Baltimore: State of Emergency, and a State Machine.

Baltimore burned earlier this week. State of Emergency declared. Recriminations everywhere.

Still a bit bewildered that the Mayor and the Governor were never, not once, together on the same press briefing.

But out of the State of Emergency, there emerged a State of Confusion. Obama called the looters "thugs," as did the Mayor. Loud and vicious blow-back for "name calling."

Every day, I wrestle with technical problems (many of which I also cause). Confusion impedes my productivity. One of the techniques I use to eliminate confusion is a "State Machine." State Machines have nothing in common with a state like Maryland; apart from sharing the word "State." But a State of Emergency is an example of a State Machine. Here's what I mean:

In this example, everything starts from a "normal" state. From there, something happens to cause violence and panic.

That leads to a State of Emergency, which, if the Governor notices it, he immediately so declares. This proves to everyone beyond any doubt that the Governor has a strangle-hold on the obvious. When people tire out and stop doing things that cause everybody else to panic and be scared, there emerges a State of Recovery.

That's the part where parents of the miscreant teens drag them by the ear out to rake up the mess and repair what they broke.

So far, so good. By definition, you cannot be in two states at one time. Being in a State of Emergency means you cannot simultaneously also be in a state of calm or recovery. That's how state machines work, and that's why they are helpful in illuminating technical problems.

Onward to the State of Confusion. Apart from being the title of a terrific Kinks Album from the early 80s, a State of Confusion exists when people cannot organize their thoughts and agree on shared reality.

For example, if some people feel that "Black Lives Matter." Others do not subscribe to that proposition. We might say that some of the people are confused. I used this example because it's an obvious one. If you cannot spot the obviousness in that dichotomy, then you should stop reading now.

My words are of no use to folks who struggle with the concept that everyone's life matters, and I don't wish to waste more of your time.

Here's an example that seems to stump people in the media, and in government, and even people dining at the Belly Buster (which, by the way, has amazing food). And this is unusual, because Belly Buster diners are almost universally clever analysts. The police in Baltimore do something egregious. Police acting badly is nothing new, but, in this case, it was caught on video, and the video sparked a very vocal response.

News outlets then did what they do best: amplify bad things and make a painful situation worse. All news outlets, of course not. Gwen and Judy on the News Hour did their usual terrific job of staying focused on what actually happened. The rest focused on speculation and sensationalism, based more on focus groups which revealed which words sample well, versus what actually happened. Again, nothing new in the news department.

Here's where things got mentally slippery: during the ensuing protests in Baltimore, buildings were set ablaze, and property was damaged, stolen, or destroyed.

Obama was quick to point out that when you take a crowbar to a door, you are not protesting; you are stealing. I agree. Media continued to talk about how Protesters (not Criminals) were looting.

How about a State Machine for protesting?

Again, we start with the "ground" state, or "I am Minding My Business." This is what people do most of the time. They can, if provoked, begin to protest. That makes them a "Protester." Protesters have First Amendment rights, like the right to assemble, be heard, and petition their government. People also can, if tempted, break and enter private property.

They can loiter with intent to commit a crime. They can start a fire using somebody else's building as fuel. Any of these actions, and many other actions, transition that person from being a "Protester," into being a "Criminal." Criminals continue to have rights; most notably Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Eighth Amendment rights. But by virtue of their actions, they also forfeit certain rights. For example, when somebody punches a police officer, they forfeit the right to not be incapacitated in return. Kinda makes sense, I think.

Baltimore had two loosely related things happening, both at the same time. First, they had a protest. The people of Baltimore protested because there were critically important issues being raised. These issues needed (and continue to need) immediate attention from all of us. Second, and at the same time, there were crimes being committed. By definition, the crimes were being committed by Criminals, not Protesters. It's remarkably easy to tell these two types of people apart.

The person running from a burning store with an armload of clothing is a Criminal. The person watching that person in utter disbelief is a Protester. Simple. Even simpler, we might use more colloquial terms, like "Thug," "Knucklehead," or "Ne'er-Do-Well." This might annoy Criminals. And I don't care.

Now, let's look a little closer at the State Machine. Notice that the arrows between "Minding My Own Business," and "I am Protesting," go both ways? That's because you can, by your actions, enter one of those states. By other actions, you can return to the first state. Not so for the other arrows. When a person goes from "Minding My Own Business," to "I am a Criminal," because of some criminal act, that person remains a Criminal, even after they stop committing that particular crime. There are ways, through the actions of others, for Criminals to return to just "Minding my Own Business." I left those extra states off the diagram for clarity. Also, they are outside the scope of this discussion.

Which leads to the question of "what is the point of this discussion?" Simple. If, while protesting, you commit a crime, you stop being a Protester, and become a Criminal. Blending back into the Protesters does not make you a Protester again.

If, for example, I stood in front of a nuclear reactor, that wouldn't make me an atomic physicist. If I went down to the harbor, and stood in front of a boat, that wouldn't make me a captain. Thus, a Criminal does not become a Protester simply by standing next to Protesters. They remain a Criminal. And if being called a "Thug" offends their sensitivities, I'm pretty sure I still don't care.

And if you stick a knife into a fire hose, while brave firefighters are trying to douse flames you set, then getting arrested is probably the nicest thing that should happen to you. Shooting somebody because they are black is wrong. There is no way to polish that turd. No matter how much you polish, it's still a turd. Shooting somebody because they stuck a knife in a working firehose . . . that one I'm pretty ambivalent about. I think I might let the firefighters take a vote. And who cares whether the knife is stuck in the firehose by a fourteen year-old or a forty year-old? I'm pretty sure that the firefighter inside the building doesn't care who put the knife into the hose -- or how old they are.

Back to my point. If the police can apprehend somebody who is committing a crime, and can do so without endangering themselves or bystanders, then they should effect the arrest. And if it happens to be raining, or dark, or there is a protest going on . . . none of that matters. The fact that protests were going on in Baltimore at the same time as a bunch of crimes is immaterial. Protests equals "do your thing." Crime equals arrest. No more State of Confusion for the State of Maryland.