It was such a cheap little crime-shoplifting in a Loop discount store. The thief ran, the store’s security guards ran him down, they wrestled and the Chicago cops came.
More Top Picks Best Electric Guitars Amp For Home Use
But the thief was a big, difficult young (age 28) man. In a way, he shouldn’t care. He was awaiting trial for heavier stuff. To him, shoplifting is nothing more than a parking ticket. So he duked it out with the security guards.
When the Chicago cops got there, they tried to put handcuffs on him but he fought, which led to cuts on his hands.
In the scuffle, a female cop cut her thumb.
Only after she cuffed him did she realize that he was bleeding and she was bleeding. And their blood had come together.
Which scared the hell out of her.
As it should have. The thief is a chronic criminal. He has a long record of grabbing anything he can, when he can. There are reasons to suspect he uses drugs.
If you follow the reports on AIDS, you know that drug addicts who swap needles are the second-largest group of carriers of the HIV virus. They also are big on hepatitis. And Lord knows what else is floating in their bloodstreams.
So how would you feel if you discovered that your blood had mingled with that of a thief with a history of possible drug use?
Sick to your stomach? Heart thumping and blood pressure soaring? Hands shaking? Wondering why you became a cop in the first place?
But worst of all, not knowing. The doubt. Until a few ounces of the thief’s blood is drawn and tested, you would not know. That would be when you would sweat.
But, glory be and hallelujah, it doesn’t take very long.
The legal procedure is simple enough:
The rotten thief is told that in cases such as this-when you bleed on a cop or any other citizen-the law wisely and fairly requires that he submit to a blood test. It really is no great inconvenience and we’ve all done it. After all, drunken drivers are asked to take tests-and if they refuse, they face punishment.
Then it is only a matter of a few days, at most, before the results are in and the policewoman will know if she has anything to worry about.
Isn’t that nice?
No, because it isn’t true. I lied to get your attention.
Yes, it’s true about the female cop and the thief and their blood and her fears.
But, no, the thief’s blood has not been tested for HIV or hepatitis or any other disease. Nor will it be tested.
The female cop went to court to ask a judge to order a blood test for the thief.
Her request didn’t reach a judge.
The office of State’s Attorney Jack O’Malley told her to forget it.
You see, under the law, the thief has the right not to undergo a blood test.
As one of O’Malley’s aides wrote to the Police Department:
“The criminal code and Supreme Court rules do not provide a basis upon which we can seek a court order to take a blood sample from an arrestee prior to the arraignment on a felony indictment or information.”
In simple English, I think that means that until the villain has been charged with a really terrible crime-shoplifting and bleeding on cops being considered pansy stuff-you can’t take an ounce or two of the criminal’s blood.
O’Malley’s office also said you can take blood if it pertains to the accusation against the criminal. Had the shoplifter been a vampire, it might have been different.
Yes, thinking like lawyers, if we can stoop so low, let us say you are the victim of a vampire. Maybe O’Malley’s office will approve blood tests for Count Dracula.
But if Dracula bit someone else and drooled on you while running away from the guys with the stakes, you would not have grounds to ask Dracula to take a blood test.
More Top Picks Trash Bags Car
Imagine that. We live in a metropolitan area where Dracula could beat the rap easier than in London or Transylvania.
So this police lady is sweating. She has gotten tested every month. And she’ll have to do that indefinitely. Something like that can ruin one’s life.
The thief is in prison. Turns out he had more serious crimes pending and he’s doing long and hard time. But when asked about the blood test, he says “—– you.”
Nobody is doing anything about this. O’Malley’s office is apologetic. Almost remorseful. But, like O’Malley, it is superficial.
The cop’s union is surprisingly lethargic. But, then, the longer that union exists, the more self-serving and the less member-serving it becomes.
So let O’Malley and the cop’s union be lazy: It is the Illinois Supreme Court that has the final say.
The Illinois Supreme Court is made up of intelligent people. They shower and brush their teeth and are kind to their grandchildren.
But if they made this dumb rule, they ought to change it. If a criminal bites, chomps or in any way nips on a cop or any other citizen; if a criminal does so little as bleed on a cop’s cold sore, or that of any other citizen, that criminal should be required to submit to a blood test.
That is not exactly a fascist position. It is common sense.
Today, a cop can lose his job or go to prison for being unduly rough with a criminal.
But a criminal can squirt blood-possibly lethal-on a cop or you or me and and say, “—– you” to something as simple as a blood test.
That is so dumb that if I had a law degree, I’d run for the Illinois Supreme Court.
On the other hand, I’d make a better buck defending the shoplifter.