After I wrote the last post I got to thinking that maybe it was irresponsible of me to only call the news station and not a police department. I started to feel that way when I watched the 5:30 news and didn't catch a mention. My plan only worked if the news station really tried to get to the bottom of the story. But of course it had no obligation to do anything.
It turns out that the news station did pick up the story and contacted the relevant police departments. Oddly, apparently one of the police departments doesn't think there's a connection. I say its odd because except for a small discrepancy in the height descriptions I think the similarities are uncanny.
I found all this out today when I bumped into a news crew filming b-roll in my neighborhood. I introduced myself to the reporter and said I was the one who'd called their station. She appreciated it, and confirmed that they wouldn't have known about the possible connection without it. I talked with her for a bit and then she asked if she could put me on camera. I reluctantly agreed, mostly out of empathy for her doing her job. It's much better if she can get a soundbyte then to have to put it all together with b-roll and her voice-over. I just saw the bit they used on the newscast and I'm pleased to note I didn't look or sound completely asinine. I also appeared without a caption, which means I can retain some anonymity.
That anonymity, despite what the Supreme Court thinks, is important. I realized my reluctance to call the police to discuss the matter was rooted in the strong desire to not have them know who I was. (Eventually I did call the Alexandria police anyway because I decided that if this information could possibly be helpful I had no business withholding it.) The problem is that more and more I've come to distrust the abstract notion of police power.
I'm actually startled by the extent of my distrust. I think some of it stems from becoming increasingly aware of situations where police power has been used to railroad the innocent. I think society wants to believe the police are some sort of panacea and only capture bad guys, but all too often good guys get treated as bad guys and serious miscarriages of justice result. This fate can be somewhat avoided, I reason, if the police don't know who you are.
The other thing I've been reflecting on is the moral authority of the law. I hate using the word "moral" for anything because it's so abused as a provocative rhetorical device, but I mean here the reasonableness of the law. Is it fair and just, a balance between benefit and burden that reasonably achieves a reasonable goal? Or does it instead serve simply to lull the populace into a false sense of security while it silently erodes their liberties and divides society into a false dichotomy of good guys and bad?
More and more I fear the latter is happening. In a moment of heavy irony, on the Fourth of July I was queued up near the Mall, listening to Clay Aiken belting out how proud to be an American he was "where at least [he knows] he's free," while gazing up at the dome of the Capitol, and waiting to have my belongings searched before I, with all the other citizens, could peaceably assemble in a public place. On a day when we celebrate our freedom it baffled me how we can so carelessly allow it to be compromised with no protest.
Certainly some laws make sense. Maybe even some intrusions on unbridled liberty do as well. But I fear that more and more we are accepting laws that have less and less justification, less and less benefit in contrast to their incursions on our privacy, our anonymity, or our other civil liberties. It's not just these laws themselves I fear but this tendency to accept them so unquestioningly.
So I'm trying to fight back with my own form of civil disobedience, to assert myself in the face of governmental power. Some laws are good, certainly, especially the ones that deter damage to our neighbors (like violent assaults and theft). I don't have any intention or desire to violate those! But I think there's several more petty ones, or ones which though may have a potential purpose also don't have a tremendous consequence if violated. Some of these laws in fact simply provide authority figures with the ability to label more people as troublemakers than to actually protect society constructively.
These are the laws I've decided to resist. So towards this end a few days ago I consciously resolved to jaywalk at every reasonable opportunity, on principle. It's not about getting where I want to more quickly, it's about standing up to power and refusing to blindly accept it. True, I could envision a justification for jaywalking laws, and to be sure I won't do it if I'll put myself or others at risk. But in the other, more benign circumstances, when jaywalking would harm no one but the law's punitive power still persists, I'll violate it. It's about wanting to stop feeling like a sheep, to start being empowered in the face of authority. I wish more people would. I wish more people would recognize their power, to insist that police and governmental authority demonstrate its legitimacy and not simply blindly defer to it. And I wish that resistance would collectively be demonstrated against laws far more destructive than traffic scofflaws.
The truth is that we need laws, and we need police to be protectors. But all the good these institutions can do is lost when they wield their power over citizenry unchecked. For no good results when the innocent are punished and the actual miscreants face no consequences. Justice doesn't happen on its own. It results only with the constant vigilance of the people.