Harassment Citation
The investigating detective in my Eliza Furnace case called to let me know that Codename P and his lawyer came to the Zone 4 station to receive a summary citation for the charge of harassment. It was, unfortunately, the best that could be done for in all the instances of grease and toothpaste under the door handles occurring over the past year, I was the only one to file official reports with the police. And though the reports were filed as Malicious Mischief, because no significant damage was done to my vehicle, the most severe charge that could be levied is harassment.
I am told that a court date will be set, likely in a month or so. I don't see much point to it though. Codename P told the detective that he "wouldn't do it anymore" which strikes me as an admission of guilt. For summary offenses, much like traffic violations, if he simply sends in his check for the fine, that could well be the end of it. There hardly seems any need to enter a courtroom.
I would very much like to have seen that. To stand before a judge and have him asked why the hell he would do such a thing? What did he hope to accomplish?
The court date may yet occur but I suspect Codename P's lawyer will do all the talking, simply admit guilt, write the check and get his client the hell out of there.
And while justice has been served, the victory seems somewhat hollow. And just as the year before all this when he was telling people he would have them towed and, when confronted, said "he wouldn't do it anymore," will he simply change his tactics? A year from now will he forget the minor price he had to pay and choose another tactic?
The wheels of justice turn. And turn again.
1 comment:
Why, indeed.
The speculation is that, as the owner of the lot next door he is somewhat disgruntled that people can park in the city owned lot for free. If he owned the lot he could charge people to part there, as he does at other lots that he owns. So, in vandalizing the cars of commuters he will cause them to park somewhere else. In this he could then claim to the city that the lot was under-utilized and thus should be his to charge to park there. Or else, the people driven off by vandalism in this unattended city lot would choose to pay to park in one of his lots for the added security of having an attendant.
Of course, this is rampant speculation. The logic of the above reasoning is shaky at best as commuters make up a very small fraction of lot users. Their parking somewhere else would not significantly affect lot usage. And people commuting by bike are trying to save money by commuting part way and parking in a free lot. They wouldn't pick up and park in a pay lot, they would simply find a more secure free place to park.
Because the logic I so difficult to justify, I am tendant towards the theory that Codename P is merely a vindictive bastard. I think that he believes that the lot should have been his and "those damn bicyclists" took it from him and commuters are getting hid out of revenge and the simple frequency of their parking there on a regular basis.
Again, pure speculation. We may never know what bizare justification he used to rationalize his criminal behavior. My only hope is that the judge will ask him, "What the hell were you thinking?"
Post a Comment