Woman Injured on a CTA Bus

I boarded the #22, Clark Street bus this morning on my way to work. A woman with a large suitcase boarded right behind me. The bus took off, just as I was in the process of sitting down a few rows behind the handicapped section. As he accelerated, the driver made a sudden move to the left, to pull out into traffic.

I would not characterize the driving as particularly reckless. I was actually pretty typical. Of course, some people are more vulnerable and prone to injury than others. For that reason, it might have been better if he had not been in such a hurry.

Just as I had turned around to take my seat, I saw the woman collapse onto one of the sideways facing seats, and lose control of her suitcase, which was on wheels. Another passenger and I secured the suitcase, and moved it out of the way. Initially, the runaway suitcase appeared to be the most serious problem.

The driver stopped the bus momentarily, due to the commotion. But it looked like he was thinking about taking off again. I saw that the woman appeared to be in pain, and I told the driver, “We've got somebody hurt back here.”

The driver didn't bother to get out of his seat, and see what the problem was. Instead, he asked me what had happened. I told him the woman apparently got hit by her suitcase, after losing control of it while he was taking off.

Rather than get out of his seat to see if the woman needed help, he just sat there with a worried look on his face. It was obvious that he was concerned about getting blamed for what happened, instead of just getting this woman some help.

I heard another passenger say something about the woman having dislocated her knee. Also, the victim explained that she had twisted her leg after losing her footing. So apparently, the suitcase was incidental to the problem. I asked the victim, “Do you just need a moment, or do you need an ambulance?” She said she needed an ambulance, and I immediately relayed that to the driver.

The driver was keying something into a device that resembled an ipad. I assumed he was summoning help. After about 20 seconds, he appeared to be finished, and I asked him if he had an ambulance on the way. He replied, “I guess I could call one.”

So I whipped out my cell phone, and announced that I was calling 911 myself. Another passenger said, “You don't need to do that. The driver will call for help.” I ignored him, and proceeded to call 911, and gave the dispatcher all the necessary information.

After the driver had apparently finished with his own call, he walked back to chat with the victim. She explained to him that she had dislocated her knee several times in the past. The driver was very sympathetic, and seemed pleased that the conversation was turning in this direction. It occurred to me that this remark may have just reduced her settlement by several thousand dollars. But that was really none of my business. People do need to learn when to keep their mouths shut.

As for the driver, he had obviously not been trained to deal with emergencies. I'm sure someone told him what to do in such situations. But you need to train people, not tell them. There is a difference. In an emergency, people tend to forget everything they've been told.

As it became apparent that the bus would not be leaving anytime soon, everyone in the rear of the bus started heading for the front door. I was concerned that someone might aggravate the woman's injury, by inadvertently brushing up against her on the way out. So I blocked the isle, and told everyone to exit through the rear door. They all did, except for one woman who remained behind until everyone else was off, and then managed to slip past me and exit through the front door.

As I saw the fire truck pull up, I wrote my name and contact information on a notepad, and handed it to the woman. I'd have given it to the driver as well, had he thought to ask for it. Then I hopped aboard the next bus, which was just pulling up behind us, and texted my employer, to let him know I might be delayed. Actually, I managed to make it to work on time anyway.

Special Prosecutor

Since the grand jury refused to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown, a number of other cases have come to light. Rather than comment on each of them, let me say that I do see a few problems.

For starters, there is such a thing as white privilege. A white man who has had to struggle for what little he has might have a problem with the concept, but it is a valid one nonetheless. However difficult a man's life might be, there are challenges that are experienced uniquely by women. This is no different.

I think people sometimes get caught up in a competition to see who gets to be seen as life's greatest victims. A necessary part of this competition is to minimize the significance of all obstacles other than one's own. A black person who fails to recognize the victimization of white people is doing essentially the same thing.

In each of these cases, where a black person was killed by a white police officer, we might ask what actually happened, to what extent the deceased was to blame for what happened to him, to what extent race played a role, and whether the officer committed murder, displayed incompetence, of simply did what had to be done.

Though I do have my own opinion about each of these cases, I have concluded that expressing what I continue to be the correct viewpoint, with no aim other than to show everyone who sees things differently than I do that they are wrong, serves no legitimate purpose. I have my viewpoint, and you have yours. Let's leave it at that.

Regardless of how one might judge a particular case, I think most of us can agree that there is something very wrong with a police officer being prosecuted by a prosecutor who routinely works in partnership with the police. The well intentioned prosecutor can turn a case over to a special prosecutor, to avoid any appearance of impropriety. But that option does nothing to restrain a prosecutor from deliberately throwing a case. We needn't agree that this has ever happened. Let's address it, because it could happen.

I am of the opinion that electing prosecutors serves no legitimate purpose. Theoretically, this is supposed to enable a prosecutor to pursue politically divisive cases, without having to worry about the possibility of antagonizing his superiors. But because prosecutors routinely work in partnership with the police, they are understandably reluctant to antagonize them. I suspect the election of prosecutors also increases the incidence of wrongful convictions, due to the pressure prosecutors are under to get convictions.

While I believe most cases should be prosecuted by a prosecutor who has been appointed by the local executive, I favor the creation of an Office of the Special Prosecutor, who would be elected, and whose job it is to prosecute cases which, in his judgment, might otherwise constitute a conflict of interests. I would like to see this done in every jurisdiction, from the county to the federal level.

Will this result in justice in every case? Of course not. It is unlikely that we will ever agree, as to what justice would even look like. But I do believe it offers us a better way of pursuing cases than we have now.

The greatest objection I see might be raised by those who would point to the shameful impeachment of President Clinton, with the help of a special prosecutor. The practice of sicking a special prosecutor on someone gives too little consideration to the possibility that a given case ought not to be pursued. The special prosecutor I'm talking about is an elected official, who takes it upon himself to prosecute a case or not, as he sees fit.