Note: this post was orginally entered on the old Post-Nuke version of the site. For the purpose of linking it and tracking traffic, I have copied it verbatim to the WP side, and given it the same date/time stamp. Original entry here.

Thank you all for keeping an eye out to see if I was still alive! I most definately am, but it’s been a busy time at work and home, so blogging ended up o­n the back burner for a couple of weeks. I should be around more in the near future, and I’ve got tons of material to work with, Berg, Abu Gharib, the elections– and a few things of local note. This is, after all, HOUblog. If I can just find the time to put it o­n paper! Errrrrr, electrons?

Kicking off my return is an actual news story, rather than commentary, though I’ve filed it as such. This has gone totally overlooked by all the local media, rather unsurprisingly. It neither makes Mayor White look good, nor President Bush look bad. It definately makes someone look bad, and I’m not going to mince words. I apologize for the lack of details; my ability to be a snoop has to be limited to keep this site “under the radar” for a while longer.

I should begin the actual post by telling you that I’m having hot dogs for lunch today. They’re not bad dogs, but I’m not having them because I want to taste chili and cheese o­n my breath all afternoon. It’s because the DA’s office, and the City Legal Department are full of people who should be tarred and feathered for ***** idiocy. A few weeks ago, a fellow employee of mine was arrested, while doing his job, based o­n the complaint of someone who obviously and admittedly broke the law.

In a comedy of Kafka-esque proportions, a City of Houston meter reader was arrested and jailed; the DA’s office knows it’s bogus but won’t drop the charges; the Legal Department knows it’s bogus but won’t defend him.

So what are the facts of the case?

Last month, Dat Nguyen of Utility Customer Service, Public Works and Engineering, City of Houston, was out o­n a Saturday reading meters. He is a seven-year veteran of the department, but speaks poor English. He was in uniform, and driving a marked city vehicle. He arrived at o­ne home he was to read, got out of the truck, and opened the meter box. Bear in mind there is no fence around the property, and the meter is located in the front yard, near the road. At this point, the homeowner’s wife (whom UCS will not identify, although it’s certainly a matter of public record), opens her front door. Out comes running her dog (only described as “small�), barking up a storm.

Naturally, at this point, the narratives diverge.

According to Mr. Nguyen, he looked up, noted the dog’s presence, and that the wife went back inside, leaving the dog out. He judged the dog wasn’t a threat and went back to work.

According to Mr.s. Homeowner, she didn’t go back inside.

According to both parties, the dog then yelped; per Mr. Nguyen, he looked back up and the dog was ten feet away and limping. According to Mrs. Homeowner (first version), Dat hit the dog with his “hook,� which is a hinged piece of metal about a foot long. Basically, they’re very similar to tongs for grilling outdoors.

Mr. Nguyen denied he hit the dog. An argument ensued, hampered by Mr. Nguyen’s poor English. Since arguing with customers is generally a bad idea, Mr. Nguyen decided discretion was better than winning, so he returned to his truck and left, or rather he tried to. Mr. Homeowner finally enters the fray, running out to stand in front of the truck and yelling that he’d called the cops and Mr. Nguyen would be arrested. Faced with the need to make hazardous driving choices to avoid Mr. Homeowner, he chose to wait.

A policeman shows. After listening to both parties, he doesn’t know what to do. Mrs. Homeowner now says her dog was hit three times. He calls for a supervisor, and the DA’s office. Note, it’s Saturday morning. No hotshot is going to be sitting by the phone; it’s going to be whatever yahoo got the short straw. Lawyer Yahoo says, “arrest that man!� Riiiiiiiight. A police supervisor now reaches the scene, and goes “that just ain’t right,� and contacts the DA’s office again. After some discussion, it’s realized that:

a) there was no fence, and the dog wasn’t leashed.

b) the City requires dogs to be o­n a leash, restrained, or inside a fence at all times,

c) Mr. and Mrs. Homeowner have violated the law,

d) Mr. Nguyen has the right to defend himself from an animal attack.

Therefore, it’s simple: If Mr. Nguyen states he hit the dog in self defense because he was afraid of it, there’s no problem. o­nly Mr. Nguyen is adamant he did NOT hit the dog.

Now if he admits he hit the dog, even to get off the hook, the cops may be happy, but there’s still a Catch-22 Mr. & Mrs. Homeowner can call the department screaming “He hit my dog, he even admitted it!� And his supervisor isn’t going to be thrilled to get that call. Further, they could then sue the city for any vet’s bills and use that statement and the police report as evidence.

So whether he hit the dog in self-defense or not, Nguyen’s o­nly option is to say he didn’t do it. Problem is, the o­nly allowable “in the field defense� is to strike in self-defense. Otherwise the complaint has to be treated as valid.

In other words, Mr. Nguyen was arrested and hauled to jail, because he said he didn’t hit the dog.

All because Mrs. Homeowner broke the law by letting her dog out without a leash. So then, his supervisors, all City employees, had to take up a collection to pay for his bail out of their own pockets! No reimbursement. Now Dat’s charged with animal cruelty; the DA’s office will not throw out the charges, morale among meter readers is understandably shattered; and the city’s Legal Department will not defend him because it’s a criminal charge! This is where it goes off the deep end—if he had hit the dog or just said he did, they would be defending his actions, regardless of civil or criminal charges, because they have to defend the city. But if it’s just an employee’s ass in the crack, well who cares? They can’t defend him because it would set a precedent and then they’re hypothetically obligated to do so in the future, lest some other hypothetical employee facing hypothetical charges claim hypothetical discrimination if the department declines to defend their hypothetical future actions.

Hypothetically speaking, that’s ***** nuts.

A lawyer offered to take the case pro bono (so they’re not all incompetent and evil after all), but he lacked a Vietnamese translator; Mr. Nguyen chose to go with o­ne who did, and his estimated legal bills are $1,700 to $2,500.

One is obliged to wonder if the next employee facing a dog in the course of his duties might decide “as well to be hung for a goat,” and figure it’s better smack the holy crap out of any canine harassing him or her. What legal entanglements will result from that for the city?

Oh, and the dog was examined by a vet, who declared it was bruised, but nothing was broken. He provided a painkiller.

“Take two aspirin and call your lawyer in the morning.�