While the video taken by Reason TV’s Dan Hayes was sure to evoke some controversy about Washington, D.C. Det. [FNU] Baylor, it struck me as fairly certain that it would be the detective, not the snowball fighters, who would bear the brunt of scrutiny. Not so, according to lawprof Ann Althouse.
There is a difference between a snowball fight and throwing snowballs at moving vehicles. In a snowball fight — like this cool one in Madison a couple weeks ago — you have voluntary participants playing at fighting with each other. Throwing snowballs at cars, on the other had, is surprising people who happen upon the scene and it’s distracting them — and doing so at a time when it is particularly difficult to drive. Drivers do not know the extent of the interference when it begins, and they can be frightened or easily stimulated into braking or accelerating — when there is snow and ice and when pedestrians are nearby. Whether the vehicles are Hummers or not makes no difference.
Apparently, there are strict rules by which snowball fights are to be run. How strict? Violate those rules and it’s a capital offense. Worst still, Althouse takes issue with the Hayes’ description of Baylor’s weapons management. Hayes uses the word “brandish”, which Althouse deems an overly active verb:
“Brandished” is a heavy word and “brandished… at” connotes that he pointed the gun at people, which he did not.
I take issue with the word “connotes”, “Pointed” means pointed. “Brandish” means to “shake or wave wildly” or “to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner.” And “prune-faced school marm” means someone who finds the possibility that unruly, rule-breaking, vicious snow-ball-at-Hummer-throwing people will go unpunished unacceptable. If only Althouse was there with a yardstick to put a stop to this in the first place.
But it isn’t merely the vicious throwing of snowballs that disturbs her.
But it isn’t merely the vicious throwing of snowballs that disturbs her.
Why couldn’t people have spoken with him in a civil way and conveyed the assurance that there was no problem requiring police attention? Did they consider that there might be people elsewhere in the city, during the snow emergency, who actually would have benefited from help from a police officer who got delayed by unruly adults who thought snow suspended the rules and made it okay to throw objects at moving cars?
New rule: When confronted with angry cop waiving (but not brandishing) gun, talk nicely. After all, they were “unruly”, and you can’t have that.
What’s curious about Althouse’s screed is that it never appears to dawn on her that there is but one reason to unholster a weapon, and that is to use it. Would she have manufactured excuses for Det. Baylor’s actions had he pulled out his gun and started shooting? Would one dead “unruly” adult have been fine with her? What about a dozen? Is she an advocate of the death penalty for unruliness? For snowball throwing? Where is the line where Ann Althouse would have these vicious snowball predators put to death?
Althouse found some of the words chanted by the crowd distasteful. I did too. But I wouldn’t advocate for, or excuse, their being shot for having chanted unpleasant words. Sticks and stones, Ann. Not even snowballs. And let’s not forget that had Det. Baylor not stopped his Hummer, whether to break up unruly street thugs or because he was pissed off at someone hitting his shiny car with a snowball, and pulled out his gun, there would have been no chanting. Independent intervening event, lawprof?
Finally, Althouse, explaining more rules about which many may be unaware, approvingly describes this near-riot as a “guerrilla snow ball fight” because it happened in the snowbound streets of D.C.
There’s nothing wrong with Ann Althouse deciding that had she been walking the streets of D.C. and came upon this snowball fight, she would have just kept walking. It doesn’t have to meet with everyone’s idea of a good time, or a good choice. But to suggest that a police detective pulling out a gun, with the obvious potential that it would discharge a projectile and strike someone, is beyond the pale. We don’t execute people for engaging in snowball fights. Even snowball fights that break Ann Althouse’s rules.
H/T Gary Carson at American Traditions.
What’s curious about Althouse’s screed is that it never appears to dawn on her that there is but one reason to unholster a weapon, and that is to use it. Would she have manufactured excuses for Det. Baylor’s actions had he pulled out his gun and started shooting? Would one dead “unruly” adult have been fine with her? What about a dozen? Is she an advocate of the death penalty for unruliness? For snowball throwing? Where is the line where Ann Althouse would have these vicious snowball predators put to death?
Althouse found some of the words chanted by the crowd distasteful. I did too. But I wouldn’t advocate for, or excuse, their being shot for having chanted unpleasant words. Sticks and stones, Ann. Not even snowballs. And let’s not forget that had Det. Baylor not stopped his Hummer, whether to break up unruly street thugs or because he was pissed off at someone hitting his shiny car with a snowball, and pulled out his gun, there would have been no chanting. Independent intervening event, lawprof?
Finally, Althouse, explaining more rules about which many may be unaware, approvingly describes this near-riot as a “guerrilla snow ball fight” because it happened in the snowbound streets of D.C.
A fun snowball fight would be sited in a park of some kind, not in the middle of the street.This sounds like the modern version of Marie Antoinette’s “let them eat cake,” with almost an audible sniffle as explains the difference between vicious snowball street predators and fun-loving bucolic park snowball fighters. If only the organizers of this vicious snowball fight had chosen a more appropriate site, Althouse would have endorsed it as good, clean fun. After all, no such thing as a fun snowball fight might happen spontaneously, as in wherever the people were at the moment it began. Only evil snowball predators bent on law-breaking destruction would engage in such vicious frivolity.
There’s nothing wrong with Ann Althouse deciding that had she been walking the streets of D.C. and came upon this snowball fight, she would have just kept walking. It doesn’t have to meet with everyone’s idea of a good time, or a good choice. But to suggest that a police detective pulling out a gun, with the obvious potential that it would discharge a projectile and strike someone, is beyond the pale. We don’t execute people for engaging in snowball fights. Even snowball fights that break Ann Althouse’s rules.
H/T Gary Carson at American Traditions.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
sniffing psuedo-sophisticate meets cranky curmudgeon
Well, yeah. The comments in Althouse’s blog entry vary from the sensible to the disturbing. One theme seems to be that since the snowball fighters were anarchists — after all, at least one of them was wearing a ski mask (something that people of many political persuasions do outside when there’s a lot of snow around, as I understand it) this was some sort of anarchist uprising.
Me, I’ve had my car hit by snowballs, and didn’t like it much. Among the many reasons that I wouldn’t stop and whip out a gun when that happened — in addition to not being interested in even maybe shooting somebody over that — is that around here (and everywhere I know anything about) if a guy without a badge did that, he’d find himself in serious legal trouble. (We recently had a guy without a badge who pulled out his gun to stop a driver he apparently thought was drunk from leaving the scene; he was promptly arrested, and while he was able to beat the charges, he’s likely to lose his permit. If he’d just whipped out his cell phone, he’d have been better off.)
Baylor’s unlikely to get even a slap on the wrist.
Thank goodness they didn’t give uzis to school bus drivers when I was a kid or I’m not sure that many of my classmates would have made it through junior high school (and we’d have probably deserved it).
I like that.
I’ve been on both sides of the snowball law, but being unarmed, the best I could do was give them the evil eye. It was sufficient, but then, I’ve got a particularly evil eye.
“to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner.”
Where I come from, this includes simply intentionally revealing a concealed firearm, removal from the holster or waistband (for thugs) required.
Story now is the detective got out to survey the damage. Again something we without badges would be arrested for: stopping in the middle of the street, in the middle of the damage producing snow fusillade to check for cosmetic damage. A normal person would pull their car out of the traffic lanes and away from the snow assaulters.
I’ve got a particularly evil eye.
On this, you and Althouse may find common ground.
Here is how the police most probably will rationalize the incident.
The officer being out numbered was in fear for his life due to the unruly crowed. The officer commented no procedural violations and acted within departmental policies.
“And “prune-faced school marm” means someone who finds the possibility that unruly, rule-breaking, vicious snow-ball-at-Hummer-throwing people will go unpunished unacceptable. If only Althouse was there with a yardstick to put a stop to this in the first place.”
WOW… THAT is writing, my friend. (bows deeply)
Thank you. I’m honored that you like it.
There is historical precedence for this event. Didn’t the Boston Massacre start out as a snowball fight?
Not exactly. The Sons of Liberty, a group comprised of dry goods merchants who were very unhappy about how taxes for the cost of the French and Indian War were cutting into their profits, hired a group of street thugs to incite a fight with the British regulars to create the impression of Brit hostility toward the masses, and thus get the ordinary folk to go along with the Sons of Liberty. So the paid provocateurs chucked some snowballs (which are alleged to have covered harder objects) at the Brits, who then opened fire and turned Crispus Attucks into an American hero, with only a few remembering that the Brits were acquitted with John Adams repersentation.
Having been involved in a serious accident after a snowball shattered my windshield, I’m admittedly biased. I also recall a Long Island case where a teenager was charged with first degree assault and faced 25 years in jail after tossing a frozen turkey from a car window, seriously injuring the driver behind his vehicle.
While I admire your avid defense, the Washington DC incident involved over 200 adults who had deliberately planned to conduct this activity in a place where they would knowingly endanger and intimidate the public.
[Ed. Note: links deleted.]
I think Ms. Althouse’s instincts were correct. Her argument fails because instead of supplying evidence that the detective was justified in assessing the situation as sufficiently threatening to unholster his weapon, she resorts to a foolish comparison of good snowball fight vs bad one.
Whether the fault of your reasoning is due to your bias or just faulty reasoning, I don’t know. But you make no sense whatsoever. If this was a terribly unruly “mob”, then the proper reaction was to call the police and have them do crowd control. It’s got nothing to do with the propriety of jumping out of a Hummer and pulling out a gun. It could be the unruliest snowballers ever. You still don’t shoot them for it. Got the idea?
And by the way, the LI case involved a kid throwing a frozen turkey from a bridge through the windshield of a car below. It has nothing whatsoever to with what happened here. As for your case, I’m sorry for your accident, but this detective’s windshield didn’t shatter, nor was an accident caused, so there is no logical connection with your experience and his pulling out his gun.
Would it make you feel better about your accident if Det. Baylor shot and killed someone in D.C.?
It certainly isn’t the first time I’ve been accused of having faulty reasoning, but the links you deleted make a powerful case that the police detective encountered an unruly mob that was a menace to the public. The detective was correct in stopping and immediately calling for backup. It can certainly be argued whether or not the threat was sufficient to require he unholster the gun, but that’s a matter of departmental procedure and judgment.
You’re incorrect regarding the Long Island case. Here’s the details:
Tuesday October 18, 2005
A teenager who tossed a 20lb turkey through a woman’s car windscreen has been sentenced to six months in jail. Ryan Cushing had flung the turkey out of the rear window of the car he was riding in with other teenagers on Long Island, near New York City.
[Ed. Note: Link deleted again. That will be the last time if you would like to comment here again.]
Your links were deleted because I don’t allow commenters to include links, which you’ve now done twice. Whether they make a powerful case, as you believe, is another story, but you clearly haven’t got a clue about the use of deadly force.
And you are right that the turkey was thrown from a car, not a bridge. But it still isn’t relevant to a snowball fight.