Monetize? How?

Every day that I drive into town from out here at the Judy shack, I get to experience some of the most ill-mannered driving styles found in this area.

That having been said, I thought I'd share a few interesting thoughts.

Over the last fifteen years or so, we've seen two heinous criminal defenses/alibis that have been proffered over and over again. They are ALWAYS a lie, and they have become so prevalent as lies that they are being soundly rejected.

This would be the "Gay Panic" defense, and the "A Man Kidnapped/Carjacked/Assaulted me" and took/killed the spouse/child.

In the case of the latter, when some person has engaged in the most vile sorts of perfidy, killing or gravely injuring someone very close to them in relationship - they always blame some dark skinned man/men of nondescript appearance.

Has anyone noticed how often and how quickly it turns out that there was no dark skinned man?

The "Gay Panic" defense is equally vile - here, younger men (usually either engaged fully in straight society, hookers, hustlers or otherwise) brutally attack and usually kill an older gay man, take his money, credit cards and car, and go on a days long spree of relative freedom.

When caught, they assert that said older (now dead) gay man "came on to them" and made unwelcome sexual advances.

Okay, so .. as Nancy Reagan oft repeated "Just Say No".

News flash to said younger men - if a single, somewhat effeminate older man compliments your appearance, offers you money, food and shelter and you DON'T get a little nudge toward the nookie - you've discovered Santa Claus's warm weather hideaway.

Fortunately for the dark skinned men, the dragnet now less frequently catches up one of these innocent bystanders and the villain is revealed for what they are fairly quickly. I am aware that dark skinned people have for decades been lynched, beaten, gassed, jailed and put to hard labor for just being handy. More scientific criminal investigations and the ubiquitous electronic nannies such as video surveillance, OnStar and cell phones have started to interrupt that process.

For the gayer set, however, the "gay panic" defense is alive, well and kicking. Only recently did we first see a Defendant lose utterly in his "gay panic" defense in the matter of Angie Zapata.

In the practice of law, certain circumstances give rise to "presumptions" which may be refuted by contravening testimony advanced by the opposing side.

I propose that in criminal investigations and judicial prosecutions, the promoters of Justice create for themselves a working presumption that should any suspect or defendant advance either of "A Random Black/Latino Man Did It" or "He Tried To Grab Me, So I Beat Him To Death" - the entire crime and prosecution team make the logical presumption that the accused did it. No more should we seek to plead out the young murderer to property crimes because someone touched his wee-wee. No more should we start rounding up men of color because some blond woman in an SUV screams that her husband/baby were taken off by black men with no definite description.

Just focus on them's that did it.