 |
Looking for clues On Second Thought, We'll Think Some MoreBy Rick Horowitz Let's say it wasn't a sniper. Let's say that instead of some cold-blooded guy with a high-powered rifle and a telescopic sight spreading terror across the entire Washington area, it was some equally cold-blooded guy with an oversized sedan and a murderous foot on the gas pedal. Instead of a sniper, let's say it was a driver -- a hit-and-run driver -- deliberately running down innocent pedestrians, and then roaring off to strike again. Now let's say the police are desperate to find the guy before he finds another victim. And let's say that the last time he struck, there was a witness -- a woman who got a glimpse of the car as it sped away. It was a blue car, she tells the police -- a big blue car. That's helpful, but it's not much to go on; if only there were some other details that could narrow the search... So now let's say that there's another witness, and this other witness didn't just see the car taking off, but managed to write down most of its license plate -- the state it's from, and five or six of the numbers. Now the police are in business; they can run those numbers through their computers and come up with a relative handful of -- Not so fast. Instead of what we just said -- it's our story, we can tell it however we want, right? -- let's say that yes, there's a hit-and-run killer, and yes, there are witnesses to the latest killing, but no, there was nobody who saw the license plate. Or better yet, there are no license plates -- not on the big blue car, and not on any car. (Or any other vehicle, for that matter.) That's because there's an organization -- let's call it the National Roadster Association -- and this organization is dead-set against having license plates on cars. License plates would violate the car owners' privacy, this organization insists, and besides, once the government starts keeping track of things, it can just barge in and confiscate the cars anytime it wants. You see where we're going with this, yes? So let's dump our imaginary hit-and-run driver, and go back to our real-life sniper. Let's talk about "ballistic fingerprinting," which might have helped the police track him down. And let's talk about the Bush administration, which has been running for cover on the whole issue, zigzagging its way across the White House briefing room. You'd think that if every gun leaves a unique fingerprint on every bullet it fires, which it apparently does, and that if law enforcement types could compare the markings on bullets found at a crime scene with those unique fingerprints collected in a database, which apparently they could do with a high degree of success (if only they had the data) -- well, you'd think this would be a good thing, crime-solving-wise. The National Rifle Association begs to differ. And so does Ari Fleischer. Or at least, he did. The president's press secretary spent a good chunk of last Tuesday shooting rhetorical holes into the very idea of ballistic fingerprinting. "Experts," he said, had raised questions about its accuracy, about its reliability. Then there were the privacy concerns of gun owners. "The president," he declared, "does believe in the right of law-abiding citizens to own weapons." Which wasn't the question, though it did make for a nice sound bite. The president, it turns out, also believes -- or at least his political advisers do -- in keeping Republican candidates out of the cross hairs come November 5th. Sticking close to the NRA position has its advantages, but attracting worried suburbanites -- those crucial swing voters who'd rather not get blown away in a parking lot or a gas station -- isn't one of them. So Fleischer's negativity was shoved aside, at least for the moment, for some damage control. And by Tuesday evening, the administration was pleased to announce that White House domestic policy officials had already met with staffers from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which had recently studied ballistic fingerprinting and strongly supported the idea. And what the White House wanted now -- to deal with this crisis, to calm these fears -- was: another study. To be completed...whenever. But certainly after Election Day. Feeling better? Posted 10/17/02.
Make "Rick's" your place for award-winning commentary twice every week!
|
  |
Rick Horowitz
