weigh in

I like to take a bit longer to reflect on some news stories that shouldn't be it would seem. So here's the run down on Gatesgate.

Some basic background. I'm not black, despite a fair predilection toward jazz and hip-hop. So I won't really comment on the racial implications. I am of the opinion that the injustice suffered would be just as severe if Gates had been white, but I am also aware that the likelihood of that injustice could have been diminished in those circumstances. I have had the anecdotal talk over the dreaded traffic stop, the sort of driving while black stop, but I've never actually seen it happen. Whatever the racial elements of this story are, I am unfamiliar and don't really care (not from lack of a sympathy for the problem, but because there's a different problem on which I can comment).

Specifically, I am concerned with the apparent attitude of people condemning the actions, the (non-violent) resistance, of Gates to the undesired intrusion of police authority into his home. The attitude seems to declare the following
1) Thou shalt not get sassy or exhibit behavior implying defiance of any kind with police
2) Thou should go to jail for behaving like an ignorant ass toward police
3) Police are there to project authority, not to protect your rights

The line of police state authoritarianism basically says that you must respect police and not question or second guess their motivations or actions because they're out there upholding the law. In many cases, I will be perfectly willing to target my derision on the appropriate target, the people who made or wanted a silly or vague law enforced. But where that law is vague it is open to abuse on the part of the officers enforcing it. I cannot believe it is a sensible thing to appoint to police the ability to punish and detain people who annoy or antagonize them without violence or immediate ill intention and threat posed to themselves or others. A statute intended to detain "disorderly conduct" that is taken to mean that "this person is insulting and annoying, I'm going to haul him off to jail" does not require us to acknowledge the class or race of the subject being arrested. It should trouble everyone equally. If Gates had used direct threats at the officers or the public, or his behavior was of a sort designed to represent a danger to the community, then it makes sense. He was basically asking a question, albeit in what looks like ignorant asshole behavior to some. Fortunately or not, being an ignorant asshole is not an arrestable offense. Or at least it probably shouldn't be up to police officers to make that determination. Quite simply, abusing police powers in this way is and should be reasonably considered "stupid".

There were several themes that emerged in conversations over the issue. Basically the difference of opinion I have is based on "you have to respect the police/law". I might agree that the law can be respected and that police often have a difficult job to do to enforce it. I don't agree that you HAVE to respect that at all times. I in fact fully expect people to be able to question authority, rather than defer to it. Police are not the authority, we are. They exist to protect and project our rights as individuals by carrying out the legally required framework of investigation and detention of criminal actions against ourselves or our property. They do not exist to boss us around or to demand information. The classic expectations of conservatives have come to mean that police exist to impose the rule of law upon us. This seems to be why social conservatives focus so much on creating legal frameworks for their version of societal mores rather than appealing to our reason for the premise and purpose of those mores. They believe that law is an unquestionable authority for the direction of people's actions. I believe that law is to be a reflection of our most basic and simplest mores (at most), and where it isn't it is bad law. Some law becomes necessary as a result of reasoned analysis, such as avoiding murder, rape or wanton theft. Other law, like euphemistic "disorderly conduct" or "tumultuous behavior", is vague, uncertain, and probably unnecessary. Sure people should respect a police officer, but that's because it's a PERSON carrying out an often impossible task on our behalf. Not because they are the walking embodiment of something purer and better than ourselves.

The "power trip" that is often created by being a cop is something I've witnessed. It's not natural to elevate people on that basis. They are specialists in the service of the community, important ones at that. But the one thing I didn't hear that was said in Gates' case was "can I help you sir" or "the reason I'm here is....". A reasonable cop at a traffic stop will explain why they stopped you after asking how you're doing (always a fun question at that moment), not start off asking if you are drunk (I've had that experience several times, I'm not sure I drive like a total maniac, but I do have some odd habits). A reasonable question on seeing a man get on the phone inside a house rather than flee might have been "can I help you sir". There's a line of suspicion or wariness that allows a cop to ask for ID in a way that isn't insulting or implies the criminal nature of everyone or anything. That wasn't in there, therefore the officer acted stupidly. I'll let someone else, perhaps more qualified to do so, deal with any accusations of racism.

My advice for the people who want instead a police state that imposes law without question and expresses disdain for forms of protest or complaint with the existence of unfairness in the law is these simple three words.

Move to Iran.