What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

I guess he is a "complete unknown" with "no direction home"

Read about it here.

Comments (29)

Clearly a case of racial profiling. (It mentions he was in a mostly "minority" neighborhood. White guy wandering around minority neighborhood, gets stopped by cops and asked for ID.) He should have screamed at them that they didn't know who they were messing with and that he'd talk to their chief and see their "mamas" outside. Think how _frustrating_ it must have been to be asked to accompany them back to the hotel when he was just harmlessly walking down the street. Oh. No, I guess most people don't behave that way.

The difference between Mr Dylan and Professor Gates seems to be that Mr Dylan does not think that co-operating with officers of the law is beneath him despite his wealth and worldwide fame whereas Professor Gates being a relitave unknown at the time of his arrest immidiately and irationally read racist motives into the actions of the officers at the scene.

So cops pulling someone over without a hint of probable cause and requiring ID of one of the greatest musical legends is reason for deferential obedience. At this point, I am curious to know if there are any types of police misconduct conservatives wouldn’t enthusiastically support.

As a personal note, about a year ago I was stopped without any probable cause for the mistake of being a cautious driver. It was late at night and I was parked on private property, as I was about to pull my car onto the winding rural road I saw headlights way down the road. Since some people go the speed limit on that road and others treat it like a race course, I decided not to risk jumping out in front of a car going fast so I waited for them to pass by. Of course it was a cop, so he stopped in front of me and did the whole interrogation routine to see if I was drunk, high, or whatever. I never raised my voice, but I made sure to use the appropriate tone of exasperation and eye rolls of disbelief to convey how wrong he was. Lucky for me that Lydia wasn’t there to tell him how much I deserved to be taken into custody for contempt of cop.

Yeah, a tone of exasperation is _just_ like running after him screaming insults. Just like that.

Actually, given the neighborhood Dylan was in, their taking him back to the hotel may have been relevant to his own safety, though I don't know if they were allowed to say that. 68yo white guy in a rough neighborhood, wandering around with no obvious purpose. Could be a dangerous situation. For him.

So Step2, do you think the cop might have profiled you? Perhaps such action has nabbed many drunks before and since you were inconvenienced.

I myself am more vigilant for drunks late at night than in the daytime. Aren't you?

There are enough problems with police overuse of tasers or with law-abiding officers being legally and politically harassed for commonsense actions. Stories about feeling insulted for being taken for a potential drunk driver don't do much to clear the air.

Others have speculated that Dylan fit the profile of a white guy going into minority areas to look for drugs. At his age, police were probably more concerned for his safety and mental state.

His out-of-town accent likely attracted attention as well.

If we see a complete stranger wandering about our neighborhood with no apparent purpose, we will check it out. My husband would just go talk to him; I would call either a male neighbor to do so or the police if no one else is home. I'm sorry if this is offensive to people who just like to wander about, but there is a lot of crime in some areas and part of keeping it down is letting potential thieves (or worse) know that they are noticed. It doesn't seem to me "police misconduct" when they respond to a citizen's call about what appears to them to be suspicious behavior (someone you can't see well seeming to break into a house; a stranger to the area wandering around looking into houses). How is the concerned neighbor supposed to know the difference? Not to mention that if the apparent stranger really is a stranger and a criminal to boot, I'd feel pretty awful if I hadn't had it checked out and someone was stolen from or physically harmed. And why is it wrong to be unfamiliar with the appearance of rock stars (or, for that matter, "famous" college professors)? *I* wouldn't recognize Dylan if he wandered into my neighborhood today, and I was a fan of his back in my (and his) youth . . .

It doesn't seem to me "police misconduct" when they respond to a citizen's call about what appears to them to be suspicious behavior (someone you can't see well seeming to break into a house; a stranger to the area wandering around looking into houses). How is the concerned neighbor supposed to know the difference?

Well, Dylan wasn't doing anything like that...

It should be noted, Step2, that he was not pulled over. Pulling people over for no good reason is certainly something that occurs, and apparently may have happened to you. (My direct experience of this is more laughable than serious, though still wrong: a cop once pulled over someone I was in the car with to ask him if he liked the model of car he was driving, as the cop was thinking of getting the same car.) However, that is not what happened here. I don't have a problem with the police stopping to talk to Dylan, so they can check him out, get a feel for him, etc.

However, I do have a problem with the police effectively requiring him to give them ID, which seems to be what happened here. Speculation about the motives of the police in bringing him back to the hotel is irrelevant--their stated motive was to get his ID. If one cannot walk the public streets with no identification papers without intervention from the coercive arm of the government, then I think we should at least just admit that this country is not free in the same sense it once was, and I don't see anything conservative about such a loss of freedom.

My point was not that the police had every right to require him to go back to the hotel when he didn't have ID. My point was just that I think he had a good attitude, in contrast to Gates. Dylan didn't think he had the right to be abusive to them, and in particular he didn't say, "You don't know who you're messin' with"--a haughty idea that one belongs to the new aristocracy that liberals, in particular, should condemn.

Darcy, I agree. That was the part of the story that I noticed - that somehow Dylan was (a) required to produce an ID, as if having an ID (valid?...phony??) somehow clarified whether or not he was violating a law by walking the street; and (b) taken to his hotel to establish his bona fides.

Clearly Mr. Dylan did the right thing by mildly answering questions put to him by the police, even though he had neither committed a crime nor created any scenario that might have looked even remotely like probable cause. Just because he himself knew that he had done nothing requiring police involvement does not mean that he should not have been polite in response to officers charged with public safety. What if the policeman wanted to see his ID because he was sent to look for Mr. Dylan as a result of a family emergency?

And clearly he did the right thing by not making a stink about it afterwards, as long as "right thing" contains accepting mild inconvenience by over-active police without demanding "justice" for the inconvenience. No sane person thinks we ought to make a big deal out of every single mistake or offense by others, and insist that every one of them be officially corrected.

What I don't accept is any suggestion that the police should have "recognized" Mr. Dylan, or should have accorded him any special treatment if they had /i> recognized him. Does his ID state: "VIP, handle with high respect"? Celebrities are certainly capable of illegality and misdeeds. And they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us. Treating them as if they required a special set of rules really would be a violation of police standards.

Perhaps someone else has the time to find the link; I'm not terribly motivated to do so. But I read that some NRO writer got on her high horse (I believe it was a she) saying that the "problem" with Officer Crowley in the Gates incident is that he was "parochial"--because he didn't know who Gates was. For goodness' sake! I'm waiting for her to write a follow-up on how "parochial" the New Jersey police are--Dylan being immeasurably more famous than the pseudo-intellectual race-monger Gates.

Looks like Bob Dylan practices what he preaches.

Here are the lyrics for "Disease of Conceit," a video of which I post as an entry.

Disease of Conceit Bob Dylan

There's a whole lot of people suffering tonight
From the disease of conceit.
Whole lot of people struggling tonight
From the disease of conceit.
Comes right down the highway,
Straight down the line,
Rips into your senses
Through your body and your mind.
Nothing about it that's sweet,
The disease of conceit.

There's a whole lot of hearts breaking tonight
From the disease of conceit,
Whole lot of hearts shaking tonight
From the disease of conceit.
Steps into your room,
Eats your soul,
Over your senses
You have no control.
Ain't nothing too discreet
About of disease of conceit.

There's a whole lot of people dying tonight
From the disease of conceit,
Whole lot of people crying tonight
From the disease of conceit,
Comes right out of nowhere
And you're down for the count
From the outside world,
The pressure will mount,
Turn you into a piece of meat,
The disease of conceit.

Conceit is a disease
That the doctors got no cure
They've done a lot of research on it
But what it is, they're still not sure

There's a whole lot of people in trouble tonight
From the disease of conceit,
Whole lot of people seeing double tonight
From the disease of conceit,
Give ya delusions of grandeur
And a evil eye
Give you idea that
You're too good to die,
Then they bury you from your head to your feet
From the disease of conceit.

Copyright ©1989 Special Rider Music

I am curious to know if there are any types of police misconduct conservatives wouldn’t enthusiastically support.

The federal kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez, the shooting of Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge, the burning of children at Waco, the absence of police misconduct in South Central post-Rodney King, providing security for the execution of Terri Schiavo, arresting abortion protesters under RICO statutes, ticketing my wife for going 5 mph over the speed limit on the way to her father's funeral. As to whether King should have been beaten at such leisure, I'm still undecided.

Darcy writes: "If one cannot walk the public streets with no identification papers without intervention from the coercive arm of the government, then I think we should at least just admit that this country is not free in the same sense it once was, and I don't see anything conservative about such a loss of freedom."

I am told that vagrancy and loitering laws were once much more potent than they are now. While we are less free in many respects, this is not one of them.

Of course, being able to live in a neighborhood free of bums, lowlifes and suspicious strangers is also a kind of liberty. The poorer neighborhoods have lost this freedom in part due to their inability to police their community with those strict laws.

I am told that vagrancy and loitering laws were once much more potent than they are now. While we are less free in many respects, this is not one of them.

An old man casually walking down a public street, minding his own business is hardly vagrancy or loitering.

Of course, being able to live in a neighborhood free of bums, lowlifes and suspicious strangers is also a kind of liberty. The poorer neighborhoods have lost this freedom in part due to their inability to police their community with those strict laws.

Poorer neighborhoods tend to (often quite literally) breed the very bums, lowlifes and suspicious strangers that prey on them.

Mike T,

That was a particularly nasty comment. It sounds like you've drunk Margaret Sanger's KoolAid.

Well, if I an old white guy who resembled Dylan wandering in my neighborhood I'd call the cops too. He might be lost, crazed or looking to score something.

"An old man casually walking down a public street, minding his own business is hardly vagrancy or loitering."

You sound like an ACLU attorney, which I grant might be a good thing in this case.

However, you implied that the policemen's action represents a "lost liberty" and would have been less acceptable throughout pre-ACLU American history, which I doubt. Were American communities in an age of undeveloped communication technology really more open to shabby-looking characters? Local authorities would actually run the jobless or unconnected stranger out of town.

Racial profiling: the bad affirmative action.
Affirmative action: the good racial profiling.

Got that.

That was a particularly nasty comment. It sounds like you've drunk Margaret Sanger's KoolAid.

Obviously, by pointing out the fact that these communities often create the very vermin who prey on them, I'm advocating abortion and eugenics...

However, you implied that the policemen's action represents a "lost liberty" and would have been less acceptable throughout pre-ACLU American history, which I doubt. Were American communities in an age of undeveloped communication technology really more open to shabby-looking characters? Local authorities would actually run the jobless or unconnected stranger out of town.

Calling him a shabby-looking character is making a strawman argument. It's the same thing that Beth did above with the issue of peeking into people's houses. Dylan was neither dressed like a hobo nor was he giving any reasonable person grounds to think he was casing up the neighborhood, let alone considering worse. No one has put forth evidence to show that Dylan was behaving in a suspicious way or looked like some shady old coot.

If an older man cannot walk down the street without having the police demanding to see some ID, then that is a loss of freedom. If you cannot safely leave your house without carrying your ID in the off chance of such a situation, then that makes us "different in degree, not kind" from the infamous police states we once opposed. The only argument here that defends the police and that makes sense is Lydia's argument that the police would have reasonable grounds to try to take him back to the hotel for his own safety, given the "dynamics" of the situation.

By the way, back in the day, there was no protection for the authorities if they "acted in good faith." Not only that, but it was legal to use force to resist arrest if you were innocent or the arrest was not supported by the law. If you want to go back to the old laws, then let's add that one to the top of the list as it was the most effective check the public had against police corruption.

Eugenics: genocide for progressives.

Apparently all you people are too young to know how much things have changed in the last 50 years. When I was 15 or so I would walk through town (25,000 pop.) 2 miles carrying a loaded .22 rifle to a place outside town for target practice. No one called the police, no SWAT team accosted me, no one paid any attention.

Who's Bob Dylan?

Mike T writes: "If you cannot safely leave your house without carrying your ID in the off chance of such a situation, then that makes us "different in degree, not kind" from the infamous police states we once opposed."

This is hysteria. How is there not a difference in kind between a police state that constantly surveils identification and a police force that requests ID after a citizen complaint?

Who's Bob Dylan?

Robert Zimmerman.

This is hysteria. How is there not a difference in kind between a police state that constantly surveils identification and a police force that requests ID after a citizen complaint?

What probable cause did the police have other than Dylan's completely legal behavior which a reasonable person would not consider suspicious made some nutjob(s) feel uneasy? I don't want to live in a society which empowers every paranoid housewife, old person or dogooder to summon the police to demand IDs of people who are neither breaking the law nor behaving in a way that a mentally balanced individual would find suspicious.

Apparently all you people are too young to know how much things have changed in the last 50 years. When I was 15 or so I would walk through town (25,000 pop.) 2 miles carrying a loaded .22 rifle to a place outside town for target practice. No one called the police, no SWAT team accosted me, no one paid any attention.

50 years ago, when my dad was in school, a bully's victim could beat the tar out of the bully, and the principal would not even think about punishing the victim unless he broke the law. In fact, if the bully's parents raised a stink about it, the community would have made pariahs out of them.

We've become a nation of paranoid, legalistic cowards.

Why do I think Robert Zimmerman is actually Francis? ;)

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.