Behold I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves. by The Devil's Avocado
I have, of late, developed a problem. I’ve begun collecting controversies. It’s a cold, sort of analytical approach. I like to pick them apart and mount them on display, without really feeling much about them. It’s quite interesting what can be found inside a controversy once one pulls away the layers of outrage, hyperbole, and general frothiness with which these things are usually discussed.
So let us take these beasts, these wild controversies that have traipsed through the wilds of social media and bring them into this sterile light. Let’s pick them apart, find out what’s going on, and dispassionately discuss the topics we’re all so passionate about.
I’ll be your host: the Devil’s Avocado.
Case I: Precedence
There’s a trend in sensationalist media that’s elevated my usually clammy disposition to “frustrated” and that’s, well, frustrating. There’s been a recent re-branding of the Slippery Slope fallacy and it’s know as “setting a precedent.” It carries with it a much more difficult-to-dismiss weight, what with being vaguely legal jargon. It’s the act of looking at a situation, often a legal ruling, and fearing all of the worse interpretations thereof. On the surface, yes, that’s what legal precedence is and, yes, by setting disagreeable or overly contextual precedents, it could make further interpretation of the matter more difficult. However, interpretation of the law, as written or as set in previous court decisions, is the whole point of the system. We’ve seen, likely more often than not, that precedents can be overruled. By fearing the worst for every outcome, we become closed off to the big picture sorts of things going on.
For my example, I offer the case of Heien v. North Carolina, as decided on December 15, 2014, otherwise known as the “cops don’t have to know the law to pull someone over” case. In brief summation: a police officer pulled over a vehicle on account of a missing tail light, asked to search the car, did so with permission, and then found a sandwich bag of cocaine. The owner of the car argued that he never should have been pulled over in the first place as, it turns out, a missing tail light is not legal cause to pull someone over.
As If You Only News reported, this is undeniably a travesty of our most basic human rights. Unfortunately, as admirable as their ability to pun is, their journalistic wherewithal is found lacking. One may note that their summary of events is decidedly different than the one above:
Or as the case before the court cited, an officer pulled a man over when a brake light flickered and then turned on, believing state law required two working lights, when in fact, it only requires one.
The article is really arguing a different point altogether and writer likely suspected that this case supported it. The connections made later on in the article to the severely unfortunate and needless police shootings that occurred previously implies a certain conspiracy at work that—even if such a thing is indeed in place—is not supported by this case. This may seem pedantic, but it’s fairly important. When talking about issues like objectively terrible cases of police brutality, it’s absolutely necessary to build arguments only on relevant and accurate information. If we can allow for a tangent: an argument, no matter how valid, is immediately and inexcusably weakened by using false evidence; most importantly, one should never counter the revelation that their evidence is false with the retort, “this sort of thing happens all the time anyway.” If one’s evidence is rendered irrelevant, one does not get to keep benefiting from it as if it were. That’s not how these things work.
To return to our case at hand, certain flaws in the understanding of cause and effect were made. Namely: the officer did not search the car because the tail light was out. What would he be expecting to find? A loose wire he could kindly fix for the travelers and send them on their way? A more complete understanding comes from the court report itself:
Darisse, [the officer] spoke with the two men, felt that their stories did not match up, and was concerned that Heien had not gotten up from the back seat. Darisse asked for permission to search the vehicle. Heien agreed, and Darisse found a bag containing 54.2 grams of cocaine in the car.
Completely disregarding the needless flourish of the “flickering” brake light, it’s clear that the officer searched the car because of the unusual circumstances within. One can only speculate as to whether the car was pulled over because the cop was suspicious and he only said the brake light thing as an excuse. It’s also singularly and vitally important that we point out that the cop asked and the individual—the one with all the cocaine—agreed. While the officer may have been ignorant of the legality of brake light functionality, no American person is unaware of the phrase “you have the right to remain silent.” Perhaps the individual didn’t realize at the time they were allowed to deny permission, forgetting the trope-like adage; perhaps, and again we can only speculate, it was all that cocaine.
The reason it’s so important to pick at these semantics is that if the court had ruled that the cop had no right to pull the car over and, therefore, had no right to search the car—even with permission—then two guys with a veritable adventure of cocaine would’ve gotten off with no charge. Since courts can’t try the same case twice (called double jeopardy), they’d need to be dumb enough to get caught with drugs a second time to get charged. The decision becomes both more complicated and, at the same time, far more simple: allow the two guys to be arrested for criminal activity, but forgive the cop’s mistake, or allow the two guys to go free, forgiving their criminal charge?
The thing about legal precedence is context. If a cop randomly pulls over a car and executes everyone inside, citing a made-up charge for pulling them over, this ruling will not protect them. The ruling had to be made this way, but others don’t. Courts don’t throw out everything but the “cops don’t have to know laws” bit of previous cases and call it good. It’s understandably clear, then, that the situation paints a specific picture in a specific context. As soon as the context changes, the precedent loses its significance.
It is with every intention that this discussion was severed from other matters. If You Only News correlated the Heien case with police brutality and the legitimate struggle against NSA and other invasive programs. Those are certainly arguments worth having, deserving of adequately informed discourse. I’m more interested in the fantastic beasts that, once shaved down and cleaned off, appear to be an awfully mundane thing. This creature doesn’t run with the frightening beasts that plague us constantly, so let’s not pretend it does.
So let us take these beasts, these wild controversies that have traipsed through the wilds of social media and bring them into this sterile light. Let’s pick them apart, find out what’s going on, and dispassionately discuss the topics we’re all so passionate about.
I’ll be your host: the Devil’s Avocado.
Case I: Precedence
There’s a trend in sensationalist media that’s elevated my usually clammy disposition to “frustrated” and that’s, well, frustrating. There’s been a recent re-branding of the Slippery Slope fallacy and it’s know as “setting a precedent.” It carries with it a much more difficult-to-dismiss weight, what with being vaguely legal jargon. It’s the act of looking at a situation, often a legal ruling, and fearing all of the worse interpretations thereof. On the surface, yes, that’s what legal precedence is and, yes, by setting disagreeable or overly contextual precedents, it could make further interpretation of the matter more difficult. However, interpretation of the law, as written or as set in previous court decisions, is the whole point of the system. We’ve seen, likely more often than not, that precedents can be overruled. By fearing the worst for every outcome, we become closed off to the big picture sorts of things going on.
For my example, I offer the case of Heien v. North Carolina, as decided on December 15, 2014, otherwise known as the “cops don’t have to know the law to pull someone over” case. In brief summation: a police officer pulled over a vehicle on account of a missing tail light, asked to search the car, did so with permission, and then found a sandwich bag of cocaine. The owner of the car argued that he never should have been pulled over in the first place as, it turns out, a missing tail light is not legal cause to pull someone over.
As If You Only News reported, this is undeniably a travesty of our most basic human rights. Unfortunately, as admirable as their ability to pun is, their journalistic wherewithal is found lacking. One may note that their summary of events is decidedly different than the one above:
Or as the case before the court cited, an officer pulled a man over when a brake light flickered and then turned on, believing state law required two working lights, when in fact, it only requires one.
The article is really arguing a different point altogether and writer likely suspected that this case supported it. The connections made later on in the article to the severely unfortunate and needless police shootings that occurred previously implies a certain conspiracy at work that—even if such a thing is indeed in place—is not supported by this case. This may seem pedantic, but it’s fairly important. When talking about issues like objectively terrible cases of police brutality, it’s absolutely necessary to build arguments only on relevant and accurate information. If we can allow for a tangent: an argument, no matter how valid, is immediately and inexcusably weakened by using false evidence; most importantly, one should never counter the revelation that their evidence is false with the retort, “this sort of thing happens all the time anyway.” If one’s evidence is rendered irrelevant, one does not get to keep benefiting from it as if it were. That’s not how these things work.
To return to our case at hand, certain flaws in the understanding of cause and effect were made. Namely: the officer did not search the car because the tail light was out. What would he be expecting to find? A loose wire he could kindly fix for the travelers and send them on their way? A more complete understanding comes from the court report itself:
Darisse, [the officer] spoke with the two men, felt that their stories did not match up, and was concerned that Heien had not gotten up from the back seat. Darisse asked for permission to search the vehicle. Heien agreed, and Darisse found a bag containing 54.2 grams of cocaine in the car.
Completely disregarding the needless flourish of the “flickering” brake light, it’s clear that the officer searched the car because of the unusual circumstances within. One can only speculate as to whether the car was pulled over because the cop was suspicious and he only said the brake light thing as an excuse. It’s also singularly and vitally important that we point out that the cop asked and the individual—the one with all the cocaine—agreed. While the officer may have been ignorant of the legality of brake light functionality, no American person is unaware of the phrase “you have the right to remain silent.” Perhaps the individual didn’t realize at the time they were allowed to deny permission, forgetting the trope-like adage; perhaps, and again we can only speculate, it was all that cocaine.
The reason it’s so important to pick at these semantics is that if the court had ruled that the cop had no right to pull the car over and, therefore, had no right to search the car—even with permission—then two guys with a veritable adventure of cocaine would’ve gotten off with no charge. Since courts can’t try the same case twice (called double jeopardy), they’d need to be dumb enough to get caught with drugs a second time to get charged. The decision becomes both more complicated and, at the same time, far more simple: allow the two guys to be arrested for criminal activity, but forgive the cop’s mistake, or allow the two guys to go free, forgiving their criminal charge?
The thing about legal precedence is context. If a cop randomly pulls over a car and executes everyone inside, citing a made-up charge for pulling them over, this ruling will not protect them. The ruling had to be made this way, but others don’t. Courts don’t throw out everything but the “cops don’t have to know laws” bit of previous cases and call it good. It’s understandably clear, then, that the situation paints a specific picture in a specific context. As soon as the context changes, the precedent loses its significance.
It is with every intention that this discussion was severed from other matters. If You Only News correlated the Heien case with police brutality and the legitimate struggle against NSA and other invasive programs. Those are certainly arguments worth having, deserving of adequately informed discourse. I’m more interested in the fantastic beasts that, once shaved down and cleaned off, appear to be an awfully mundane thing. This creature doesn’t run with the frightening beasts that plague us constantly, so let’s not pretend it does.
