comment page 1

Things We Dare Not Do (and What That Says About Society)

February 13th, 2010 By: marc moore
| Tags:

Despite being married, 23-year-old Alyssa Branton was stalked for months by a much older man who recently shot her dead outside her office building after she refused his advances. Despite providing more than 70 pages of documentation detailing Roger Troy’s bizarre and unwanted behavior, Branton was denied the restraining order that might have saved her life by a Florida judge. His reasoning? She hadn’t provided proof that Troy was a menace.

Evidently for some judges a victim’s knowledge of the danger she’s in doesn’t become proof until the murder is on the books. Judge Moxley, a former prosecutor, should have known better than to allow Troy to harass Ms. Branton unfettered. Her death is the direct result of his failure to intervene on her behalf. When did it become wrong to protect young, beautiful women against perverted, violent older men? That fear of wrongly limiting Troy’s rights caused Moxley to rule as he did is conjecture on my part, yet why else would he fail to execute his duty to protect Alyssa Branton?

Significantly, the Branton case is but one example of society’s impotence in the face of violent criminals. The failure to act to protect the defenseless from violent attacks has never been more evident than in the recent beating of Aiesha Steward-Baker in a Seattle transit tunnel. This brazen stomping took place in full sight of at least two Metro Transit system’s security guards who did nothing to stop the attack even after Baker was knocked down and was kicked repeatedly in the head and face.

Baker, who her attackers allege was violent herself, had repeatedly asked Seattle police for help that evening and was obviously hoping Metro security would protect her. Instead the men ignored her pleas for help and allowed the attack to escalate while they tried to talk the other girl out of her violent frenzy.

When did the idea that paid security forces are not allowed to use force to fulfill their basic duty become the rule that must be obeyed? The guards’ failure to act is an abomination and an abdication of their manhood. Yet they do not deserve the blame; rather, our system that is dominated by the ever-present fear of being sued in court is what created the circumstances that forbade them from interfering on Baker’s behalf. Such is duty and chivalry in the age of the liberal trial lawyer.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government is actually increasing the scope of its police powers by obtaining personal cell phone call data, not only for matters of national security but also for routine matters such as bank robbery, etc. This is in addition to making increasingly sophisticated attempts to mine Internet browsing and email history.

The pattern is clear: Americans are discouraged, at risk of their freedom, from taking matters of their own personal security into their own hands even as local law enforcement fails to meet their needs for fear of making mistakes that might lead to public embarrassment or civil lawsuits. At the same time, the federal government is moving to make personal privacy a thing of the past.


the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their-or at least their cell phones’-whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that “a customer’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records”

The three cases I’ve briefly outlined above reveal a deeper pattern that we must strive to correct. Individual rights to privacy and personal security have, far from being protected by our system of jurisprudence, been diminished to the point at which Alyssa Branton was murdered in plain view of witnesses after the system failed her.

The cause of the system failure is clear, for the ability of both law enforcement and individual citizens to make judgments has been removed and a complex, legalistic web of process and procedure has been band-aided together in place of common sense and decency.

The number and type of actions that we dare not take has increased dramatically in the post-WW II era. Gone with such acts of courage and principle seems to be the American ideals of truth and justice. In their place, politically correct, non-offensive behavior is required and society has become a dimmer, less secure place as a result, at least for people like Alyssa Branton and Aiesha Baker. In contrast, the criminals who attacked them seemed confident enough in their right to act as they damn well pleased, didn’t they?

I would be lying if I claimed to be exempt from such pressures myself. Far from it. I was recently reprimanded by the Chronicle’s editors for having used in an August post the all-purpose anti-Word that Shall Not Be Written. This word, perhaps best alluded to the musical musings of April Wine, who sang, “If You See Kay”, was chosen after considerable deliberation and was exactly the right one in that piece.

Nevertheless, the choice was clear: Behave or be gone.

After the disappointment of such an episode, one has to wonder when, where, and indeed, if it’s possible for complete truth and freedom to exist, even in this greatest of all countries, if not in newspapers, police stations, and courtrooms.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn’t support JavaScript, or they didn’t load fast enough.

  1. UNRR

    February 13th, 2010 at 13:28

    Reply |
    Quote |

    This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 2/13/2010, at The Unreligious Right

  2. David

    February 15th, 2010 at 22:48

    Reply |
    Quote |

    I was in a youth court in the UK a few years ago when one of the juvenile defendants began to become abusive and struggle with police in the middle of the courtroom in front of everyone. While this was happening a large number of the lawyers in the room began to look away in an almost comical fashion; some of them were only a few feet away sitting facing the commotions and they had to strain to actually do this.

  3. Interested

    February 16th, 2010 at 04:26

    Reply |
    Quote |

    your first two links go to the same spot. In this instance, it would have had the effect of preventing Alissa from going to her husbands place of employment (as she too cannot violate the order). and possibly prevented it just due to the fact of her not seeing him at that particular moment in time. The problem with protective orders is it only stops someone who wants to continue harassing but not go any further. Someone who has an intent to kill would do so – protective order or not.

    But yeah, I soured on Police after I was told to deal with a traffic accident by myself which two weeks prior I had a traffic stop and got home and read about Baltimore Police vs the 14 year old Skateboarder.

  4. Judith

    February 17th, 2010 at 03:54

    Reply |
    Quote |

    RE Judge John D Moxley Jr why don’t we all send him a postcard telling him how inept and useless he is and he should step down as a judge.

    I looked up his address:



    506 S PALM AVE


    TITUSVILLE FL 32796-3501

    Don’t go to his house, let’s just inundate him with mail (not hate mail, let’s not stoop to his ignorant level). But I think he should get postcards….telling him to resign.

  5. David

    February 17th, 2010 at 22:53

    Reply |
    Quote |

    Aiesha Steward-Baker has been charged with Attempted Robbery in the 2nd Degree – a Class-B felony – in both King and Snohomish Counties. From the charging papers in the King County case: On January 26, 2009 (when Aiesha was 14), Aiesha and a friend went into a market on Rainier Ave. S. at 10:30pm.

    A security guard saw the friend shoplifting – and when he detained the friend, Aiesha started punching the guard with a closed fist in the head and face.

    Aiesha received a deferred disposition – which means it would have been expunged from her record if she had kept her nose clean.

    But since then, Aiesha has racked up another second- degree robbery charge in Snohomish County. This one for for purse-snatching. She is due to appear in court on the 22nd of this month on that charge. If convicted, it would presumably reinstate the King County case.

    On May 23rd, 2009 at 12:20am – Aiesha and a friend approached a woman walking on Highway-99 in Edmonds. According to the Snohomish County charging papers, Aiesha and her friend attacked the woman and pushed her to the ground. The victim told police that Aiesha and her friend hit her in the head and face. Aiesha and her friend forceably took the woman’s purse.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others’ comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others’ words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter’s own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. “Obama is a Muslim”) or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.