Fairness vs. Order

As I was looking over information and opinions on Gates Gate, I came across an article by Tonya A Weatherbee dated July 31, 2009. In it she states that there is a need to listen for those on either side of the Gates' arrest issue. But one premise she espoused is one that I feel has a lot more to do with the problem than any other. In essence she espoused the right to argue with the police in the heat of the moment.

Here's how she put it:

Since Gates' arrest and subsequent release, there's been more yelling. And not enough listening. There's yelling from the people who support Crowley; people who are only hearing the fact that he taught diversity classes. But if he was such an expert, he should have been sensitive to the fact that, to an elderly black man like Gates who defied stereotypes and rose to the top of academia, being mistaken for a criminal might not sit well with him. Others only see Gates as a man who shouldn't have raised his voice to a police officer. Yet, I utterly reject the notion that people should be subservient to the police if they believe they are being mistreated. The police are the ones who are the public servants, not the other way around. People ought to be able to argue with them - see First Amendment - without being arrested for it.

To believe otherwise is to put more of a premium on order than on fairness.

http://www.jacksonville.com/opinion/columnists/tonyaa_weathersbee/2009-07-28/story/professor_police_showdown_dramatizes_the_need

So, how is the citizenry supposed to relate to the police? And how are the police supposed to relate to the citizenry?

I find the reference to the first amendment to be amusing, because so many people construe the first amendment to mean all sorts of things. It gets invoked a lot for all sorts of things where it isn't applicable. Let's review:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As far as I can tell, Tanya is declaring laws against disorderly conduct to be unconstitutional, at least as long as the conduct is limited to verbal actions. Given that interpretation, I'm not sure why Tanya doesn't believe that people should have the right to berate policemen verbally under any circumstances, not limited to arguing.
"Fairness vs. Order" seems to be Tanya's argument, but I think we have laws specifically because "fairness" is a very subjective concept.

In the world of fairness, if someone steals my property (say a laptop, something easily portable) and I know that they have it in the bedroom of their apartment, it seems fair that I could go into their home and reclaim my property. Assuming I do not have their permission to enter, in this case fairness lets me trespass. In some people's mind, fairness lets me break and enter. I expect in some people's mind, fairness lets me commit assault. Clearly there is some limit here, and that's why we have laws and put a premium on order.

There is another issue though. Does order undermine fairness? If it does, I believe that is clearly a problem. Order/laws are there to ensure that fairness prevails over time. If they fail to perform that function, then they need to be changed. Is that the case here? If the officer was acting inappropriately, is there a lawful mechanism to address that? I don't know about the rules in this case, but berating the policeman does not seem to me to be the appropriate course of action. Is it an illegal course of action (and should it be?). When it reaches the stage of disorderly conduct, it is illegal. The policeman on the scene does get to make that determination (although in this case there were other witnesses, the only ones that have gone on the record that I know of are other police officers, and the agree with the disorderly conduct arrest, and for those of you keeping score, it is my understanding that one of the police witnesses was a black officer).

Police do hold a special place in our society, and we have to grant and acknowledge that they have special powers, amongst which is the power to detain and arrest for reasons they see fit. We do have the right to give a police officer crap of course, but they have the power to arrest us. If we feel that the actions taken were unfair given the circumstances, there should be a system to report and address grievances in place (which there is). When they cross the line, there should be consequences (and police definitely cross the line, even though I believe sometimes it is part of their training to do so, which was what I believed happened to Rodney King years ago).

I just have a hard time accepting that people have the right to argue (to the point of berating) with the police during an investigation without the possibility of an arrest for disorderly conduct. And even if an arrest is to be made, the police must still adhere to a code of conduct that requires the use of reasonable force.

A perception of "fairness" just doesn't seem to be a reasonable position to take to argue with an officer. And using age, race, sexual orientation or religion, or even just a bad day as a justification for giving a policeman a hard time seems unreasonable.

Then again, maybe I'm just a fascist at heart. Somehow though, I don't think so.