When this English prof grows up and turns 72, he wants to be every bit the danger to humanity that this desperado clearly must be:
“I’ve never been handcuffed in my life — or arrested, even,” Van Gilder explains. “I was embarrassed and ashamed. The only prisoner there was myself: a 72-year-old English teacher. I was really ashamed.”
Before long, Van Gilder had been charged and the gun had been taken away for “ballistics testing,” almost certainly never to be returned. (That the department believes that a ballistics test on a flintlock pistol can be useful should give you some indication of who we’re dealing with here.)
(source: New Jersey Man Faces Jail Time for Transporting an Antique Pistol | National Review Online)
What can you say? People sometimes have no skill in recognizing what they see, what common language and horse sense tell them is real. They judge based on the will of the powerful and the uninformed, rather than using their discretion with wisdom, justice, and at least a modicum of basic good judgment and human decency.
To handcuff a 72-year old teacher to a bench is simply indecent. Good people don’t do things like that without good reasons. No, saying it’s “policy” or “procedure” does not change this equation: an indecent policy is worse than an indecent happenstance, not an excuse for one! And, friends, “he was transporting an antique pistol that could not, in any sane world, be a ‘weapon’ under the meaning of the Act,” is simply nothing even remotely approaching a proportional justification for such indecent behavior.
And I am only talking about the indecency of handcuffing a 72-year old teacher to a bench! I leave the rest to your gentle casuistry, Dear Reader.
Let us simply remember that in a world where humane people are obsolete, there will still be a few humane people:
…and at the end of this story, only one of these people was begging to get out. And being eaten alive by his own for doing so.
The rest of us put our hope elsewhere.
(do watch “The Obsolete Man” in addition to the better-known Meredith Burgess episode “Time Enough At Last“!)
If this is true, it will definitely affect my sympathy with the fellow: http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2015/02/suspicious_activity_in_drug_area_led_to_antique_gu.html
“Van Gilder allegedly admitted that the reason they were in the area was to purchase drugs, according to Austino.”
…but I admit that I want to hear how this works out before I just quit caring.
Less sympathetic or not, I stand by the point that common decency–just plain being obviously the good guy–should have seriously altered the results, here.
(Someone dropped the ball, somewhere, in handling this. What I didn’t quote from the original NRO piece: *** The officer did as he was told, and gave the pistol back. The next morning, however, he came back — “with three cars and three or four sheriffs.” Van Gilders says, “He told me, ‘I should have arrested you last night.’” So he did. ***)
But to be very clear: busted for buying hard drugs–totally OK. busted for having an antique pistol–not even close to OK. busted for having an antique pistol as a pretext for trying to trap someone else who’s into drugs–still not very close.
Would it be so hard to just question the guy?
If something pops out that changes the math, here, I’ll be sure to follow up.