Please see my post yesterday explaining how a failed update to the much-heralded Snow Leopard OS X left me macless.

Last night, after the Apple Store wiped my brand-new hard drive, I went home and followed their instructions for installing SL again and restoring from my Time Machine backup. The SL install worked; the TM restore failed because the Snow Leopard installer does not allow you to specify WHICH TM backup you want to restore from!

That’s right: SL automatically grabs the most recent backup — which in this case was a backup of the lobotomized virgin system captured after my first SL install.

Tom worked hard for several hours last night via iChat screen share to try to manually restore the correct TM backup. Below are his notes

Right now I’m en route to the Apple Store. I plan to be there when they open and stay there until they fix this. I’ll be updating on this blog and via Twitter” throughout the day.

…BTW, I’m having to run all these errands at a time when my orthopedist has cautioned me to walk as little as possible. I had knee surgery Aug. 13 to repair a torn ACL. I have a leg brace for getting around during recovery, but walking too much now impairs my recovery. So managing this Apple ordeal is putting my physical well being at risk. No exaggeration.

Anyway, here’s Tom’s account of what happened with my mac last night and what I’m trying to achieve today….

This has been an unmitigated disaster.

First problem: HD failure during install of Snow Leopard.

Apple installed a new hard drive and Snow Leopard.

Amy went home, and tried to restore her data and apps from Time Machine. That restore failed. However, instead of choosing “restore from time machine,” when Snow Leopard launched for the first time, she chose “do not transfer my information at this time.” She then ran Time Machine restore from within Snow Leopard.

Second problem: Time Machine did not restore everything to ‘/’, it restored to a directory “/Macintosh HD”

Amy returned to Apple store. They did a clean wipe, and upon returning home she chose “restore from time machine.”

This worked except for one problem: Time machine had been running during the previous install and restore. As a result, the last backup it had on hand was the “virgin” install from the previous day. None of her applications or data and different user account name.

Since the username Amy chose for the new account on the laptop is not the same as the username in the Time Machine backups, Time Machine did not allow her access to the old backups. It only allowed access two the two snapshots that were created previously.

We created a second user account of the same name as the one on the Time Machine backup to see if it would allow access. It did not.

At this point, the only option is to manually restore everything using sudo and command line copying from the Time Machine backup to the laptop.

The only problem is that I have restored applications that are not going to run with Snow Leopard (i.e. we can not now get iChat to work so I can continue screen sharing). Since iChat disconnected my screen sharing session last night, I was unable to finish resetting file permissions for her documents (chown -R amygahran:staff ~/)

What we want:

1 Forget Snow Leopard. Install virgin Mac OS X from original install CDs.

2. Do a restore from Time Machine. However, you’re going to have a problem here. Upon booting, and choosing “restore from Time Machine,” Time Machine will not give you access to anything older than the more recent backup. That backup was performed under Snow Leopard of the virgin system. It is not of the applications and documents we need.

We want the machine back the way it was before this nightmare began.

According to the Colorado Daily:

“[The runner] agreed Thursday to plead guilty to disorderly conduct, a petty offense. She agreed to undergo six months of unsupervised probation, eight hours of community service and pay $27 in court fees. She will not be required to register as a sex offender, and her record will be cleared if she doesn’t commit any crimes for at least six months.”

Also, Colorado Daily reported that according to prosecutor David Chavel:

“The agreement with [this defendant] would likely represent the same offer extended to all of the accused Halloween streakers. However, he said it would be ‘up to each individual’ to accept such an offer.”

“All of the cases are being handled separately, Chavel said, because some of the runners have attorneys and others do not. He said the remaining cases involving the naked runners are in negotiations with the Boulder District Attorney’s Office.”

What got me, though, was this statement from the Boulder Police Department quoted at the end of the Colorado Daily story. (Note: This statement does not appear to be on the Boulder Police Dept. web site, I’ll request a copy.)

“The decision was made by the District Attorney’s Office, which consulted with the department. Chief Mark Beckner believes this is an appropriate disposition. As for future violations, Boulder officers will continue to issue citations or make arrests based on the law as it is written. It is — and will remain — the province of the District Attorney’s Office to determine whether other charges are possible.”

…Correct me if I’m wrong, but this statement appears to mean that the Boulder cops intend to continue issuing indecent exposure citations to streakers — despite the fact that the DA’s office does not appear to consider that charge appropriate. Which means the cops can (and probably will) continue to bully and intimidate citizens through inappropriate charges — and leave it up to the DA and the courts to spend our resources to bring those charges back to reality.

There’s a much deeper issue at stake here beyond these cases, and it’s why I keep revisiting this story: Is this the kind of law enforcement we want to allow in Boulder?…

Is it really OK for our public servants to use their authority in this way?

Face it: This is Boulder. People WILL keep streaking here. It’s part of the local culture of celebration — and many (perhaps most) Boulderites consider it harmless fun. So this issue WILL come up again.

…I’m not saying that we need to legalize streaking (celebratory or otherwise). People who streak in Boulder are taking a risk by breaking the law. But I do think that when enforcing the law, our police should recognize the difference between an offbeat celebration and a sexual assault. As I wrote earlier, if the cops were truly concerned about public safety at Naked Pumpkin Run, they could have cited runners for disorderly conduct — a charge the DA’s office evidently finds appropriate.

If our community does not find current police policy for busting streakers acceptable, then what can we do to change it? Specifically, what pressure could citizens or city council exert to curb cops’ ability to misuse the law as a tool of intimidation? Or could/should we lobby for changes to the current state sex offender registration law that would prevent this kind of absurdity?

Thoughts? What kinds of action might make sense?

I’ll continue to follow up on this case as my time allows. I expect that all of these cases will be plea bargained to disorderly conduct or a similar charge, or else dismissed. But we’ll see what actually happens.

To a layperson like me, this arraignment hearing was remarkably short and opaque. But I did get more info from a defense attorney and clerk from the District Attorney’s office. Here’s where things are at with this case, so far as I understand…

Six of the 12 ticketed runners are represented by Boulder defense attorney Philip Clark. It’s unclear yet whether the other six runners arraigned today have legal counsel. However, a representative of the DA’s office is meeting with each of them today, ostensibly to discuss plea bargain options. Those discussions are private, and Clark said a public announcement in court on this case today was extremely unlikely.

Clark told me that he is trying to arrange a plea bargain for his clients, since “We believe that the indecent exposure charge is inappropriate.”

…Which is exactly the point. As I reported earlier, in Colorado an indecent exposure conviction means mandatory sex offender registration. This can seriously and perhaps permanently wreck people’s lives, careers, and finances — which seems a disproportionate punishment for people who participated in a longstanding and fun (although unofficial) annual event that involved nonsexual public nudity.

I attended the 2008 Naked Pumpkin Run as a bystander, and I witnessed the runners being ticketed by cops. Statements by Boulder police chief Mark Beckner reported in the Daily Camera indicated the police intended to use this event to posture:

“We wanted to do something before (the event) got out of hand,” said Police Chief Mark Beckner. “This was a good opportunity to enforce the law.”

As I reported earlier, the Boulder police could have issued citations for disorderly conduct. This would have been an option to “enforce the law” and publicly posture without causing disproportionate harm.

HOW TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS CASE

Before I left the courthouse, I spoke to a clerk for the Boulder County DA’s office, and she gave me guidance on how to follow up on this. She said that Deputy DA David Cheval is handling these cases for the DA’s office. Here are his duties in this capacity. Apparently concerned citizens are welcome to contact Cheval on this case — but Deputy DAs have heavy workload, and may not have time to respond to citizen requests.

Boulder County District Attorney: 303-441-3700, e-mail contact form

The clerk suggested that a more efficient way to gather information on the progress of this case would be to connect with a victim advocate in the DA’s office. Carolyn French is the director of victim services for the DA’s office. I’ll be following up with her.

I’ll post more when I learn more.

If you are involved with this case or have further information or context, please post in the comments below. Please state your name or connection to the case, or your source of information — with links, if possible.

Public documents are the crux of this corruption story — specifically, “e-mails and internal documents from Johnson & Johnson made public in a court filing.”

The article included lots of detailed background on this complex case. However, it failed to supply or link to the source documents — or even cite the case (court, case name, docket number) in a way that would allow interested people to find the documents on their own.

I see this a lot, and it confounds me. Here, the New York Times evidently believes its readers are savvy enough to understand the risks of commercial interests undermining scientific research and — in this case — possibly putting kids’ physical and mental health at risk.

…But they expect me to just take their word about what those documents said? They don’t think I’d care to see the original context in which the statements they quoted were made? They don’t even think I might want to be able to look up the documents, or follow the case?

Obviously, the New York Times has these documents. Also, these documents are public information — so you don’t have to worry about breaking copyright or confidentiality. So why didn’t the Times simply present them?…

Assuming these documents are available online, the Times could have linked to them, either from the story or in a sidebar. If not, they could scan the most relevant ones and post them as downloadable PDFs. Or at the very least, they could cite the court case well enough to facilitate independent follow-up.

But no. The article doesn’t even say which court is hearing this case.

Well, screw that!

If you’re interested in this case (which involves Johnson & Johnson, Massachusetts General Hospital, the famed child psychiatrist Joseph Biederman and the controversial antipsychotic drug Risperdal often prescribed for kids diagnosed with bipolar disorder), here are the documents. I got that MS Word file, which contains scans of the released documents, from the blog Pharmalot (run by journalist Ed Silverman).

Took me five seconds in Google to find that. Still, why did the NY Times make me turn elsewhere?

Unfortunately, those docs don’t indicate the court case information in any way that’s easily evident to a layperson like me. So I Googled around and quickly found the class action suit. The complaint document for the suit indicates the case was filed in the US District Court of NJ as two civil actions: 3:06-cv-03044-FLW-JJH, and 3:07-cv-02224-FLW-JJH.

WHY BOTHER?

Is this more detail than most people would want? Probably. But providing that information and making those links inobtrusively demonstrates a willingness not just to inform, but to empower.

Providing options for action is a service. It demonstrates awareness and respect for the agency of readers, many of whom aren’t nearly as passive as they once were assumed to be. And it doesn’t have to clutter the story for more casual readers.

It’s the kind of touch that makes an impression. In short: it’s a brand-builder.

Right now, mainstream news organizations are losing their audiences. Little touches like this can make a news brand stand out and earn continued respect based on today’s criteria. So if you already have source information, why not share it?

Again, it confounds me why I don’t see more mainstream news orgs routinely requiring source links. This should not be optional.

I’d have noted my consternation directly to the NY Times but — surprise — they don’t allow comments on their site. I have e-mailed Harris via the Times site to request his input. Hopefully he’ll respond in a comment here or via e-mail.

This is why, as I mentioned earlier, I’ve been tracking the legal process related to the 12 indecent exposure citations which Boulder police issued to participants in the 10th annual Naked Pumpkin Run late on Halloween night — a jubilant, silly, nonsexual event enjoyed each year by crowds of locals on Boulder’s Pearl St. Mall. If convicted on this charge, all 12 defendants would be required to register as sex offenders. (Under Colorado law, judges appear to have no room to waive that requirement for adults.)

I saw today that the Daily Camera added court date information to its Nov. 4 story about the the upcoming hearings in these cases:

“Because indecent exposure is a state violation, the cases will be heard in Boulder County Court, not the city’s municipal court. Ten of those cited have a Dec. 17 court date. The other two have a Jan. 12 date.”

As I noted earlier, I’ve been calling the local courts to try to find out exactly when and where these hearings will be held. It was pretty confusing, because neither the county nor the municipal court so far (even as of today) has any record of these cases. Then a woman at the county court suggested that maybe the police hadn’t yet sent the tickets to the courts.

Indeed, that’s the case here. I just called the Boulder police, and confirmed that as of today the police have not sent the tickets to the court. However, I did verify that these cases will be heard in county court, on Dec. 17 and Jan. 12.

The hearings will happen at the Justice Center, 6th & Canyon, Boulder. (Map)

I’m encouraging people interested in justice for these defendants to please attend and observe these hearings.

Here’s what to do…

1. Call the Boulder County court (303-441-3750) a day or two in advance. Check on which court room and time has been assigned for these hearings.
2. Arrive at the courthouse at lease 30-45 minutes early. You’ll have to go through a metal detector and bag search, and sign in. Bring ID in case you need it.
3. Do wear clothes! (Hey, in this case, it bears mentioning, hehehe….) Use common sense when choosing attire, and remember that your appearance may reflect on the defendants.
4. Do take notes, and pay attention. Turn off your cell phone, take out your earbuds, keep your eyes open and mouth closed, and write down what happens. Make it very obvious that you are very interested in these proceedings. Watch especially for plea bargains and motions to dismiss.
5. Protests or outbursts are not appropriate in the courtroom. Protest is an important tool for raising awareness and an exercise of free speech. If you want to protest, I recommend doing that outside the courtroom. Inside, it won’t help, and it can hurt. Simply being a calm, civil observer in the courtroom is an important civic role — one that judges, lawyers, and cops are more likely to notice and less likely to discount.

I plan to attend and blog both hearings. If you’re going, please look for me, and say hi. I’ll want company.

Bounds also added to her story a brief quote from Boulder police chief Mark Beckner:

“Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner said indecent exposure was the charge that best fit the violation. ‘We don’t set the law,’ he said. ‘As police officers, we enforce it. We don’t get into the sentencing part of it.”

It doesn’t look like the Camera saw fit to push back against Beckner’s facile claim, which is unfortunate. Because the Boulder police did have another option here. They could have chosen to cite the streakers instead under Colorado statute 18-9-106. Disorderly conduct.…

This law begins:

“(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly: (a) Makes a coarse and obviously offensive utterance, gesture, or display in a public place and the utterance, gesture, or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace…”

Now, if the Boulder police want to consider a mass streaking event to be a “coarse and obviously offensive display in a public place,” so be it. It sure wouldn’t be fun to be busted for that, but it might be appropriate.

What’s inappropriate, unjust, and disproportionate is for public servants to hand out citations that, if upheld by a judge, would result in mandatory sex offender registration that wrecks people’s lives permanently — when the offense was not at all sexual in nature!

Again, let’s remember the context here:

• This was the 10th annual Naked Pumpkin Run. This unofficial event enjoys widespread community support and tolerance, as evidenced by the large number of people who were present on the Pearl St. Mall last Friday specifically to enjoy it, and by the large number of runners. Also, in prior years Boulder police had chosen to confine their enforcement actions mainly to crowd management. (Beckner claims this was due to lack of staff in prior years — a questionable and verifiable contention.)
• This law enforcement action put posturing ahead of public safety. Beckner’s intent to position the Boulder police force as looking busy and tough is indicated by his own remarks to the Daily Camera, and to blogger David Thielen. Furthermore, as I told the Camera yesterday and blogged earlier, the jubilant mood of the Halloween crowd swiftly turned negative and potentially dangerous only when people saw the cops citing the streakers. By choosing this course, it’s fair to say that the cops actually manufactured a potentially dangerous situation.
• Streaking pales in comparison to other recent violent crimes in Boulder. As I also wrote earlier, on the very same day as — and only about a half mile from — the site of the Naked Pumpkin Run busts there were two remarkably violent crimes: a gang rape and a racially motivated beating. (No arrests in either case, yet.) These crimes were very much on the minds of people on Pearl St. to watch the Naked Pumpkin Run — I overheard many people discussing their concerns about them. In that context, choosing to crack down on streakers who enjoyed ample public support (and previous tacit police tolerance) shows remarkably bad judgment and timing.

Again, I’m not saying that the Boulder police should selectively enforce laws based on public opinion. However, I am saying this: If the cops view the Naked Pumpkin Run as some kind of threat to public safety, they clearly had at least one legal option to bust the streakers in a fair, effective, and appropriate manner.

Deliberately choosing a form of citation that can ruin people’s lives was grossly disproportionate. That’s not law enforcement; that’s bullying. And that’s not what our cops are supposed to do.

Yesterday, after much prodding from local bloggers (including me) and commenters on its site, the Boulder Daily Camera finally reported that the streakers who got busted by Boulder police at the 10th annual Halloween Naked Pumpkin Run will, if convicted, have to register as sex offenders. Today, the paper also published the names and ages of the 12 streakers who were cited for indecent exposure. All of these people are over 18, and thus under current CO law must register as sex offenders if convicted.

No acknowledgement of the community/independent media role in pressing this issue was offered by the Camera.

I just called the Boulder Municipal Court (303-441-1842), which informed me that Boulder County Courts (303-441-3750) are handling these cases. The county court rep I spoke was surprised, since normally misdemeanor citations handed out within Boulder City Limits get processed through the municipal court system. However, he did say that if indeed the county will be handling those cases, they should have more information on Friday. So I’ll call back then and will post an update. I’ll also check back with the municipal court, just in case they gave me incorrect information.

I’m contacting the local courts because I want to learn the dates and locations of arraignment hearings for the busted streakers. As far as I know, the public (including media) can observe these hearings. It’d be here that we’d learn whether these cases are being plea bargained down, whether there are motions for dismissal, and in general the attitudes of the judges, cops, attorneys, and defendants.

Stay tuned…

UPDATE NOV 4. The names of the 12 busted streakers have been published, so I’m following up on this case via local courts…

On Halloween, as I wrote earlier, I went down to Boulder, CO’s Pearl St. pedestrian mall to check out the costumes — which are always spectacular — and to see the annual Naked Pumpkin Run. (Note: that link above goes to my blog post which includes a video containing nudity.) This loosely organized event has a lot of local fans.

The Naked Pumpkin Run is nothing more than that — sometime around 9-10 pm on Halloween, a bunch of people get naked, put jack-o-lanterns on their heads, and run en masse down the Pearl St. Mall. It’s not sexual, violent, dangerous, or threatening. It’s just silly. It’s unique. It’s fun. It’s exuberant. It’s positive and life-affirming.

And: It’s illegal.

Unlike in previous years, the Boulder police were out in force for this event, where they ticketed several runners for indecent exposure. Consequently, several fun-loving local folks may end up suffering life-altering public stigma as registered sex offenders.

No kidding.

The Colorado Daily posted this video of the event, including some footage of the busts:

Need some irony? All this happened less than 24 hours after two remarkably violent assaults, which occurred just a half-mile from the scene of the Naked Pumpkin Run busts.

Here are the details, as best as I’ve been able to gather them so far…

This was my first time at the Naked Pumpkin Run. (I was just watching, not running.) Attendees from prior years told me that so far the Boulder cops had always refrained from doing anything more than crowd management at this event.

But this year, I witnessed somewhere around 12-15 cops detaining and ticketing runners. (It was pretty dark and mobbed, with folks moving around, so I couldn’t get an exact count. But I’m confident with that ballpark figure.)

Yesterday our local paper confirmed that “12 runners were cited for indecent exposure.” I expect that on Monday the Boulder police blotter may offer more info (although the online version of this blotter is generally a summary of incidents, not details or names).

EXTREME LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

These citations could be much more than just a bummer to the folks involved. Under Colorado state law (18-7-302) indecent exposure is a class 1 misdemeanor. But: If these citations are upheld by a judge, the people involved probably would be required to register with the Colorado sex offender registry.

According to CO statute 16-22-103 (5), judges do have leeway to exempt people convicted of indecent exposure from required sex offender registration — but only for minors, which is not the case with the Naked Pumpkin Run. At least, that’s my reading of the statute, tell me what you think:

“(5) (a) Notwithstanding any provision of this article to the contrary, if, pursuant to a motion filed by a person described in this subsection (5) or on its own motion, a court determines that the registration requirement specified in this section would be unfairly punitive and that exempting the person from the registration requirement would not pose a significant risk to the community, the court, upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances, may exempt the person from the registration requirements imposed pursuant to this section if:

“(I) The person was younger than eighteen years of age at the time of the commission of the offense; and

“(II) The person has not been previously charged with unlawful sexual behavior; and

“(III) The offense, as charged in the first petition filed with the court, is a first offense of either misdemeanor unlawful sexual contact, as described in section 18-3-404, C.R.S., or indecent exposure, as described in section 18-7-302, C.R.S.; and… [procedural requirements follow...]“

…Seems to me that those “ands” confine permitted exemptions to minors.

Yes, those charges could (and probably will be) plea bargained down. But still: It looks like that in this case, for the sake of posturing, the Boulder police department was willing to seriously mess with people’s lives. The cops on the scene apparently were directed to issue citations for indecent exposure — not creating a public nuisance or some other charge with less dire consequences.

This consequence seems unnecessarily putative to me. I mean, hundreds (if not more than a thousand) people were gathered on the Pearl St. Mall specifically to celebrate this event. I saw very, very few minors present, all of whom appeared to be accompanied by their parents. Yes, some people were drunk and/or rowdy, and I’m glad that cops were on hand to manage those cases — which they did, capably and professionally. But by and large, the mood of this gathering was jubilant, fun, and friendly. As a woman wandering about the crowd mostly independently, I never felt the least bit endangered, threatened, or scared there.

Believe me: the annual New Year’s Day Mummers Parade in Philadelphia (which I’ve attended several times) is a vastly more menacing and risky crowd scene — often involving many incidents of public nudity that are intended to demean, embarrass, or intimidate innocent bystanders. (Now, THAT could reasonably be considered “indecent exposure.”)

In Boulder, rarely do you see more than 3-4 cops together at a time. Therefore: 12-15 Boulder cops in one place, detaining and ticketing people at nearly 11 pm for nonsexual, nonviolent nudity which the surrounding crowd was enthusiastically cheering (I saw NO ONE who appeared surprised or offended — and I was looking for that!) appears conspicuously disproportionate.

NEARBY, SAME DAY: GANG RAPE AND RACIAL BEATING

As if that’s not enough, there’s the larger context: Didn’t the cops have more important stuff to do that day than bust streakers?

Indeed they did.

Less than 24 hours before the Naked Pumpkin Run, at 12:45 am on Halloween — and just a few blocks away — a 20-year-old woman was gang-raped. Yep, right here in Boulder: gang-raped on the street. Two assailants held her down, while the other two raped her. Just about a half mile away from the scene of the Naked Pumpkin busts!

But wait, there’s more! Also at about the same time as the rape, just over a half mile to the west (and also just over a half mile from the courthouse on the mall), another violent assault occurred — this time, a racially motivated beating. According to the Boulder police:

“A 22-year-old male victim reported that he was assaulted by an unknown suspect who used ethnic slurs. The victim, who is Asian-American, told investigators he was walking down the street with some friends, singing a song from the movie Team America. The victim and his friends were confronted by a group of four men. One of the suspects came up to the victim and began challenging him.

“According to the victim and witnesses, the suspect said something to the effect of, ‘Do you think you are an American?’ and called the victim a ‘Chinaman.’ He punched the victim in the face multiple times. Initial reports were that the suspect pulled a knife, but subsequent interviews lead investigators to believe that the suspect may have referenced a knife but did not show one.”

This map shows how close all these incidents — which occurred on the same day — really are.

View Larger Map

OK, let’s assume the Boulder police department is investigating these violent crimes (including the crime scenes) thoroughly and professionally — and that the Naked Pumpkin busts Halloween night did not draw away any resources from those investigations, or from other normally required local law enforcement activities at that time. So what?…

CONTEXT MATTERS, FOR LOCAL POLICE AND NEWS OUTLETS

Given this context, the key question becomes: Why — when several violent criminals, including a gang of rapists — are on the loose, would Boulder police chief Mark Beckner make a deliberate choice to issue potentially serious and life-altering citations to nonviolent streakers at an annual (although unofficial) celebratory event?

Here’s what Beckner told the Daily Camera about this enforcement decision:

“‘We wanted to do something before (the event) got out of hand,’ said Police Chief Mark Beckner. ‘This was a good opportunity to enforce the law.’

“In past years, police haven’t had the staffing levels to ticket the runners, Beckner said, but this year the Halloween run fell on a Friday when a lot of officers were scheduled to work. Beckner likened streaking to speeding — police can’t catch them all, but they do what they can.”

There’s reason to question Beckner’s claim that “In past years, police haven’t had the staffing levels to ticket the runners.” The Naked Pumpkin Run started in 1998. In its 2007 annual report, the Boulder’s police department reported that it employs 171 officers. The department’s 2006 report and most other annual reports do not quantify the number of Boulder cops. But the 2005 report does mention, “During 2005, the Boulder Police Department was as close to fully staffed as it has been in several years.”

So far, the Camera’s staff coverage of the Naked Pumpkin Run (Oct. 27, Oct. 31 morning and late night, and Nov. 1) has neglected to note that these citations can result in mandatory inclusion in the CO sex offender registry. Same for coverage by the Denver Post and all other local mainstream media I could find. (If you have seen coverage that does mention this potential consequence, please comment below with links or cites.)

However, several comments on those stories have noted this consequence, as have some Camera letters to the editor blog posts. (See the Nov. 2 Letter to the Editor post titled “Overreacting to juvenile streaking,” and this letter from Les Halbek.)

However, local blogger David Thielen did interview chief Beckner before the Naked Pumpkin Run about the Boulder police’s apparently selective strategy on enforcing streaking laws. An excerpt:

“[Chief Beckner and I discussed] the specifics of [Boulder's June 2008] naked bicycle ride, tonight’s Naked Pumpkin Run, and students streaking. [Beckner said that police] did not arrest any of the naked bicycle riders because ‘there were too many.’ At the Pumpkin Run tonight he said if it was just 1 or 2 [runners], then they probably would be arrested. If there were lots then he said it depended on the situation but was not willing to say anyone would be arrested if it was a large group.

“So here’s where it gets interesting. I asked what would happen if 40 or 50 students streaked the football game. And his reply was they would probably only be able to catch and arrest 5 or 6 of them. When I asked why in that case they would arrest 5 or 6 but did not do so for the naked bicycle ride and probably would not for the Naked Pumpkin Run — he said ‘Because they are different.’ Yet when I pressed him for what was different, he was not able to give me anything specific.

“Here’s my theory — the only difference is that in one case it’s students and in the other it’s adults. It’s a double standard, it may even be subconscious. But unless Chief Beckner can give us a clear credible explanation about how they are different and why that difference deserves the different approach, I think we should assume it’s discrimination.

“On a related note, I pointed out that the ‘crime’ of streaking carries with it the possibility of being labeled a sex offender. Yet the police view it as a crime to enforce as resources allow. I asked him if he could think of any other crime where you can be labeled a sex offender, yet the police view it as enforce it only if resources are available. He couldn’t think of any other.”

Pretty telling — and worthy of further examination, I think.

But apparently the Camera staff is aware of the potentially dire legal consequences of streaking in Boulder. This Oct. 25 Camera story on another recent Boulder streaking incident (at an Oct. 24 Boulder High School football game, involving the 17-year-old son of State House Majority Leader Alice Madden ) pointed out:

“The boy faces a class-one misdemeanor charge of indecent exposure, Boulder police Sgt. Pat Wyton said Saturday.

“The charge carries fines ranging from $500 to $5,000 and/or a sentence of six to 18 months in jail.

“Wyton said it’s also possible that a judge would order the teen to register as a sex offender, although that scenario is unlikely because a judge might view the stunt as less serious than other indecent exposure offenses.

“‘It’s a kid running across a field as a prank … I’m sure he’s going to get some kind of referral or restorative justice,’ Wyton said.

Irony, much? Yes, a minor could be exempted from the sex offender registry. But, according to state law, it looks like an adult probably cannot.

WHAT COMES NEXT, AND WHAT CAN YOU DO?

…I’m very sad that my town’s police department chose such an unfortunate time to crack down on a popular, festive, nonviolent, nonsexual longstanding annual event involving public nudity. Whether this decision was made because of that day’s earlier violent assaults, or despite them, I cannot say.

Clearly, chief Beckner’s own remarks indicate that making a point was the point here. The Naked Pumpkin Run citations were clearly not a matter of protecting public safety, as far as I can tell — and I was there. Rather, the point seems to have been to make the Boulder police look busy and tough.

If anything, the officers’ actions on the Pearl St. Mall Halloween night actually exacerbated public safety risks in that situation by inflaming the crowd — which grew quickly and circled closely around the cops and detainees, chanting “Let them go! Let them go!” Indeed, that was the only time that night when I feared violence or panic might erupt.

I’m not blaming the cops who issued the citations. They were doing what they were told, and they have no discretion about legal penalties. And, as far as I could see, they executed their duties professionally.

I hope the judges who consider the Naked Pumpkin Run citations decide to dismiss the charges. This appears to be the only option under current law that would keep the Halloween streakers out of the sex offender registry. Furthermore, Boulder’s law enforcement strategic decision was, I think, irresponsible and cynically motivated. I intend to attend these hearings if I can, to report on what happens. I hope other local bloggers, citizens, and news organizations will do the same.

Of course, dismissing charges against these defendants doesn’t really solve the problem.

This is why I think Colorado residents should petition our state legislators to change Colorado’s sex offender registry law. Our judges should be able to exempt people of any age who are cited for indecent exposure from having to be registered as sex offenders. Also, we might want to lower the minimum fine for indecent exposure in CO to something that would be reasonable in situations like the Naked Pumpkin Run. $500 is pretty steep in that context. The authorities would still have discretion to find up to $5000, the current maximum.

Here’s who to contact in the Colorado legislature:

• HOUSE: Currently, Boulder County’s state representative is Alice Madden (303-866-2348, alice.madden.house@state.co.us. Yes, that’s the very same Alice Madden whose 17-year son was busted earlier this month for streaking at a Boulder High School football game — and since he’s a minor, he could be exempted from the sex offender registry even if convicted. But her term limit is up, so after the Nov. 8 election Madden will be replaced by either Republican Dorothy Marshall, or Democrat Dickey Lee Hullinghorst. Stay tuned, and contact Madden’s successor once she is in office.
• SENATE: Boulder’s state senator (District 16) is Democrat Dick Gibbs (303-866-4873, dan.gibbs.senate@state.co.us. He’s running for re-election against Republican Don Ytterberg. Again, after the Nov. 8 election would be the time to contact our state senator about modifying these laws.

Finally, let’s hope the Boulder police catch the perpetrators of those truly heinous violent Halloween crimes. And let’s hope the victims recover well. And let’s hope that others don’t suffer at the hands of those criminals in the meantime.

What do you think of the Naked Pumpkin Run busts, and their possible legal consequences? Please comment below.

This series is a work in process. I’m counting on Contentious.com readers and others to help me sharpen this discussion so I can present it more formally for the Knight Commission to consider.

So please comment below or e-mail me to share your thoughts and questions. Thanks!

If you want to strengthen communities, it helps to ask: What defines a community, really? Is it mostly a matter of “where” (geography)?

Last week I got into an interesting discussion with some folks at the Knight Foundation and elsewhere about whether “local” is the only (or most important) defining characteristic of a community. This was sparked by an event held last week by the new Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy — an effort to recommend both public and private measures that would help US communities better meet their information needs.

From the time I first heard of this project, I thought it was an excellent idea. It bothers me deeply that many (perhaps most) Americans routinely “tune out” to issues of law, regulation, and government that not only affect them, but also that they can influence — at least to some extent. (I say this fully aware that I often fall into the “democratically tuned out” category on several fronts.)

The problem then becomes, of course, that when citizens don’t participate, their interests are easy to ignore or trample.

Why do so many Americans abdicate their power as citizens in a democracy? It seems to me that many are too quick to “blame the victim,” pointing to widespread apathy, ignorance, or a prevailing sense of helplessness as common democracy cop-outs.

I think there’s a different answer: The way our democracy attempts to engage citizens actively opposes human nature. That is, it just doesn’t mesh well with how human beings function cognitively or emotionally.

Fighting human nature is almost always a losing battle — especially if you want people to participate and cooperate….

Face it: It’s hard to stay motivated about participating in democracy when your attempts usually leave you feeling like you’ve been bashing your head against cloudy plexiglass, struggling to read documents written in Latin. In 5-point type. In bad lighting. With the pages lacking any discernible order or context. And you only have time to read a tiny fraction of them.

…I’m not kidding. As a journalist, I’ve covered energy and environmental policy at the federal, state, and local levels. So I’m intimately familiar with such civic info-inspired headaches. I’ve wrestled with obtuse legislative information systems. I’ve probably sacrificed years of my life to decoding cryptic legalese and bureaucratese, to learning the dialects and idiosyncratic processes of various governmental bodies, and to collating conflicting or seemingly unrelated information from disparate sources. I’ve sat through many, many mind-numbing public hearings and meetings. And I’ve interviewed public officials and employees who treat transparency primarily as a threat to their fiefdoms.

I expect would-be newcomers to the democratic political process (people who want to initiate ballot initiatives, or run for office) face even steeper learning and procedural hurdles.

My experience is why I suspect that apathy, ignorance, and helplessness are probably not root causes of US civic inaction. Rather, these inhibiting emotions are totally natural effects that occur when human beings repeatedly encounter overwhelming obstacles to participation.

As things currently stand, simply finding and staying informed about relevant issues brewing at all levels of government — as well as understanding the processes of, and forces at work in, a huge multilevel representative democracy — is damn hard work! I don’t expect it to be effortless, but it’s certainly much, much harder than it needs to be. Or should be. Or could be.

We could do much better by developing civic information systems that work with human nature — our abilities, our constraints, our preferences, how we relate to each other, and how our brains work.

In the rest of this series, I’ll sketch out some ways we might achieve this goal.

(NEXT: Part 2, Beyond Government…)

(Thanks to Michael Kirk for the tip.)