Unacceptable Authority
Original account here: http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/13/so-about-that-tree-of-liberty/
Update here: http://www.theagitator.com/2008/04/15/jefferson-dance-party-article-at-the-american-spectator/
So how does a mild-mannered young woman get arrested at the Jefferson Memorial dancing with friends to the sound of their own iPods playing in their own ears? No disruption, no political point, no trespassing, no public intoxication. Merely National Park officers ordering a crowd to dismiss
Anyone who has even so much as been pulled over for speeding understands what it is to be at the mercy and discretion of one particular representative of the law. Sometimes this is a good thing, as it allows an officer to exercise compassion. Many times, however, this leaves citizens in the hands of a fellow human being who is flawed, subject to emotion, and, in the current legal environment, not subject to the same constraints as the individual in question. In video of this incident, for example, an officer is recorded using expletives directed at the group, but one individual in the group who directs an expletive at the officer is told that if he does it again he will be arrested.
The young woman in this incident was arrested for apparently no other crime than to ask why the crowd was being dispersed. She was eventually booked and released on a suspiciously vague charge of "interfering with agency activities." Fortunately, she is well connected. The same attorney who is currently arguing the landmark gun rights case, D.C. v. Heller, has offered to represent her in court.
But for others, the use of police discretion does not go so well. There is the now infamous "Don't tase me, bro" incident and the (in my opinion) more horrible and graphic incident of a student being tasered by campus police in a library for refusing to show ID, believing himself to be a victim of racial profiling. The latter is particularly terrible for the fact that the student was simply sitting and reading until campus security arrived; there was no intent to provoke an incident like in the other case. There are, of course, other, more recent incidents of officers choosing to use "non-lethal" tasers on non-violent suspects, resulting in fatalities.
But what does this have to do with the average, law-abiding citizen? Nothing, until you want to question the person questioning you. Nothing, unless you are repulsed by the idea of random roadblocks or random profiling or overzelous officers who choose to enforce "laws" that don't actually exist (such as in the Jefferson Memorial incident, where no known laws or regulations were being violated). Nothing, unless you would like the right to record the actions of those who are recording your actions.
Perhaps the real key is: it has nothing to do with you if you don't mind, when your time comes, spending thousands of dollars in court to clear your name of a wrongful or non-existent charge and having the case come down to your word against the officer's.
Major revisions are needed in police codes of conduct. Legislators need to lay down strong laws to protect the rights of citizens in relation to local police. Citizens' review boards and other mechanisms should be implemented so as to enforce these standards and laws. Someone must watch the watchers, and anyone who does not feel this way should simply wait until it's their turn in the hotseat.
