Dear Deputy DA James Hill:

Pray tell, when did it become legal to drive a car without auto insurance?  You see, sir, I have been robbed by my auto insurance company.  I have been operating under this silly misconception that I was required, by law, to purchase automobile insurance if I wished to operate a motor vehicle in the great state of California.  Thus, I have been throwing money at this ravaging insurance company, who has unapologetically taken full advantage of my naivety.  If only I had known that I could drive a car without car insurance, cause a horrific accident, take someone’s life, tear apart a family, cause so much pain and sorrow that one cannot even coherently express—and still go on living my life as if nothing ever happened.  If only I had known that I could drive a car without car insurance, I could have been putting an extra $200 a month toward my student loans; or upgraded my cable to include the movie channels; maybe I could have been putting that money aside to someday buy a house.

Do you happen to know what Shapri Rene Brown was doing with the money that she was not spending on car insurance?  I hear through the grapevine that she was not spending it on keeping herself and her children in an apartment.  She was not spending it on the merchandise that she was arrested for shoplifting.  She could not have been spending all the money she was saving from not having car insurance at the Mexican meat market, could she?  Was she spending it all on her prescription for Norco?

Are we on the same page now?

Kevin Edward Medina was my big brother.

He was a handsome young man with dark, curly hair and green eyes.  He was always a good student throughout his school years, excelling at calculus and chemistry, and he was always involved with the high school theater productions.  He was the youngest applicant to ever be accepted to Chaffey College’s very competitive radiological program.  He graduated top of his class and promptly received a job at Kaiser Permanente.  He worked hard and made a name for himself, not just because of his skills as a radiology technician, but also because of his brilliant ability to fix literally any type of electronic device.  In fact, when he was just five-years-old, his father gave him a screwdriver and an old VCR player to play with, and Kevin completely took apart the VCR player, put it back together again, and had it working like new.  He was kind, affable, funny, intelligent, and a little nerdy.  Kevin was a son, a grandson, a brother, a nephew, a cousin, an uncle, a friend.

And Shapri Rene Brown?  She sounds like a miscreant. A good-for-nothing social parasite, harbored through your refusal to press charges, living out her pathetic and meaningless life, and escaping this painful base existence with Norco.

I can imagine how it must be for you—flooded with police reports and new cases every day.  And I can imagine how easy it must be for you to read those police reports and not be able to put a face to the name listed.  And I can understand the temptation to immediately dismiss yet another case in which a young guy riding a motorcycle was killed by a car.  Happens every day.  Nothing to see here.

Except that cars do not kill people.  An unmanned car did not move of its own volition and pull out in front of my only brother.  A culpable person did that.  A person with a prescription for Norco.  A person that was not wearing corrective lenses, despite having a restriction on her license that required her to do so.  A person WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE EVEN BEEN ON THE ROAD THAT DAY BECAUSE SHE DID NOT HAVE CAR INSURANCE.

Had Shapri Rene Brown had car insurance, I would not be writing to you.  Accidents happen, I know this.  But a person with car insurance is responsible, accountable, and most importantly, law-abiding.  At least as far as California Insurance Code §11580.1b is concerned.

Yes, an insured driver could have just as easily pulled out in front of my brother.  But that is not what happened.  An irresponsible and negligent uninsured motorist killed my brother.

And here is the rub: had Ms. Brown been a law-abiding person, who merely could not afford car insurance, she would never have gotten in that uninsured car on January 20^th.  She would have never put the key in the ignition.  She would have never started that uninsured car and put it in drive.  Had Ms. Brown been a law-abiding person, she would have never driven down Sequoia Avenue toward Hesperia Road.  Had Ms. Brown been a law-abiding person (or if she had at least been wearing her damn glasses, as was required by her license), she would not have pulled out in front of Kevin and killed him.

Had Shapri Rene Brown been following the law on January 20, 2012, my brother would still be alive.

Unfortunately, she was not and he is not.  And Ms. Brown needs to be held accountable for her actions.  She should be made an example of for the thousands of other uninsured motorists.  Otherwise, why have laws?  Why have a justice system meant to uphold and enforce those laws?  Why bother teaching students theories of punishment, such as deterrence and retribution?

If the State cannot—or will not—punish those who willfully act outside the law, then why not dissolve to anarchy, and allow individuals to administer their own ideas of justice upon wrongdoers?

You are a civil servant, Mr. Hill.  You have been granted by society the authority to administer justice and hold wrongdoers accountable for their actions.

Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his freedom.  In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his behavior and be rehabilitated.

-Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae

Do you believe Ms. Brown has already learned her lesson, is that it?  Granted, she did purchase auto insurance—after providing police with three false policy numbers (what moral fiber!)—following the accident.  But I would bet that if one were to inquire about that a-little-too-late policy, it would no longer be active or valid.  No, considering she already had two prior traffic convictions and that she has been arrested twice since January for shoplifting, I do not think Ms. Brown has learned her lesson and is on the road to becoming a responsible and productive member of society.

Or could it be that you cannot think of a fitting punishment for Ms. Brown?  Is that why you dropped the case?  She is a poverty-stricken welfare case, so it is not like Ms. Brown will pay any fines that you impose, right?  And she has already proved that she has no qualms about driving without car insurance, so it is not very likely that taking away her driver’s license will hinder her (“When a man shrinks not from a deed neither is he scared by a word.”), right?  And all of the big-hearted Liberals of California would never dream of sending a mother to prison (despite the fact that with the way things are looking for Ms. Brown, her children will inevitably end up in foster care anyway), right?

Or, what was it that you told my parents?  Something like, “There is not enough evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . She did not do anything different than any other driver.”  Because the black ink in the police report that spelled out “U-N-I-N-S-U-R-E-D” is just not very compelling.  And I’m sure you shudder at the daunting and arduous task of explaining to a jury that actus reus includes negligent acts (like not wearing glasses if you are blind, driving while on severely debilitating drugs, driving when you should not because you do not have car insurance, et cetera) that caused the unintentional death of a man in his prime.

Well, Mr. Hill, if you cannot find a fitting punishment and if you will not press any charges, then you simply are not fulfilling your civil duties to the citizens of this state, nor are you honoring the dignity of the victims of these crimes and their families. Shame on you, Mr. Hill.  Shame.  On.  You.

For even if the matter had not been urged on us by a god it was not meet that you should leave the guilt unpurged when one so noble, and he your king, had perished; you were bound to search it out.

-Sophocles, Oedipus the King

In Disgust and Disdain,

SLB

I Heart Paul Ryan

A friend sent me this image and we both had a good laugh because these are all reasons we love Paul Ryan.  And here's why:

     1. Thank you, Paul Ryan, for voting against the Lilly Ledbetter "Fair Pay" Act.  As a rational woman capable of reason and common sense, I understand that a Federal law requiring women to be paid "the same as men" would actually harm women.  The reason women are "paid less" than men is due largely to the choices that women make.  For example, women work less hours than men, and often opt for more flexibility in their work schedules instead of a higher pay.  Not to mention the luxurious benefits that women are often offered in place of a higher pay--*ahem* I do not believe Paid Maternity Leave is something that employers offer to men.  If there were to be a Federal law requiring women to be paid "the same" as men, then women would become too expensive for employers to hire.  This would result in either employers not hiring women, or not offering them the flexibility and benefits that women often choose over a higher pay.  I don't know about you, but I would rather have Paid Maternity Leave than an extra 50 cents an hour.
     But, of course, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration (interesting how the Liberal creators of this meme left that part of the title out) Act does not even address any supposed "pay gap" between men and women.  It only extends the statute of limitations for filing equal-pay lawsuits regarding pay "discrimination" (subjective).  Oh, and never mind that female employees working under Obama earned 18% less than their male counterparts.  I am sure it had to do with reasons stated above, but it is rather hypocritical for Democrats to claim Republicans are waging a war on women while they pay their female employees significantly less than their male employees, would not you agree?

     2. Oh, women are going to die if they are denied abortions?  You mean, how Tonya Reaves was going to die if she did not receive an abortion.... Oh, wait....
     There is this thing--you might have heard of it--it is called Modern Medicine.  And it is pretty impressive.  Even if a women needs cancer treatments, studies have confirmed that an abortion is not necessary, and that this Modern Medicine can further the woman's health AND her unborn baby's.  Anyway, there is a big difference between providing necessary medical procedures for the health of a pregnant woman that may or may not inadvertently result in a miscarriage, and intentionally and violently ending the life of an innocent, developing person.  Truth is, abortion causes more health problems than it solves, such as tripling a woman's risk of breast cancer.  While a little known secret to maintaining a long and healthy life is linked to having lots of children.
     Oh, and rape and incest?  Those cases make up less than 1% of all abortions in the United States.  And for those women who have become pregnant from incidents of rape and incest, they say an abortion only adds to the trauma.  Plus, it is considered "cruel and unusual punishment" to sentence the rapist to death, so why should the innocent baby--the product of such a horrendous crime--be subjected to a fate that judges and juries will not subject to the perpetrator of the crime?

     3. Paul Ryan wants to defund Planned Parenthood?  You mean, that billion-dollar corporate fat-cat that pays its CEO over $400,000 a year and makes over $155 million a year doing abortions?  The same corporate fat-cat that never called 911 as a woman was bleeding out on their operating table and waited five hours to send that woman to the emergency room?  The same corporation whose presence, oddly, is disproportionately found in minority neighborhoods?  The same corporation that has overwhelmingly and repeatedly covered up instances of statutory rape, incest, and other abusive relationships?  Yeah, I do not have a problem with that.  And why do Liberals have a problem with it?  Was not Occupy Wall Street all about the "99%'' protesting the tax-payer funding of the "1%"?  Planned Parenthood does not need tax-payer funding.  They will do just fine killing babies and harming women without it. 

     4. Ooohhh nooooo, not my birth control!  Oh, never mind.  I practice NFP.  And you can too!  If there is a War on Women, it is that contraceptives are prescribed to perfectly healthy women for everything from an irregular cycle to acne treatment, despite the dire risks involved with ALL forms of contraceptives.  The Pill is a Group 1 Carcinogen that can also cause blood clots, heart attack, stroke, and has resulted in the deaths of thousands of women worldwide. And The Pill is not only harming women, but the environment as well.  The synthetic hormones that make up The Pill are not biodegradable and remain in a woman's urine, making its way to our water supply, and causing deformities and sterility in fish and other aquatic species--and may be affecting us in similar ways.  Also, for each year a woman is on The Pill, her cervix ages an additional year.  That means that a 23-year-old woman who has been on The Pill since she was 16 has the cervix of a 30-year-old woman.  And if a woman is to come off of The Pill, it can take up to two years for all those cancer-causing synthetic hormones to exit the woman's body.
     Meanwhile, The Shot, while also having similar risks as The Pill, also increases a woman's risk for breast cancer.  And IUDs can cause tumors, sterility, ectopic pregnancies, and various types of cancers.
     But Paul Ryan is probably mostly concerned with the abortifacient nature of "some forms of birth control."  "Some forms of birth control" do not actually prevent conception, but rather just make the uterus inhospitable for the implantation of a new life, thus resulting in an abortion.
     Women are pumping their bodies full of these dangerous, cancer-causing, non-biodegradable synthetic hormones or wearing foreign devices inside of them for months at a time, all to "control" their fertility.  But it does not have to be this way.  Perfectly healthy women do not have to put their health and their lives at risk just to avoid a pregnancy.  A woman is only fertile for about 96 hours a month, so why is your doctor suggesting you take The Pill every day, have a shot of concentrated, extra-strength hormones, or have an IUD implanted?  THAT is a War on Women, my friends.  It is insulting to our dignity to treat our fertility like a disease and it is insulting to our intelligence to suggest that we cannot "control" our fertility naturally.  Our bodies naturally tell us when we are fertile and when we are not, and we have the ability to read those signs in order to avoid conduct that might result in a pregnancy--and it is all based on biology and scientific knowledge.  All women deserve to know their bodies and TRULY take control of their fertility, while living in harmony with nature.  And with that, I conclude my tangent on NFP.

     5. Can't have kids naturally?  Too bad.  Yup.  That is exactly right.  Children are a privilege, not a right.  And again, the health and ethical concerns of IVF are staggering.  The procedure to extract donor eggs can result in hormone overdose, leave a woman damaged for life, and unable to have her own children naturally; and this procedure is all too often performed without fully informing the young egg donors of the risks involved.  And surrogacy in and of itself is utilitarianism at its finest.  It reduces a person to a commodity to be used at the expense of a wealthy person or couple.  IVF also leads to the destruction of human life, either through the immediate discarding of unused embryos or the unsuccessful stem cell research upon them.  And that is not all.  IVF children are more likely to have developmental disorders and terminal illnesses, while also having, like, 150 half-siblings.  No big deal.
     And, of course, that is only half of it.  IVF takes all of the LOVE out of having children and reduces the sexual act to a science project, while also defiling the exclusivity of the marital act by bringing a third person (the surrogate, egg or sperm donor) into the picture.  The human dignity of all persons demand better than that.
     Can't have kids naturally? Adopt.