What harm would it have been to let Garret Chow ride across the finish line? The MASH guys had been riding across California for 8 days, and dude just wanted to ride across the line of the Tour of California stage that finished in his home town. But no. Indignant at the very idea, some rent-a-cop decided to literally tackle him off his bike. Maybe there are some insurance issues that I don't know of, maybe the ToC would be liable if someone riding the course got hurt. But if that's the case, it doesn't really make sense that this official thought it would be okay to physically tackle Garrett.
I think the explanation is much more interesting: put a person in a structural position where they have power, even if that power is minuscule and extends only as far, say, as protecting a finish line in a bike race, and when that power is challenged they will often react disproportionately, because some people just seem to become so identifed with their alloted role that they feel personally threatened when that role is threatened. Garrett riding across the line wouldn't have caused any harm to the ToC or the city of Pasedena. We all know this. But in the moment, that official was reacting not to the idea of someone riding across the line, but to the idea of someone resisting him.
Power and identity are complex things, and when a structure empowers someone, it's always interesting to see the extent of the articulation between the two, the extent to which power can become an identity.
Read more about the MASH ride across California here and here.
[update] Got an email from Mike Martin over at MASH. He said they weren't trying to piss anyone off, they just wanted to ride the full stage each day. He also said that GC getting tackled wasn't a big deal, but that this was the only stage where anyone had a problem with them riding across the line. Prior to this they'd been able to ride the entirety of each stage. Thanks for the email, Mike.
18 comments:
i'm sure you would expect this from me, but i think you're reading too far into something that was explained by TWO still photos and a single sentence of text. i don't think there's enough context to suss out what was going through the official/security/whatever's head.
so far, we can see that in one frame there was a rider skidding/slowing to a stop around the 300m line. there was also a man with his arms out. the next frame shows the same rider on the ground, still clipped in, and the man with his arms out walking up to him. outside of that and a claim that the guy "tackled" him, we don't know what happened. the rest is conjecture.
also, i think the "no harm no foul" overtones cast a suspicious light over your explanation. i'm not sure how you can connect this incident to a wholly arbitrary decision to not allow him through. if it was indeed security, what directive was he given to actually enforce security? it seems to me that if he did physically stop him from entering, he would do so under directive and authority of the ToC. is it unreasonable that someone whose role it is provide security actually do so?
if they had let him in there without protest, it would have began to dissolve at whatever order there already was at the finish. how then could they turn away any other riders who wanted to go across the finish line? i would reckon that MASH didn't make prior arrangements to cross the line.
also, i totally hate this tiny-ass text area i have to enter comments
I would also bet that if he did cross the line you would never see these photos. Part of me thinks he knows well before going that he would not be allowed to cross.
But since he wasn't Mash got the photo they want, they can milk it for all it's worth.
Chris, let's set aside the debate about what might have "really happened." Neither of us were there so we can only comment on what is presented to us. Of course it's conjecture, but at least it's conjecture informed by two photos and a witness statement. That's enough information for me, personally, to come to a conclusion (albeit provisional) about what happened. Anyway, let's assume that the photos and the statement are representations of what "really happened," because if we don't there's nothing to talk about.
As for your other points, they're fine, but they're built on fundamentally different assumptions than mine. As such, any argument we might have will be wholly subjective, and based on the extent to which we feel different things to be important. Anyway...
Your statement is premised on the necessary supremacy of authority. You're saying that this guard, empowered by the ToC to do his job and not let anyone cross the line, was doing just that, his job. I would argue, however, that physically assaulting someone is a disproportionate response to a situation where the non-enforcement of a directive would have no real negative consequences, and is thus illegitimate.
It's not like there was an army of slavering cyclists just waiting for one person to lead them across the line into an anarchy of rape and pillage. The "slippery slope" argument, that all laws must be followed or else none will be, just doesn't pertain, in my opinion, and especially not in this case. There really was no reason to physically assault a cyclist trying to cross a line at a race. It doesn't look like anything else was happening. It doesn't look like Garrett was causing an obstruction. It doesn't look like he was endangering anyone. Like I said in my post, there might have been insurance issues, but in that case surely assaulting someone doesn't make any sense?
Okay, so, technically no one not officially part of the race has the right to cross the finish line. But, in my opinion, the right of a subject to not be physically assaulted by an agent whose authority is temporary and extrajudicial trumps that first right. A security guard does not have the right to physically assault someone breaking a relatively arbitrary rule, a rule whose breaking would probably have no real negative consequence.
Note, that security guard's authority is provisional. It does not, I don't think, extend to the legitimate use of physical force.
No, I'm fairly confident in my interpretation. I think this is a classic example someone with a little authority overextending themselves because of a perceived threat to their own subjectivity, given the identity between that subjectivity and the role they've found themselves inhabiting at a particular moment.
Frankly I'm a little surprised to hear you argue the authoritarian viewpoint, Chris. I always had you pegged as a bit more of a libertarian. :)
And yes, the tiny comment box does suck. Sort it out, blogger!
Adam, you think MASH engineered or facilitated a physical assault for publicity's sake? Damn dude, that's pretty cynical.
My impression is that there are dozens if not hundreds of riders that were following the ToC course every day. The logistical/security nightmare of letting all these people into the finish line area is overwhelming at the least, and possibly dangerous, I can't really speak to this having never attended a large stace race like this, but I imagine there are several issues. It's pretty clear from the first picture that security are visually and most likely orally telling Garret Chow that he cannot enter the finishing area. Security is looking at him, their arms are outstretched, the message is clear. In the second photo, its pretty clear that G.C. had decided not to stop and was trying to get through due to his location relative to the gates. Despite my strong aversion towards the use of force in a situation like this, I think its pretty clear that G.C. was going to try and barge through the barricade, and thusly, he sorta much brought getting shoved on to himself. Like I said, I obviously can't condone security's actions, but G.C. should have/ did know better
I'm not saying completely engineered or facilitated, but they shouldn't have been surprised. I am going to assume that they are pretty smart and they could figure out that they were not going to be let past the people blocking everyone. So rider one says to rider two "Hey try to get past. I'll stand here and just shoot as many photos." Well he probably didn't say that last sentence but there wouldn't be reason to have all these photos unless they knew they were not going to make it.
Ultimitly, Mash can get one of two shots. 1. G.C. riding over the line(which the photographer couldn't see) or 2. G.C. being stopped from riding over the line. I would argue that the 2nd choice is by far more advantageous for Mash. Want proof, we are talking about it.
For reasons not to let him past.
1. What would then be the reason to not let everyone else go and take a photo?
2. You know how expensive the photo equipment at the local track is, how much more do think the equipment is there?
3. The organizers have a right to secure the area, they don't know who he is or what he is doing. And chances are they don't care.
Oh and you can strech the text box, look in the lower right corner.
huh. stretch doesn't seem to be an option here on a mac. ah well.
so Simon, you are correct in that our basic precepts are different and
will naturally lead us into an impasse. that doesn't mean that both
sides shouldn't be argued!
first off, i'm going to have to contest your assertion that it was a "physical assault". the level of physical force used seems to merely have stopped him from entering, which to me qualifies as a defensive action. andrew's comment that there was prior warning would back this up. this man's task (if we assume he was a security guard) was to prevent unauthorized entry. he did just that, and it would seem that he took no further action. the incident stopped there, and there was no offensive measures by either party afterward. if there were, we surely would have heard about it.
all of these reasons you mention as to why he shouldn't have been stopped from going across the line (no harm, no foul, "arbitrary" rules) are irrelevant. it's sentimental salad dressing.
i'm also going to have to contest whether or not a security guard, who indeed does have temporal and extrajudicial authority (but authority nonetheless), has a right to physically stop someone from breaking a rule. As far as i know, the permission of the city to stage this event and to employ security to maintain it's order is de facto authority to use physical means to enforce that order, as an agent of the event's management.
so simon, what would have stopped the next cyclist, and the next, and the next, and the guy with the syringes on a pitchfork and the guy with the longhorns getup? the mob is a fantastic mechanism of entropy.
surely, Chow wouldn't be the champion against Authority that he is now if he had simply obeyed the rules, or perhaps even talked to the ToC management to possibly let them through with perhaps even some fanfare! (i admit i was very skeptical that they could do it, but i give them a ton of credit for pulling it off!)
and dear simon, don't confuse the desire for order with authoritarianism. and i prefer to think that my views are more complex than to be pigeonholed into some sort of insanely vague slice of the political spectrum.
and just so you can demonize me a bit more here, although i thought the cuttin cross tandem was really fun, i don't blame the officials from pulling them out of the IL state championship CX race.
;)
My place in this debate is pretty limited, so I'll only stick my nose in on one point.
I'd say the photo equipment at the ToC and at our local track are quite similar, at least on the non-video side, except that there are a lot more photogs at the ToC. I've regularly brought $5-10k of gear for my little snapshots. That said, it's not the ToC's place to protect the media; if ya wanna be in the trenches, you take your chances.
I'd imagine this whole thing is a case of thinking that it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.
And no text box stretch on a Mac/Firefox [bogus]
Andrew: Yeah, I agree, he probably should have expected someone to try to stop him.
Adam: Your point is similar to Andrew's, in that you're saying the MASH crew knew this might happen, but went ahead anyway. Where you differ is that you're kind of suggesting that they wanted Garrett to get tackled, because it would cause a publicity stir. I disagree. I don't think MASH are the kind of group that would be happy to see one of their riders tackled to the ground and potentially hurt because it might result in one or two extra blog hits. And anyway,plenty of blogs have been covering the MASH ToC without this. In fact, I'm not sure many other blogs really picked up on this particular incident the way I have.
As for your reasons for not letting someone cross the line, well, I understand that there might be good reasons for not letting someone into a technical area etc., but I'm not sure any of the reasons you listed justify a physical assault.
Chris: I was just joking about you being a libertarian, I didn't realize you would take such offense. Maybe you were joking. I'm going to go ahead and assume your comments about me demonizing you were a joke too.
Now, to the substance of your comments. As to the definition of assault, assault (n) is defined by the OED as "An unlawful attack upon the person of another. (In Law a menacing word or action is sufficient to constitute an assault, the term battery being techn. added when an actual blow is inflicted.)" So maybe we should be talking about battery?
Nevertheless, legal dictionaries define assault as "An act, criminal or tortious, that threatens physical harm to a person, whether or not actual harm is done."
It's clear to me that this was an act which threatened physical harm to a person, and further, I suggest that a race official or a security guard at a race is absolutely not empowered to use force in this way, meaning it was an illegitimate use of force, and therefore illegal. Being licensed by the city to run a bike race with some degree of order does not, I argue, extend to allowing race officials or security guards to assault members of the public for transgressing minor, civil laws.
Your comment about Garrett being some kind of anti-authority figure is, frankly, a little fatuous. Last time I checked, MASH was about riding bikes and selling t-shirts. I don't think they're interested in constructing any kind of anarchic identity out of this "incident." I just happened to think it was interesting and illustrative.
Am I the only one who is uncomfortable with a privately contracted, extrajudicial agent using force to assault a person who is, essentially, not doing anything wrong? I think that maybe my point has been missed. What I'm saying is that this was a disproportionate response to a trivial situation. Even police officers, those who we have afforded the "legitimate use of force" aren't allowed to just assault members of the public without very good reason. I don't see anything here that would lead me to believe that physical assault was necessary or legal.
I should clarify: I don't think MASH are interested in constructing any kind of anarchic identity out of this "incident" to the extent that they would go out of their way to facilitate it, which is, like Adam, what you seemed to be suggesting.
ok...there are gates and security guards. he knows for a fact he will not be allowed to go through. sh*t...they aren't letting anyone else through...right? yet...the man decides to skid up to the gates towards the only visible opening. all the security guard has to do is stand at that opening to stop this all from happening. that being said...we all know that the mash cat is skilled enough to stop in time before colliding with the guard...right? what if he decided to keep going? the guard has no choice but to defend himself...right? there are so many ways this story can go but i don't see why dude had to push the envelope. i know, i know...it would feel great to cross the finish line but...well, it just wasn't meant to be. btw...i just realized that they did this on track bikes...ha! super nice...peace.
sorry i didn't make it clear, simon, i figured the winky thing at the end would have given it away. i know it was a joke, and i was just joking back!
so, we come to realize a certain unknown as to the full legal power of a private security official to physically stop someone from intruding into an area clearly demarcated from the public. we'll have to go into the statutes of the city of pasadena and the state of california for this one.
your argument hinges on what is legitimate and illegitimate use of force. so far, you have not presented any statutes defining what is or is not appropriate physical force to be used by non-LEO security. unfortunately the onus is on you to do so.
Stupid internet! I can never tell when someone is joking.
Yeah, I suppose you're right. We don't know what the law is there. Plus, I'm from Ireland, so I know about what powers private security agents can exercise there, but not so much in the US.
Anyway, from a legal standpoint, it would probably come down to an interpretation of both Garrett Chow's actions, and the actions of the race official/security guard.
Maybe we could look at the laws regarding bouncers and nightclubs?
Because there are well defined limits to how far a bouncer can go to prevent entry to a club, right? I mean, I know there are in Ireland. If there weren't, bouncers would be just kicking the shit out of everyone they didn't want to let in, or anyone who got stroppy waiting in line. I'm pretty certain that a bouncer can't legally use "aggressive" force (i.e., can't initiate an attack) to stop someone entering a club, unless that person poses a clear threat to the safety of the other patrons. They can block the entrance, but they can't just start beating on someone who is trying to get in. Of course, the distinctions are probably subtle and well defined in the law, so it would be up to the courts to decide if the bouncer's interpretation of and response to the situation was legitimate.
So, even though this is all speculative, maybe we could use this to figure out whether this race official was within his rights to tackle GC to the ground? Okay, so, like I've been saying all along, I think physically tackling someone, or pushing them off their bike, is a disproportionate physical response to a non-threatening situation. I don't think a race official is empowered to "attack" someone in order to prevent them entering a particular area. We don't know what happened exactly, but it does look like the official tackled GC when GC had already passed him (because in the photo GC is on the ground past the official).
As I said, I think in a legal case it would come down to how you interpret GC's actions and the actions of the official: did GC pose a threat? Did the official's response constitute an assault? We can't know which way a court would decide (although I have a sneaking suspicion, given the relative primacy of concepts like "private property" in US law, that they'd find against GC).
But, from a moral or philosophical point of view, I still think it's an interesting and illustrative incident. No one will convince me that it was necessary to physically assault GC, because I don't think him cycling across a finish line, even if it is technically against the rules, warrants a physical assault upon his person. I just do not believe that the rights of a subject can be subverted for so trivial a reason. It scares me, frankly, that so many of you seem to think GC got what he deserved.
Further, I'm sticking with my original interpretation of the motivations of the race official. I think this is a clear case of someone overextending their authority because they feel personally threatened when a rule they are empowered to uphold is transgressed, because power can become an identity, and people who are thus empowered often do overextend and abuse their authority. I've seen it happen a lot. I think it's what happened here. Whether he was operating within the limits of the law is of secondary interest to me...
The guys was motioning to stop, but physical violence wasn't required. It's the USA, so sue the guy !!
Lionel Hutz: the only legal expert I trust less than Brean.
JOKES!
As for your other points, they're fine, but they're built on fundamentally different assumptions than mine. As such, any argument we might have will be wholly subjective, and based on the extent to which we feel different things to be important.I think this might as well be the end of the conversation, then, and makes me entirely glad to have chosen a field closer to the "hard sciences" end of the spectrum. But for the sake of argument and procrastinating on things I need to get done...
Having seen a lot of overzealous rent-a-cops, police, event security, etc., it makes me cringe a bit to defend that sort of action, so I'll concede that Simon has a point and the guy didn't necessarily need to take down the rider like it appears he did. On the other hand, the rider has somewhat escalated the situation by aiming himself (and his momentum of ~480 kg-m/s) at the security guard who has pretty clearly exhausted his non-physical options for trying to stop the rider. The guy tried to take some liberties by effectively overpowering the security guard and riding through the line and I think he had to have reasonably known he might be resisted. The security guy seems to have been overly jerky about it. I guess I don't see anyone clearly in the right here.
"Momentum of ~480 kg-m/s."
Argument over. Lyle wins.
Post a Comment