Sunday, December 13, 2009

The Rojas Files

It all began on Saturday, July 22, 2006 when Kevin Ksen, an IndyMedia citizen journalist, got arrested while covering some activity by Worcester Police, apparently in conjunction with the Fox TV show, "Cops"...

The first mention of Officer Mark A. Rojas appears in the paper in Dianne Williamson's column on the following Tuesday. Beginning with that column, the following is a chronological list of all the links I could find to articles in the T&G that mention Officer Rojas:

July 25, 2006 - Protesters’ show seems a bit much
September 16, 2006 - Worcester’s finest
September 21, 2006 - Complaint filed against police dept.
January 21, 2007 - Raid leads to arrests of three on drug charges
February 16, 2007 - Criminal charges against local activist set aside
February 17, 2007 - Two-time robber gets 7 to 10 years
February 17, 2007 - ‘Cops’ trespassing case is continued
February 20, 2007 - Complaint process challenged
March 15, 2007 - Activist presses police complaint
March 15, 2007 - Chief says activist has agenda
March 31, 2008 - Dog owner says shots unjustified
July 20, 2008 - Police public files costly
July 30, 2008 - Police commend fellow officers
November 9, 2008 - WPD’s documents delay ‘outrageous’
November 9, 2008 - Police delay goes against purported goal
November 12, 2008 - Council hears the call to issue records
November 12, 2008 - Councilor calls for release of police records
November 12, 2008 - Chief prodded on records
November 12, 2008 - City Council hears the call to issue police records
November 12, 2008 - Council hears call to issue records
November 12, 2008 - Obey the law
November 17, 2008 - Police records arrive quickly if chief wants
December 2, 2008 - Complaints against officer to be released
December 2, 2008 - Police ready to release complaint copies
December 2, 2008 - Police to release redacted copies of complaint
December 2, 2008 - Police to air complaints against officer
December 4, 2008 - Police delay release of file to T&G
December 5, 2008 - Union holds up release of records
December 5, 2008 - Union’s request holds up release of officer’s records
December 5, 2008 - Union holds up release of records
December 8, 2008 - T&G to receive officer’s records
December 10, 2008 - Worcester police release 1,500 pages of officer's file
December 11, 2008 - Police records redacted into big black hole
December 11, 2008 - Man’s account of alleged beating differs from police
December 11, 2008 - Trust redacted
December 11, 2008 - Court may decide police file release
December 12, 2008 - More details emerge about complaints against Rojas
December 12, 2008 - Rojas conviction set aside
December 18, 2008 - T&G asks court for redacted files
December 18, 2008 - T&G goes to court in records case
December 18, 2008 - Rojas files case heading to court
December 18, 2008 - Redacted material sought in Rojas file
December 18, 2008 - Worcester needs commitment to transparency on records
December 21, 2008 - How thorough? How fair?
December 24, 2008 - Closed session on Rojas records blocked
January 7,2009 - Council quiets ‘secret’ meetings
January 15, 2009 - Court hears arguments over blacking out police files
January 15, 2009 - Five misconduct probes of Officer Rojas pending
January 15, 2009 - 5 probes of Rojas are still pending
January 16, 2009 - Judge hears arguments in police privacy case
January 16, 2009 - City says women’s privacy at stake in suit for records
January 16, 2009 - Police records suit in the judge’s hands
January 16, 2009 - City police records suit goes to judge
January 18, 2009 - Record request reasonable and lawful
May 10, 2009 - Officer ‘John Doe’ sues chief
May 12, 2009 - Officer loses gun, but gets court secrecy
June 14, 2009 - Officer’s battle to carry gun to be open
June 18, 2009 - Rojas pushes for gun permit
July 20, 2009 - Worcester chief's suspension of Rojas' gun license upheld
July 21, 2009 - Judge upholds loss of gun
September 21, 2009 - Woman files lawsuit against Officer Rojas
December 14, 2009 - Fox’s ‘Cops’ too real for man in bed

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Montvale Hysterical Tennis Court

Monday, November 02, 2009

Red Light Cams

Taken from this link:


Municipal Red Light Cameras

SECTION 18. Chapter 90 of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 20A1/2 the following section:-

Section 20A3/4. (a) Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, any city or town may, upon the acceptance of this section and in accordance with section 2 of chapter 85, employ a “monitoring system” along any portion of any way within its control and may adopt local measures imposing a monetary penalty on the owner of a motor vehicle for failure by its operator to comply with the laws, codes, regulations, by-laws, ordinances, rules or other forms of legislation governing the traffic control signals in the city or town in which the monitoring system is located.

(b) (1) As used in this section, the following words shall have the following meanings:

“Local measure”, an ordinance, rule, by-law, code or regulation adopted by any city or town, establishing a schedule of monetary penalties imposed on the owner or owners of a motor vehicle for failure by its operator to comply with the laws, ordinances, rules, by-laws, codes, regulations or other forms of legislation governing the traffic control signals in the city or town in which the monitoring system is located.

“Traffic control signal”, a signaling device positioned at a road intersection, pedestrian location or other location for the purpose of indicating through a series of colors (Red – Yellow – Green) the correct moment to stop and begin driving.

“Monitoring system”, an automated motor vehicle sensor device installed to work in conjunction with a traffic control signal that produces 2 or more film or digital camera based photographs or other recorded images of each motor vehicle at the time it is used or operated in a manner that is in violation of the traffic control signal at which the automated monitoring system is located.

“Violation”, the failure of an operator of a motor vehicle to comply with the laws, codes, regulations, by-laws, ordinances, rules or other forms of legislation governing the traffic control signals at which a traffic control signal violation monitoring system is located.

(2) Photographs from a monitoring system must, at a minimum, record the rear of the motor vehicle, with at least 1 image clearly recording the motor vehicle immediately before the violation of the traffic control signal and at least 1 image recording the motor vehicle passing through the intersection in violation of the traffic control signal. Additionally, at least 1 image must clearly identify the registration plate of the motor vehicle;

(3) To the extent practicable, any monitoring system shall use necessary technologies to ensure that photographs produced by the monitoring system shall not include a frontal view photograph of the motor vehicle that is in violation of the traffic control signal or images that identify the operator, the passengers, or the contents of the vehicle, but no notice of liability issued under this section shall be dismissed solely because a photograph or photographs allow for the identification of the operator, passengers, or contents of a vehicle as long as the city or town has made a reasonable effort to comply with this paragraph.

(4) Any city or town shall clearly indicate the presence and usage of a monitoring system at each intersection where a monitoring system is in use by signage clearly visible to traffic approaching from all directions. Such signage shall be established at each system location for at least 30 days before the city or town issues citations under this section. The signage shall remain at each system location as long as a monitoring system is in operation.

(5) A penalty imposed by a local measure for a violation of this section shall not be considered a criminal conviction and shall not be made part of the operating record of the person upon whom the liability is imposed, nor shall the imposition of a penalty be used for insurance rating purposes in providing motor vehicle insurance coverage.

(6) The compensation paid to the manufacturer or vendor of the traffic control signal monitoring system deployed as a means of promoting traffic safety as authorized by this section shall not be based upon the number of traffic citations issued or any portion or percentage of the fine generated by the citations. The compensation paid to the manufacturer or vendor of the equipment shall be based upon the value of the equipment and the services provided in support of the traffic control signal monitoring system.

(7) Before a monitoring system may be installed, the traffic control signal installation must comply with the standards set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. If it is determined that the traffic control signal is not in compliance with these standards, it shall be the responsibility of the city or town installing the monitoring system to bring the traffic control signal into compliance. Verification that the traffic control signal meets these standards shall be made by a professional engineer registered in the commonwealth.

(8) If a city or town makes a determination to cease the operation of a monitoring system at a particular location, the administrator of the monitoring system within the city or town shall notify the department of highways 30 days before removing the monitoring system equipment from that location.

(c)(1) A certificate, or a facsimile thereof sworn to or affirmed by a police officer or other law enforcement officer authorized to issue motor vehicle citations for violations of traffic laws, stating that based upon inspection of the photographs, or other recorded images produced by a monitoring system, the vehicle was in violation of this section, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. Any photographs or other recorded information produced by a monitoring system evidencing the violation shall be available for inspection in any proceeding to adjudicate the liability for the violation of a local measure adopted under this section.

(2) For each violation of this section, the owner or owners of a vehicle shall be jointly and severally liable for the penalty imposed by a local measure, but no owner of a vehicle shall be liable for a penalty imposed under this section where the operator of the vehicle has been convicted of the underlying violation under a citation issued in accordance with section 2 of chapter 90C. The maximum penalty that may be imposed under this section shall be $100 for each violation.

(3) A penalty imposed by a local measure may, if so provided in the local measure, be increased by up to 33 1/3% if the penalty remains unpaid in excess of 45 days after a notice of violation has been issued consistent with the procedures established in this section and there has been no request for a hearing under paragraph (3) of subsection (d).

(d)(1) Upon the determination of a violation of a local measure through the use of a monitoring system, it shall be the duty of the chief of police of the city or town, or any designee of the chief, to send to the owner or owners of the vehicle a notice to appear before the parking clerk of the city or town in which the violation occurred at any time during regular office hours. The notice shall require the owner or owners to appear not later than 45 days after the date the notice to appear was sent. The notice shall be addressed to the registered owner or owners of any motor vehicle identified in any photographs produced by the monitoring system as evidence of a violation of this section and shall be mailed by first class mail, post marked no later than 14 days after the date of the alleged violation, inclusive of Sundays and holidays. In the case of any motor vehicle registered under the laws of another state or country, if the address is unavailable, it shall be sufficient for the parking clerk to mail the notice of violation to the official in the state or country having charge of the registration of the motor vehicle. The notice shall be considered sufficient notice, and a certificate of the chief of police or the chief’s designee mailing the notice stating that it has been mailed in accordance with this section shall be deemed prima facie evidence thereof and shall be admissible in any judicial or administrative proceeding as to the facts contained therein. The chief or the chief’s designee shall retain and safely preserve a copy of the notice of violation and shall at a time no later than the beginning of the next business day of the city or town after mailing the notice to the owner or owners, deliver another copy to the parking clerk before whom the owner or owners have been notified to appear. The parking clerk shall maintain a docket of all such notices to appear.

The notice shall contain but not be limited to the following information:

(i) a citation for the violation, which shall include the name and address of the person or persons liable as an owner or owners for the violation of this section, the registration number and state of issuance of the registration number of the vehicle involved in the violation, the date, time and location of the violation, the specific violation charged, the amount of the penalty for the violation, and the date by which the penalty shall be paid;

(ii) a copy of the recorded image showing the vehicle in violation of the traffic signal;

(iii) the identification number of the camera that recorded the violation or other document locator number;

(iv) a copy of the certificate or affidavit of the police officer under paragraph (1) of subsection (c);

(v) a schedule of fines for the violation as established by the city or town;

(vi) instructions for the return of the notice including but not limited to the following text:—

“This notice and the required payment may be returned in person, by mail, or by a duly authorized agent. A hearing to contest liability may be obtained upon the written request of the registered owner. Failure to pay the penalty or to contest liability within 45 days of issuance of this notice is an admission of liability and may result in a default judgment being entered against the owner to whom the violation has been issued and/or non-renewal or suspension of the license to drive and the certificate of registration of the registered owner.”

(vii) an affidavit form approved by the parking clerk for the purpose of complying with paragraph (4).

(viii) a statement explaining the procedure to adjudicate the violation by mail under paragraph (5).

(2) Any person notified to appear before the parking clerk, as provided in this section, may appear before the parking clerk, or his designee, and confess the offense charged, either personally or through a duly authorized agent or by mailing to the parking clerk the notice accompanied by the fine provided therein, such payment to be made only by postal note, money order or check made out to the parking clerk. Payment of the penalty established shall operate as a final disposition of the case.

(3) Should any person notified to appear hereunder fail to appear and, if a penalty is provided hereunder, to pay the same, or if the person requests a hearing to contest liability, the parking clerk shall forthwith schedule the matter before a person referred to in this section as a hearing officer. The hearing officer shall be the parking clerk of the city or town in which the violation occurred or any other person or persons that the parking clerk may designate. Written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing shall be sent by first-class mail to the registered owner or owners. The hearing shall be informal, the rules of evidence shall not apply and the decision of the hearing officer shall be final subject to judicial review as provided by section 14 of chapter 30A. Within 21 days of the hearing, the hearing officer shall send by first class mail to the registered owner or owners the decision of the hearing officer, including the reasons for the outcome.

(4) Any owner to whom a notice of violation has been issued shall not be liable for a violation of this section (a) if the violation was necessary to allow the passage of an emergency vehicle; (b) if the violation was necessary in order to protect the property or person of another; (c) if the violation was incurred while participating in a funeral procession; (d) if the violation was incurred during a period of time in which the motor vehicle was reported to the police department of any state, city or town as having been stolen and had not been recovered before the time the violation occurred; (e) if the operator of the motor vehicle was operating the motor vehicle under a rental or lease agreement and the owner of the motor vehicle is a rental or leasing company; (f) if the operator of the motor vehicle was convicted of the underlying violation under a citation issued in accordance with section 2 of chapter 90C; (g) if the violation was necessary to comply with an order of a law enforcement officer or of a flagger directing traffic flow; (h) if the vehicle was subject to the exceptions granted to an authorized emergency vehicle under section 7B of chapter 89; or (i) if the violation was necessary to comply with any other law or regulation governing the operation of a motor vehicle at the intersection. An owner disputing a violation under this subsection shall, within 45 days of issuance of the notice, provide the parking clerk with an affidavit signed under the pains and penalties of perjury in a form approved by the parking clerk, as provided for in clause (vii) of paragraph (1) of this subsection stating (1) the reason for disputing the violation; (2) the full legal name and address of the owner of the motor vehicle; (3) the names and addresses of all witnesses supporting the owner’s defense and the specifics of their knowledge; and where applicable (4) the signed statements from witnesses. The affidavit shall be filed with the request for a hearing.

(5) Any person notified to appear before the parking clerk, as provided in this paragraph, may without waiving his right to a hearing before the parking clerk or hearing officer as provided by this subsection, and also without waiving judicial review under section 14 of chapter 30A, challenge the validity of the violation notice and receive a review and disposition of the violation from the parking clerk or a hearing officer by mail. The owner may, upon receipt of the notice to appear, send a signed statement explaining his objections to the violation notice as well as signed statements from witnesses, police officers, government officials and any other relevant parties. Photographs, diagrams, maps and other documents may also be sent with the statements. Any statements or materials sent to the parking clerk for review shall have attached the person’s name and address as well as the citation number and the date of the violation. The parking clerk or hearing officer shall, within 21 days of receipt of this material, review the material and dismiss or uphold the violation and notify, by mail, the owner or owners of the disposition of the written review. If the outcome of the written review is adverse to the owner or owners, the parking clerk or hearing officer shall explain the reasons for the outcome on the notice. The review and disposition handled by mail shall be informal, the rules of evidence shall not apply, and the decision of the parking clerk or hearing officer based upon the written materials shall be final, unless the owner invokes the hearing provisions under this section or judicial review under section 14 of chapter 30A.

(6) If any person fails to appear before the hearing officer in accordance with the notice, or fails to receive a favorable adjudication of the hearing from a hearing officer and fails to pay the fine within 30 days of the date that the hearing officer has mailed notice of the decision of the hearing officer, the parking clerk shall notify the registrar of motor vehicles, who shall place the matter on record. Upon notification to the registrar of 2 or more notices under this section or sections 20A or 20A½ from the parking clerk of the city or town, or state authorities or agencies, the registrar shall not issue or renew or may suspend the owner’s license to operate a motor vehicle or motor vehicle registration until after notification from the parking clerk of each city, agency or authority, from whom the registrar received notification, that all fines, taxes and penalties owed by the owner under this section have been disposed of in accordance with law. Upon such notification to the registrar, an additional charge of $20 payable to the registrar but collected by the city or town, and an additional charge of $20 payable to and collected by the city or town, shall be assessed against the registered owner of the motor vehicle. It shall be the duty of the parking clerk to notify the registrar forthwith that the case has been so disposed, but certified receipt of full and final payment from the parking clerk of the city or town, or state agency or authority issuing the violation shall also serve as legal notice to the registrar that the violation has been disposed of in accordance with law. The certified receipt shall be printed in a form approved by the registrar of motor vehicles.

(7) Upon the accumulation by an owner of 2 or more outstanding notices under this section or sections 20A or 20A½ on account of violations of any statute, ordinance, order, rule or regulation relating to the operation, control or parking of motor vehicles in a particular city or town, notwithstanding any notification to the registrar, the parking clerk of the city or town may notify the chief of police or director of traffic and parking of the city or town that the vehicle bearing the registration to which the notices have been issued shall be removed and stored or otherwise immobilized by a mechanical device at the expense of the registered owner of the vehicle until all fines, taxes and penalties owed by the owner either under this section, or otherwise arising out of the parking or usage of the owner’s motor vehicle, have been disposed of in accordance with law. No vehicle shall be removed, stored, or otherwise immobilized unless the owner of the motor vehicle shall have received 10 days prior notification by mail that the motor vehicle may be removed, stored, or immobilized without further notification. It shall be sufficient for the parking clerk to mail, postage prepaid, the notification to the last known address of the registered owner. It shall be sufficient for the parking clerk, in the case of a motor vehicle registered in another state or country, to mail notification to the official in the state or country having charge of the registration of the motor vehicle.

(e)(1) Other than for purposes of enforcement of a violation of this section or for purposes of an owner defending a violation of this section, photographs or records taken or created under this section may only be obtained under an order by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(2) Photographic and other recorded information obtained through the use of monitoring systems authorized in this section that do not identify a violation shall be destroyed within 90 days of the date the image was recorded, unless otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. All photographic and other recorded information that identifies a violation shall be destroyed within 1 year of final disposition of proceedings related to the enforcement or defense of a violation, unless otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. Each city and town utilizing 1 or more monitoring systems shall file notice annually with the secretary of state that these records have been destroyed in accordance with this paragraph.

(3) The administrator of the monitoring system within any city or town accepting this section shall also submit an annual report to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation regarding the use and operation of the monitoring system. This annual report shall contain data on the number of citations issued under this section at each particular intersection, and of those citations, shall detail the number paid without a request for a hearing; the number found responsible after a hearing; and the number dismissed after a hearing. In addition, the report shall also include the cost to maintain each monitoring system and the amount of revenue obtained from each monitoring system.

(4) The Massachusetts Department of Transportation shall, within 180 days of the effective date of this section, adopt rules and regulations for the orderly operation and standardization of the section. The administrator of the monitoring system within any city or town accepting this section shall comply with these rules and regulations for the orderly operation and standardization of this section, including but not limited to rules and regulations which may pertain to the comparison of pre- and post-monitoring system installation crash conditions to verify the effectiveness of the system.

Sunday, August 09, 2009

Population Control

For a while, now, I've been thinking about population control as its own subject.

Lately, the starting point for my musing about this subject has begun at the local level, whenever I wonder about the motivations behind various news stories that obviously omit key data. And they do it to emphasize some spin, some angle. But it is, nonetheless, much more an exercise in propagandizing than simply reporting news.

It's an apparent attempt to mold public opinion. Where a dispassionate presentation of all the facts would not produce the same inferences in readers, the spun up story will.

Why do they do this?

Well, in the short run, it's easy to say that they do it simply because they can. But I always suspect additional motives, either in the individual journalists or from their editorial direction. That it's done at all, of course, should be expected. Since we all have our individual likes, dislikes, beliefs, non-beliefs, preferences and alliances, it would be unrealistic to expect that any news reporting would be unbiased.

They did, after all, succeed in getting the "equal time" mandate cancelled...

Yet, this "fair and balanced" thing is often the claim by news organizations as well as individual journalists. They will protest loudly against any accusation that they aren't exercising journalistic ethics in the fair and balanced reporting of news to the public.

So, what does it gain them to deny the slant while constantly employing their talents for exactly that purpose? Well, I look at it simply as tradition.

In the history of Western Civilization, the manipulation and control of data has always derived power. Wherever data is hidden, altered, or otherwise controlled, you find power accruing. The Catholic Church set this standard for the modern west quite a long time ago.

This angle of population control, I would say, is probably not an intended result. Rather, it's probably the evolved path of other intentions. The Catholic Church was engaged for centuries in the consolidation of the faith. At the outset, I can imagine that the intentions were to spread the story, this incredibly overwhelming story that swirls around the Revelation of St John the Divine. And in the end, they saved that big punch for last after choosing what would and what would not be included in the officially authorized story.

I don't put much stock into the story, myself. I find it doesn't translate well into English, and it doesn't appear to me to either be a story of prediction or a relating of history. It seems much more likely to be an accurately enough relayed vision that pretty much sends people 'round the bend. I think the most common effect is a manic state. But it's also a story that, intended or not, can easily be usurped to effect a sort of control factor over adherents.

After a thousand years, the Universal Church got pretty heavy handed in their intentional actions to unify all of humanity under the one Church. How and why they did the things they did, however, isn't all that germane to this rambling text. What is germane is the production of a method of controlling populations through the manipulation of data.

And there are several ways to manipulate the data that gets through to the public. One way is to simply omit key facts. In news stories, from Journalism 101, you have Who, What, When, Where, How and Why. Those data comprise the whole story. Omit one or more elements, and you can then manipulate the entire meaning of the story. One comes to completely different conclusions, when presented with incomplete facts.

Reasoning individuals, when constantly presented with incomplete data, will come to long standing conclusions that are wildly incorrect.

But it's just a matter of history that when the hidden facts are finally brought into the light of day after long periods of being hidden, human beings behave in ways that can be compared to flowers opening up, to springtime bursting forth, and the greatest things can happen. One of the most notable moments in the history of western civilization along these lines was the Renaissance.

There is also undiscovered data, which for the history buff can be what was discovered to bring about the Renaissance, and which caused that wonderful flowering of western civilization. The purposefully hidden data, of course, produced the Protestant movement.

Ever since that great change at the end of the dark ages, the subsequent empires that western civilization has seen rise and fall can be viewed through this lens of population control via the manipulation of data. Not to present this as a single point analysis of history, though... I'd be remiss not to point out here that it's merely an element.

But I think that it's a very important element to be aware of, however formal or informal the subject of population control could be, or has ever been.

Another way to manipulate what people are exposed to is the presenting of disinformation or lies. And yet another way would be to change the facts in some slight way, but which completely alters the conclusions anyone would come to as a result of accepting those data as reliable.

Basically, all of these types of manipulation, overall, would have an intended result of enticing people into coming to certain conclusions. Thus, it is a control factor that can be employed to control how people think.

Anyone who casts a jaundiced eye toward the overuse of the Official Secrets Act by the United States government, for instance, will understand that I see the misuse and/or overuse of this hiding of data to be troubling. But I trust that it's not done to make our lives more dangerous. I tend to believe that it's done to keep things on an even keel, however outraged anyone might be if these things were to be revealed to the public.

At this point, also, I should say that I don't believe this subject of population control to be something one should consider either good or bad.

It just is what it is.

Under the broad heading of controlling populations, you would have to include a number of other methods as well. Some of the methods employed today by some governments include intolerance of any but a single religion, and other more brutish methods of instilling obedience. There is also the control of fiat currency, which can effectively lock a whole population into servitude, one way or another, although it's beginning to look like this particular method is running on a global basis at this point.

Over the long term, however, the manipulation of data has always struck me as, potentially, the most long-lasting and effective method of controlling populations. Where religions had been the method by which people were indoctrinated and controlled in the past, it's the much subtler method of constant control over what "everybody knows" is going on around them that would, in my view, effect the widest and most permanent control over people. At least, in this age of burgeoning media, that's the only route by which I can imagine it can ever be effected without direct force.

To round up the subject here, I need to get into the "why" of population control.

Governments, I would tend to believe, are things that cannot shrink of their own accord. Power over others is something that will probably not evolve out of human nature any time soon. Consequently, the constant accrual of power is pretty much axiomatic when it comes to governments. They will always go in that direction, and fall only by their own weight, or the stupidity of some bad actor. And the larger they grow, the more evident the need to control the population. It's just something that I think is self-evident, if you bother to look at it at all.

Finally, I'd be remiss not mention that there is no "conspiracy" I see going on in this. Rather, I tend to view this subject within the wider idea of a collection of competing factions, world-wide. Some would be transnational powers, and others would be the nations and their own internal powers competing for control. The United States has plenty of competing factions, along with the very large military-industrial complex. And even the latter has its competing factions.

They all have varying degrees of motivation to manipulate and control what the public knows... or thinks they know...

But no matter who might be in control or in power over anybody, it's difficult to imagine that their ideal scene wouldn't be a collection of people under them who are cheerfully obedient and unopposed to anything they might want to do. Whether it's a neighborhood gang or an entire nation's population, that would be the ultimately desired effect by anyone who really gets their rocks off by being "in charge"...