Dozens of men spilled into the street ready for action. Propelled by anger and indignation, stirred by the words of a charismatic speaker and his devoted compatriots, and emboldened by the size and strength of their number - and probably more than bit of "liquid courage" - the loosely organized group armed themselves with hatchets and picks and committed to their course of action. Some were thinly disguised as if to avoid identification, while others clearly did not care if their names were known. The mob moved quickly to its destination, bullied past the overwhelmed caretakers of an expensive and highly valued commodity, and systematically destroyed every last bit of it. Then the mob quietly dispersed to their individual homes, to their families and their everyday lives, with the identities of only a very few ever known.
While the names of the participants have largely been lost to history, the event itself was a pivotal point in our young countries march toward independence. Whether the Boston Tea Party was a spontaneous expression of outrage or a carefully planned event meant to coalesce public opinion and drive a larger movement is not completely known. Most likely it was a bit of both, skillful and motivated leaders driving a willing crowd to action - a bit of oratorical manipulation, if you will - knowing the outcome would further their revolutionary agenda.
Despite, or perhaps in light of, what the Boston Tea Party accomplished, how should we classify the participants? Or those who spearheaded the fledgling independence movement and who may have planned the events to go down the way they did? It is not known whether Samuel Adams himself was an instigator of the Tea Party, but he later surely applauded it. Were they patriots standing up to tyranny and unfair taxation in the most demonstrative way they could? or had they reduced themselves to the level of a common street thug, kicking aside the rule of law in favor of trespass, theft, and vandalism over established avenues of grievance? Your answer may vary, depending upon your particular point-of-view, but what they did was one of the earliest and best remembered acts of civil disobedience in American history. They clearly did not follow the rule of law of their day, but did they nonetheless act with integrity?
Integrity vs. the Rule of Law
I have been tossing the word integrity around in my mind a lot lately, particularly as it is applied in law enforcement. Some recent events in my own department, and subsequent discussions in both formal and informal settings about the integrity of certain involved individuals, started the thought process as a mere intellectual exercise for my own amusement. Then in late February a highly publicized and hotly discussed series of events began to unfold in Chicago that prompted this more public commentary.
Flint Taylor is an attorney representing a Chicago woman who is custodian of two children who allege they were beaten by an off-duty CPD detective in 2007 during a dispute with the detective's children. Taylor is also notable in that he specializes in filing civil rights lawsuits against police officers. In February he requested, and a federal magistrate issued, a court order demanding the CPD turn over a list of all officers who have been the subject of at least five citizen complaints since the year 2000. Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis refused to turn over the list citing concerns over officer safety, performance, morale, and the likelihood it would be misinterpreted and wrongly impugn officers' reputations as it specified alleged rather than sustained accusations of misconduct. Further, the list did not specify, despite frequent misinterpretation of this fact in many media outlets, that the list was specifically about either abuse or excessive use of force. It cast a wide net for officers who had merely been accused in five complaints, regardless of their nature. On Wednesday, March 4, Judge Robert Gettleman cited Weis in contempt of court for refusing to turn over the requested list, and gave him until the following Monday to produce it.
The public response to Chicago's top cop defying a court order was explosive! The blogosphere came alive with page after page of comments - a handful even written by people with a rudimentary understanding of grammar, punctuation, and spelling - blasting Weis for thinking he was "above the law." Newspaper editorials and commentary were published urging him to comply with the judge's order, again castigating Weis for acting as if he were "above the law" (ironically, some of these editorials were in the same opinion pages that before have argued - incorrectly, at least in Illinois - that journalists enjoy some sort of privilege to protect sources in the face of a similar court order. "Protecting a source" is an act based in honor, not law).
For awhile it appeared Weis was going to take his defiance to court with toothbrush in hand, but no list, and accept whatever punishment the judge saw fit. It was not to be; just two days later Weis relented and turned over the list. He showed up in court on Monday and apologized to the judge. In turn, Judge Gettleman dropped the contempt charge but scolded Weis, saying (of course) "No one is above the law."
I had four thoughts following this episode:
Author's note: On March 17, about 160 officers of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police voted "no confidence" in Weis' leadership of their department. Citing "low morale, poorly staffed districts, lack of cars and a lack of support," the non-binding vote reflects the struggle Weis has had since coming to lead the department after 23 years in the FBI. While his actions surrounding the aforementioned court case were not mentioned, one wonders if Weis' initial defiance of the court order was not merely a symbolic, and cynical, effort to bolster his approval among the rank-and-file.
