Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModeDisagreement not justification for breaking rules
November 13, 2006 —
Exactly one week ago today, an SVSU student made news after police used a Taser on him during an exchange at a Saginaw City Council meeting. Reports indicate the man became unruly, kicking at Saginaw Police Chief Gerald H. Cliff and breaking his finger after a brief verbal spat and scuffle with other officers. Eventually, one officer at the meeting used force, firing the 50,000-volt Taser to subdue the man.
While such a dispute would garner attention regardless of the specifics, this particular case has drawn a great deal of interest because of the cause of the scuffle to begin with: the man refused to remove his hat.
According to an article in The Saginaw News, the man was asked to remove his ball cap in order to comply with a recently enacted rule that requests men remove their hats to show respect to the institution. The man refused, and the scuffle ensued.
What makes this case particularly interesting is the somewhat controversial nature of the rule in question. A day after the incident, the News conducted a poll on whether readers thought the rule was necessary. The readers responded, and the majority indicated it was not - many said the City Council had bigger things to worry about than a few caps.
With this point, we agree. It is understood that wearing a hat in such a public facility is disrespectful but to enact a specific rule outlawing it seems excessive. Not even taking into consideration the double standard of only making men remove their caps, it seems a bit extreme to outlaw something that does not pose much harm or distraction. Certainly, disrespect is bad but illegal it is not.
However, the fact that the rule has already been implemented changes the issue. Just because an individual disagrees with a rule does not give them the right to disobey it, particularly when that individual is a guest in another venue. An often-quoted saying suggests living under another's roof means governance under their rules. This incident is a perfect example of that.
There are countless rules in this world that seem unfair, unnecessary, or unimportant. However, that fact alone does not give us the right to ignore them. We may disagree with the Council for enacting the no-hat rule, but we have no right to question its members for enforcing it. If people have a problem with a rule, those issues should be addressed diplomatically and not through overtly vocal or violent behavior. If people resort to such actions, we have little merit in questioning the Council or the police for the actions they took.
A society in which citizens are free to disobey those laws they deem unfit is a society destined for failure. Regardless of popular belief, rules are not made to be broken, rather made to be debated and discussed in democratic ways. If such ways cannot be found and violence is one's only measure of response, then no one has a just reason to complain in the first place.