What if David Gregory Was James Brinkley?

So yesterday we learned that David Gregory was not even arrested for his admitted violation of D.C.'s ban on high capacity magazines, but his file is with the US Attorney (which is a federal version of the District Attorney, more or less).  Emily Miller has a report on that here.  And she reminded us of the story of another man who violated D.C.’s ban on high-capacity magazines, James Brinkley.

 

Here’s what he looks like (see right):

And here’s what Miller said abouthis case:

On Sept. 8, Mr. Brinkley says he intended to drop his wife and young children at the White House for a tour and then head to a shooting range to practice for the U.S. Marshals Service test. Just like Mr. Gregory, Mr. Brinkley called MPD in advance for guidance on how he could do this legally. Mr. Brinkley was told that the gun had to be unloaded and locked in the trunk, and he couldn’t park the car and walk around.

Unlike Mr. Gregory, Mr. Brinkley followed the police orders by placing his Glock 22 in a box with a big padlock in the trunk of his Dodge Charger. The two ordinary, 15-round magazines were not in the gun, and he did not have any ammunition with him.

As he was dropping off his family at 11 a.m. on the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue, Mr. Brinkley stopped to ask a Secret Service officer whether his wife could take the baby’s car seat into the White House. The officer saw Mr. Brinkley had an empty holster, which kicked off a traffic stop that ended in a search of the Charger’s trunk. Mr. Brinkley was booked on two counts of “high capacity” magazine possession (these are ordinary magazines nearly everywhere else in the country) and one count of possessing an unregistered gun.

A judge ruled in pre-trial motions that he had met the standards for the lawful transport of the gun and ammunition--that is his undisputed conduct was not criminal at all.  But not before D.C. authorities did their level best to send this otherwise law-abiding citizen to prison.  And who knows what kind of chaos this unleashed on his career.

Those who follow me on twitter saw me spar with Gabriel Malor (whom I respect) on this subject this morning.  He felt that there was no cause for outrage that Gregory was not even arrested.  On the other hand, I felt that one had a right to be upset at the apparently unequal justice involved.  We both agree that none of these people should be arrested, but we don’t agree on the principle that if Brinkley was arrested, Gregory should be, too.

Of course the cases are not identical.  Gregory  had the (allegedly) empty magazine to an assault rifle in his hand.  By comparison, Brinkley had a whole gun, but we also know that not only was it and its magazines unloaded, but he had no ammo at all.  As I joked on twitter, the only difference between an empty magazine and an empty gun in terms of dangerousness is that an empty gun will probably hurt more if you throw it at someone.

So let’s compare point-by-point, the Brinkley story and the Gregory story and see how things turned out differently.

For Brinkley, it started with the probable cause that he had a gun in the vicinity.  I mean I think even Mr. Brinkley would agree that if a man is walking around with an empty holster it implies that he only recently had a gun in it, justifying a search and so on.

But there was also probable cause that Gregory was violating the law.  First, he confessed to breaking the law against high-capacity magazines on air.  And wouldn’t the possession of a high-capacity magazine that belonged to a so-called assault rifle indicate that there was a reasonable likelihood that the rest of the gun was around there somewhere?  So why didn’t the police come out that day?  Are we to believe that no one in authority watches Meet the Press?

In Brinkley’s case, this suspicion led to a search.

But in Gregory’s case, this did not, because the cops didn’t come out that day.

In Brinkley’s case, the search led to the discovery the gun and high-capacity magazine, that turned out to be legal anyway.  I mean the facts aren’t really in dispute, but the judge found that his conduct was in fact legal.  But legal or not, the important thing is that in the minds of the police, it turned up definitive evidence of criminal conduct--even if the conduct wasn't actually illegal.

But since there was no search in Gregory’s case, we don’t know what they might have found if they did.  If they searched the studios and the cars of relevant employees, might they have found the other half of the assault rifle?  Might they have even found ammunition for said rifle?  Right now we see Gregory as only having committed a minor, technical violation of the D.C. Code, by possessing an empty magazine, which my blog-friend Hoge facetiously calls “a metal box with a spring in it” with no ammo, no gun and no intent to commit a crime involved.  But could it possibly be the case that if the police investigated it as vigorously and as quickly as Mr. Brinkley’s case, they might have found more?  When we say that all Gregory did was hold up an empty magazine, we are forgetting how the differing treatment very well might have resulted in a differing set of facts.

And then in Brinkley’s case, with them mistakenly believing they found proof of criminal conduct, they arrested him and ultimately tried to take his freedom away.

And while we will never know if Gregory (or anyone else on the Meet the Press staff) had an actual assault rifle, or ammunition, we know that unless he was lying to us, he did unlawfully possess this high-capacity magazine.

So why was it that Brinkley was arrested and Gregory was not?  You might argue a gun is more dangerous than a magazine but 1) we don’t know Gregory or his staff didn’t have the full assault rifle because there was no search, and 2) an empty magazine is as dangerous as an unloaded gun.  As in not at all, except as a blunt object.

You might argue that Brinkley was arrested for investigatory purposes.  Well, first often very little investigative value is gained from an arrest.  My impression is that the image of cops interrogating every suspect is largely a myth.  I suppose there is investigative value in definitively identifying a person, photographing them, fingerprinting them, etc. but it is slight.  No, I think most of the time the main purpose of an arrest (whatever the official response is), is to get you into the bail system and assure people that you would show up at trial.

And second, why wouldn’t it be equally useful in Gregory’s case?  Whatever investigatory purpose was served by arresting Brinkley, why wouldn’t arresting Gregory serve the exact same interest?

The only other valid distinction I can imagine is the passage of time.  As in Mr. Brinkley was arrested before Mr. Gregory.  So maybe the authorities involved have seen the light and realized that they were wrong to have treated Mr. Brinkley this way.  That is possible, and “because we learned our lesson and don’t do that anymore” is a legitimate distinction, but it assumes they have indeed learned their lesson.  Fat chance on that.

So with valid distinctions having been exhausted, you are left with only invalid ones.  One might conclude, for instance, that this is because Mr. Brinkley is black and Gregory is white.  That is certainly the implication of this photo shared by Instapundit:

But I think we all know what this is really about: the privileged treatment of journalists.  Now there are some good policy reasons for arguing that there should be a reporter’s privilege in gathering information.  I admit I am agnostic about that.  But Gregory and his defenders are claiming something broader than that: the right to break the law because it helps their presentation.  I think Ann Althouse is exactly right in what she thinks he was up to:

suddenly I understand the drama Gregory (and his people) were trying to enact. It's a deep psychic memory of childhood. Gregory sought dominance over his interlocutor, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre, and the idea — in the act of picking up that magazine and beginning an interrogation about it — was that Gregory would become (subliminally) a parent figure who would push LaPierre into the subordinate role of the little boy, the cowering child confronted with undeniable evidence of his wrongdoing. What's THIS I found in your room?

The plan was for LaPierre to babble lamely, scrambling to explain it away, like the kid trying to concoct some cockamamie reason why that (whatever) got into his room. He'd look foolish and guilty, as Dad continues to hold up the item which the kid knows will be the defeat of every idea that flashes through his stupid, stupid brain.

Like I said, I think that is right, but none of that is a valid reason to exempt him from the law.  As I said before, if he really wanted to do this, he could have easily crossed the river into Virginia where the laws a little more pro-choice on gun ownership.  Heck, if he didn’t want to go to LaPierre’s office (because it might hurt his ability to establish dominance), he could have found one of the NBC studios stationed in Northern Virginia.  There is, simply put, no good reason to exempt him from this law, because there is no reason to think it is necessary to do this sort of thing in the pursuit of journalism.  Journalism will exist just fine without it.

But just because I don’t think it is a valid distinction doesn’t mean it isn’t the one that is applying there.  There is sometimes an attitude that if the cameras are rolling, that everything is legal.  I mean, back in its heyday, how many assaults did you witness on Jerry Springer.  Okay maybe you didn’t watch it.  Neither did I.  So how many did you witness from highlight reels on shows like the late, great Talk Soup?  Here’s Jerry Springer offering a reflective look back over his career:

Psyche!  No, this is Jerry Springer reveling in the sheer idiocy that has been his life like a cheap carney barker.  Now, why is it the case that each and every one of those people were not arrested?  You may or may not laugh at this, and enjoy watching this, but the law calls these all “assault and battery” (at least on the person who struck the first blow; self-defense does apply to fights, too).  So why didn’t the clips end with the police arresting the aggressors?  Hell, why weren’t the police standing in the audience given that—if highlights from Talk Soup can be trusted—it seemed to happen on just about every episode?

Well, folks, there are only two possibilities.  The first is that it was pro-wrestling—i.e. fake.  And the second is that the police subscribed to the view that if it happens on camera it is not a crime.  Which is kind of the opposite of what it should be...

That was one year ago, today, folks, when Brett Kimberlin tried to frame me for a crime.  And I have not forgotten, nor have I stopped seeking justice.  Nor is this the last you will hear of it--the Statute of Limitations has not run out.  But I digress.

None of which is to say I want Gregory arrested.  These laws violate the Second Amendment, in my humble opinion.  I have even argued that Gregory—and everyone else charged under this statute where there is no evidence that the high capacity magazine was used or was to be used in a crime—should be pardoned (mostly admittedly as a way to humiliate everyone involved, to tell the truth).  But if the laws are in place, and people are going to be arrested for violating them (or not violating them, as was the case for Mr. Brinkley), then Gregory should be treated equally.

And equal treatment would have meant that an officer showed up at his studio that day, that he would be arrested immediately, and a search conducted.  And who knows what a search might have led to.

That all being said, if after all of this, the US Attorney chooses to prosecute him, then I won’t care overly much about whether he was arrested.  It won’t be perfectly equal, but it will be close enough.  But so far, David Gregory is not being treated like James Brinkley.  And that is not what this lady is supposed to be all about:

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.