Stan Simpson cheers on the police state


I don't read him religiously, but I've always had the impression that Stan Simpson, of the Courant, is a fairly level headed guy. This morning's Courant at least temporarily disabused me of that notion. (Krayeske A Good Civics Lesson, But Let's End It). Simpson must read his own paper, but you'd hardly know it. Recall that it seemed clear from the beginning that Ken Krayeske's arrest was a violation of his civil rights and a police state tactic par excellence. But Simpson will have none of that:

I haven't changed my mind one iota that Hartford police were well within their rights - if the circumstances and police report are accurate - to detain and make sure the self-styled peacenik-political activist-freelance journalist didn't plan to disrupt the Jan. 4 gubernatorial inauguration parade.

When it comes to protecting the state's highest elected official, it's always better to be safe than to second-guess. No telling what's in the nylon bag of a man with a previous arrest for civil disobedience and a website instigating protest, who is seen dumping his bicycle and "running up to the parade procession directly in front of where the Governor was passing by in the procession."

To be honest, when I first read these paragraphs, I thought he was being satirical. But he isn't, and he wasn't. Let's break it down. Krayeske deserved to be arrested and jailed for 12 hours because he:

1) had once been arrested for a non-violent protest;

2) had urged other people to protest;

3) was carrying a nylon bag; and

4) dumped his bicycle and ran directly in front of where the Governor was passing.

Except we know that number four is a lie, and we have known it from the start. Even if it were true, it would not constitute cause to arrest a man and detain him for 12 hours in lieu of $75,000.00 bond.

So, on the basis of all this, Simpson advocates that we should turn our supposed rule of law on its head, and condone preventative arrests of those that the police deem undesirable, primarily because those undesirables have chosen to exercise their First Amendment rights. The only overt acts that Simpson alleges are items 3 and 4, each of which (except the bicycle) it's highly likely photographers from his own paper engaged in. Would he sanction their detention?

Simpson goes on to say:

The Krayeske case has provided a wonderful civics lesson on the exercise of Free Speech vs. the exercise of Common Sense.

So far as Simpson is concerned, free speech loses. The last time I looked, common sense was not protected by the First Amendment. But let's examine this. Is it really common sense to condone preventative arrests? If we abandon the probable cause standard, and replace it with a "common sense" standard, where do we find ourselves? Which member of that crowd could, under such a standard, feel secure in his or her person and possessions. If it's common sense to arrest a man who has engaged in non-violent protest (I plead guilty to that non-crime myself) before he has actually done anything, maybe its common sense to arrest anyone who looks Arab, or mentally ill, or who happens to be less than 100% nice to the friendly local gendarme. What a civics lesson we've learned: it is only common sense to allow the police to arrest a person who has exercised his right to free speech, and common sense is all the cops need to arrest him, or you, or me.

I suppose I even have the right to take this a bit personally. Since Krayeske met the common sense standard by posting a comment on a blog, perhaps I've met it by writing one. I certainly hope I'm important enough to monitor; I'd be so disappointed if I weren't. Do the cops get to arrest me if I whip out a camera when the governor walks by?

The entire column is an apology for police state tactics. Sure, Simpson says, Krayeske had nothing in his bag, but once upon a time someone in Afghanistan was assassinated by someone posing as a journalist, so it stands to reason that the cops here should be able to arrest anyone carrying a nylon bag.

Finally, Simpson, who is black, pulls the reverse race card:

A couple of e-mailers have injected race, asking me if my reaction would be different if Krayeske were black instead of white. One Courant columnist actually wrote a piece comparing Krayeske's situation to the struggles of Martin Luther King Jr. Wow!

Here goes: If Krayeske were African American with the same activist background and arrest record, he'd still be in jail, or seriously injured. Someone would have seen him "reaching for a gun" and some of the same "activists" championing Krayeske would be nowhere to be found. (Hey, they asked.)

First, he summarily dismisses comparisons to civil rights era arrests, without even attempting to explain why the emailer's and columnist's points were invalid. Weren't the excuses for arresting King and his supporters precisely of the type used by the police against Krayeske? If anything, there were more legal grounds to arrest King, et. al. than there were to arrest Krayeske. Then Simpson has the nerve to say that had Krayeske been black, he would have been treated worse than he was because, in addition to the cops lying about him, the witnesses would have lied as well. Besides the fact that he has no basis for saying that, it excuses nothing. Yes, Krayeske could have been treated even worse. He could have been held even longer, he could have been beaten, he could have been sent to Gitmo, he could have been forced to spend precious time parsing Simpson's ridiculous logic. The fact that those things did not happen does not excuse what did happen. And who is he to say that Krayeske's champions would be silent, given his own refusal to make common cause with Krayeske? He's worse than silent, he's cheering for the bad guys.

So, in the end, Simpson suggests that we forget this whole nasty thing. The charges against Krayeske should be dropped (as indeed they should) and Krayeske should agree not to sue (which he decidedly should not). Very even handed. Krayeske has to undergo arrest, imprisonment and presentment. The cops go unpunished and undeterred. Maybe the next time it will be Simpson. I'm sure he won't complain.
Posted: Wednesday - January 31, 2007 at 07:45 PM          

©