Plugging the Holes

A follow up to "In the Name of Justice"

I can always count on my buddy Q to keep me honest.  One of the things I value so much about my friendship with him, and some of my other long-time friends (Chris, Roger, Aaron... you guys know who you are), is that we can disagree (sometimes without actually disagreeing, ironically) and not get emotional about it.  We often have lively debates, get frustrated with one another, take the gloves off and let the fur fly, but in the end we are all better for the experience.  Whatever the initial debate, we rarely remain smugly unchanged by the dialog, but rather expand the depth of our understanding and maybe look at something from a perspective not previously considered.  I always try to ask myself, while gritting my teeth, "What can I learn from this?"

I am frequently criticized by friends and colleagues about my writing.  Not that it is rife with errors in grammar or spelling, but rather that I often write too much on a topic out of the compulsive need to cover every base.  This often results in an absurdly long narrative that most people would never read.  I have heard it said that a paper should be like a mini skirt: long enough to cover everything, but short enough to keep it interesting.  In an effort to keep my blog posts relatively concise, at least in this recent instance, I have left a fair amount of the proverbial beaver showing.

As I read Q's response, I found myself scratching my head and asking, "Where did I write that?  Did I even address that point?  Where did that come from?"

Maybe I'm way off base (it's happened before) but it looks to me like more was read from between the lines than from the lines themselves.  Assumptions have been made that appear, at least to me, to be incongruent with what I have stated.  I will do my best to recap my points, plugging the holes that I apparently left open for interpretation previously.

Simplified recap:

• There's a lot of talk going on about Maryland's wiretap and electronic surveillance laws, prompted by a recent case.  Many people who are commenting on it don't even know what the law states (no comment by me agreeing or disagreeing with the law).

• I don't like it when the government abuses its power.

• Even though the law gives police some flexibility in certain circumstances, it is wrong to take practices beyond that, even when the police think it's for a good reason.

   (are we in disagreement about anything significant yet?)

• CATO put out a news video clip and written commentary about a recent incident.

• I like CATO; they are the good guys.

• A lot of people's comments on the story lacked an understanding of existing Maryland law (again, no comment by me agreeing or disagreeing with the law).

• I get frustrated when people make statements about what the law is when they don't know what the law is.

   (again, are we in disagreement about anything significant yet?)

•  The police occasionally abuse their authority.

• Laws should be periodically reviewed and revised.

• It probably wasn't right to seize that dude's stuff and pursue a wiretapping case against him.

• I hope that a court ruling will facilitate changes to the law that make it fair to the people, but have my doubts that will be the actual outcome.

   (we're still all in agreement so far, right?)

   I think we split in opinion at this point...

• From what little bit of video I've had the opportunity to see, I don't think the trooper did anything seriously wrong, procedurally (this is where I should have expounded quite a bit but didn't; many assumptions appear to have been made because of this).

   (take a breath and let that last point pass until we can come back to it...)

•  We should always be a little distrustful and suspicious of governmental authority.

• Just because the police act like they have the authority to do something doesn't mean that they actually do.

• Some cops don't care about the Constitution, but there are mechanisms to deal with that (should have expounded here again; blanks were filled in with assumptions instead).

• People generally only want the police to be able to do something to OTHER people, not them.

   (are we back on something close to the same page for at least these points?)

    I think we split in opinion again at this point...

• From what little bit of video I've had the opportunity to see, I don't think the trooper did anything seriously wrong, procedurally (this is where I should have expounded quite a bit again, but didn't).

    I think we're back together again with this point...

• Police in Maryland aren't usually thinking about the potential of citizens being lawfully armed, because Maryland doesn't like to recognize the 2nd Amendment (I imply that this is bad).

• It's a good thing for the trooper that the guy wasn't lawfully armed, because the guy might have been justified in shooting the plain-clothes trooper if he thought he was being attacked.

    We may split again here...

• I go on about how the motorcycle guy did a bunch of stupid stuff (but never imply that it justifies anything more than traffic charges).

• The motorcycle guy should have done a little homework before putting the video on youtube.

• Circumstances indicate that the motorcycle guy may have committed a violation of existing law by putting the AUDIO recording on the internet, but opined that the search warrant and detention weren't justified, had appropriate discretion been exercised by the police (again, not sure how we differ in opinion on this point).

• I go on to lament that people don't understand the difference between people recording the government and the government recording the people (a point which was apparently miscommunicated, misunderstood, or both).

• Reiterate that people ought to do a little homework before speaking on law they have not read (not that their right to express the opinion should be abridged, just that you can make a better argument when informed).

• Express feeling puzzled because I seem to disagree on stuff with some peeps that I normally agree with on a lot of other stuff (mainly because they didn't seem to know the applicable law).

• State that we all have something to learn from this whole thing, but am pessimistic that anyone actually will.

 I think that's about it.

Before going into addressing every statement and objection raised by Q, let's reflect for a minute on what the matters are where we actually disagree, having reviewed this simplified recap.  If I am correct, the main discussion points left are the reasonableness or unreasonableness of force used to affect the stop and whether the current law is a just one.  These were never addressed in my original post, so we can deal with them in the next one.

Status check: where are we on the other stuff?

© the stiff lizard

In the Name of Justice

If you haven't heard about this yet, maybe you will when you come out of your cave.  There is a lot of controversial discussion taking place concerning "wiretapping" laws in Maryland and the use of contemporary technology by both citizens and law enforcement.  Some of this discussion, at least what I have read online, has been among people who are often misinformed about the law and legally acceptable law enforcement procedures.  Anyone who has known me for more than five minutes is acutely aware of the disdain I hold for any abuse of power by the state, particularly when it comes to abridging the personal, constitutionally-protected, liberties of the governed.  However, law enforcement professionals enjoy a limited and reasonable degree of immunity for certain acts, when performed in good faith and in pursuit of lawful objectives.  I do not, in any way, intend such a statement to condone an attitude (by the citizenry or the state) that law enforcement should have a carte blanche, end-justifies-the-means, approach to performing their duties.

My early morning tirade is brought to you courtesy of the CATO Institute, this link featuring a news video that was recently posted on facebook and the subsequent comments by CATO's facebook fans.  Now let me be clear, lest you misunderstand my point (as people often do), I am not busting on the CATO Institute.  I have a great deal of respect for the folks at CATO and count myself among their fans.  They bring many matters concerning individual liberty to light for discussion and debate; we need much more of that.

My frustration is multifaceted.  People generally have very little knowledge of the laws that affect them; people who seem to know all about their rights have very little concern for their associated responsibilities; a large number of people who have never read a law fancy themselves to be legal experts when it becomes a news topic; the assumption seems to automatically be that the police are always corrupt.  I will not get into a dissertation on each of these individual points, which I'm sure relieves you to some degree.

Are there occasional abuses of power by the police?  Yes.

Do laws need to be periodically reviewed and revised?  Absolutely.

Was it right to seize this guy's camera, computers and other equipment in furtherance of a felony wiretapping case?  Probably not.

Will a court ruling favorably clarify applicable legislation or prompt needed revision of current law?  I hope so, but am skeptical.

Did the State Trooper, based solely upon the video to which we have seen, do anything procedurally wrong during the stop?  I don't think so.

We are right to always be a little suspicious and distrustful of the state because, let's face it, acting under color of law isn't always the same as acting in accordance with law.  Sure, there are police officers who play fast and loose with the Constitution, as well as with departmental policies and procedures.  There are mechanisms of accountability in place to deal with these matters; some agencies manage this better than others.  The bottom line is that there are a far greater number of good cops out there, doing what they are supposed to do, than there are shady ones.  Everyone seems to think that the police should be nice to everybody, always exercise a superhuman degree of judgment and restraint, instinctively know what the person they're dealing with is thinking and feeling and be sensitive to that and never make a mistake.  However, when someone's breaking into your house at night, everyone expects the cop who shows up to be Billy Badass, ready to choke out the bad guy or put a bullet in his brainpan.  To borrow an analogy from Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, the sheep would prefer that the sheepdog be defanged; that is until a wolf shows up near the flock.

The ONLY criticism I can make of the State Trooper's action during the stop was that he did not immediately identify himself as a police officer (he took an *insert sarcastic tone here* astounding five seconds to do so).  This oversight is of greater risk to the trooper than to the citizen, because a lawfully armed citizen may have been well within his rights to shoot, if believing himself to be in fear of imminent harm.  Since the People's Republic of Maryland hasn't recognized the 2nd Amendment for so long though, lawfully armed citizens aren't typically a big concern for the police.  I'd be willing to bet that an officer in Arizona might not make the same mistake.

The motorcyclist (Anthony Graber) however, must have had a big ol' bowl of stupid for breakfast that day.  Graber was riding a sport bike like an idiot, speeding and pulling wheelies in traffic, while on one of the most heavily traveled interstates in the area (judgment lapse number one).  Graber was using a helmet mounted camera to record his antics and share them with his future organ donor friends.  Then the inevitable happened; a State Trooper observed the misbehavior and a stop ensued.  Without going fully into the details of the stop (which you can find just about anywhere now), Graber did not draw attention to any of the officers that the whole event was being recorded on his helmet camera.  This is understandable, because he probably didn't know that it's unlawful to make an AUDIO recording of a conversation in Maryland, without at least informing all parties that they are being recorded.  The debate over the legitimacy of that law is another matter.  The VIDEO recording is fair game; it was in full view of the public, with no reasonable expectation of privacy.  Anyway, numb nuts gets his ticket and is released.  He goes home and puts the video (including the audio) on youtube (judgment lapse number two).  How could he possibly think that would turn out well for anybody?

You can't convince me, even for a second, that at some point between the event and posting the recording on youtube, it never crossed Graber's mind that what he was doing might just be illegal, or at the very least unwise.  Had Graber consulted with someone, or heaven forbid looked it up himself (my quick google search revealed this relevant information), he would have found that posting the video without the audio recording probably wouldn't have caused him the legal trouble he is now experiencing.  In my humble opinion however, I don't think it was wise to pursue a search warrant and charges against Graber.  By the letter of the law, yes it was a crime.  But how does the saying go, "discretion is the better part of valor," right?

So this video clip and commentary from CATO gets posted on facebook.  People begin to chime in about how corrupt the police are and how unfair it is that police can record you using dash cams, but it's a crime for citizens to do the same.  Well, first of all, it's not the same; second of all, cupcake, life ain't fair; third, think (and maybe research a little) before joining in the "f*ck the police" mantra.  Even after entering what I believed to be an educational comment on the matter, no one read it but rather they continued, in unimpeded lemming fashion, to voice their righteous outrage.  It's a strange and uneasy experience to be so agitated by people with whose opinions I often concur.

Anyway, there are lessons to be learned on all sides from this.  Will the right lessons be learned by the right parties?  To quote my Magic 8-Ball, "Outlook not so good."

© the stiff lizard