a smattering of facts, but it didn’t matter. It was enjoyable to argue about how the government had brutally wronged citizens who had done no wrong. (And when it was pointed out that the citizens hadn’t, in fact, been on the straight and narrow, my tendency was to brush those facts away — that wasn’t, after all, the point of the exercise.) For me, my late teens/early twenties was when I seemed to be most primed for these kinds of beliefs. It was during this period I was introduced to the Salinger quote above. It made me surprisingly indignant; I suppose because it belittled as immature things that I supposed to be heroism — going out in a blaze of glory, and all of that. Oddly, I felt like something was being taken away from me even though I had no immediate plans in that direction. In retrospect, I was (as Krusty said of Sideshow Raheem) an angry, angry young man.

The peak of my own personal wingnuttery was probably when a buddy of mine showed me a news letter with poor production values talking about the tracking chips they put in pets and talking about how there was a plan afoot to put these in prisoners and soldiers and, eventually, in all citizens. I didn’t panic, but I can remember being open to the idea that something like this was maybe in the works. After that, I pulled back from the edge. The fires of late adolescence cooled, the Clinton impeachment was a severe enough jolt to my deeply held Constitutional views to make me reconsider my affinities, and the expanding Internet provided me with a greater ability to double check “facts.”

The combination of a tribal, “my team versus your team” mentality coupled with the endorphins and empowerment of anger coupled with half-known or half-understood facts and an indifference to the complete story can be powerful. The mind is a wonderful thing. Mainly, it just wants you to be happy, and it has a way of viewing reality through a filter that makes you happy — even if that happiness comes through being angry. So, you get birthers and deathers and Branch Davidians and, at the most extreme, a Timothy McVeigh or 9/11 jihadist. The maturing process involves increasing dominance of the mind over emotion. When the tendency is for one’s reality to be altered by emotion instead of the other way around, the train starts coming off the track.

Luke Kenley is one of the legislators that I respect most, but this (and this) feels like unfair micromanaging. My take on it is that the General Assembly cut state funding for the universities, so the universities responded by raising tuition — in a manner that is in line with other Big 10 universities. If Kenley and/or the General Assembly wanted to dictate the manner in which the universities responded to the budget cuts, they should have put it in the legislation.

Work has been kicking me up one side and down the other recently. So, if there is anything we ought to be talking about, feel free to chime in.

Brian Zimmerman has an article on continued anger over the Richmond Community Schools dress code. The code appears to be fairly draconian, forbidding logos (except Satanic Richmond Red Devil logos!) and even stripes, floral prints, and other patterns. Anything more revealing than a crew neck is frowned upon. I didn’t see any word on the school corporation’s position on burqas.

Now it looks like the various sides are in the silly season. Both are dug in and neither can probably back down without looking silly. My suspicion is that the school corporation was being overly strict initially with an eye toward backing off later when it appeared everyone was more or less toeing the line. As long as people are putting up a fuss, they can’t back off without damaging their authority.

Obviously the school is in a bit of a tough position — partially of is own making, but not entirely. There are some kinds of dress which are unduly distracting or a problem. The least burdensome thing for everyone would probably be to go with an “I know it when I see it” approach. But, this leads to arbitrary enforcement and, more importantly, accusations of arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. They’d probably like to avoid these line drawing problems by just going with uniforms. But, there was apparently push back on that idea. So, they went with a series of arbitrary rules about dress that they are strictly imposing on everyone. Good luck with that.

The Indiana Chamber of Commerce is trying to get word out about their upcoming Conference on Energy Management. Their keynote speaker is Jim Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy. The conference will take place on September 2, 2009 at the Hyatt in Indianapolis.

Rogers is apparently one of the few coal men who acknowledge the problems of coal emission and the need to reduce our carbon footprint. The Indiana Chamber doesn’t share his position on many of these issues, so this might be an interesting event that isn’t all about preaching to the choir.

I thought I would go ahead and plug my wife & sister-in-law’s latest commercial venture: The Winecharm Factory. For those of you unfamiliar with the concept (and therefore probably uninterested in the product, so why am I bothering), a winecharm is a little charm that goes around the stem of your wine glass with the practical value of helping you tell your glass from someone else’s. Presuming, of course, that you’re no longer drinking wine out of the old Pizza Express cup left over from college. It also adds a little flair to your wine glass. [Insert Office Space, “Tchotchkes” anti-flair reference here.]

If you like what you see, feel free to pass the word along to your wine drinking friends.

Senator Kennedy has passed away. There will be the digital equivalent of buckets of inks spilled on this subject by people who know far more about him than me. My earliest memory of him had to do with a Chappaquiddick bumper sticker my parents had put up on the refrigerator. (I told you I grew up Republican). After that, as I began to learn more history, I was struck by the prominence of his family and how awful it would be to lose so many family members to tragedy.

Rosemary – Suffered a failed lobotomy when Edward was 9.
Joe Jr. – killed in the war when Edward was 12.
Kathleen – Died in a plane crash when Edward was 16.
John – Assassinated when Edward was 31.
Robert – Assassinated when Edward was 36.

Edward would eventually come out of the shadow of his siblings — to a large degree, anyway since it would be hard to come entirely out of the shadows of John and Bobby. He was an effective Senator, known as the liberal lion. Health care has been described as his hallmark issue, and he has died on the eve of the best chance of health care overhaul in several generations. If it fails for the lack of one vote in the Senate, that would cap off the litany of epic tragedies for Joe Sr.’s kids.