New Mexico governor deliberately violates Constitution

[BigPapaKain]

(09-15-2023, 02:41 AM)guyofthetiger Wrote: I heard the Sheriff refuses to enforce this order. Makes it strictly a political move on her part. We know the Dems want gun control. What else do they want to control? Maybe our religion.

Pretty sure the other side is the one catering to religious extremists and ramming those religious beliefs down their constituents throats.

[Dill]

(09-14-2023, 06:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll give you just the latest example.
https://www.newsweek.com/store-retail-violence-robbery-theft-stealing-california-1804565

I think you may be conflating "rule of law" with "law and order." One may easily support the latter separate from the former.

RULE OF LAW is a principle opposed to personal rule. It requires that all citizens, including those in governing positions, be subject to laws properly promulgated and applied equally, rather than excepted from them. E.g., a president with the power to pardon himself could, in effect, place himself above the law. That would abrogate rule of law. The principle was originally articulated in the 17th century to restrain British Monarchs' claimed divine right to rule arbitrarily. Kings were all for enforcing laws, but not for subjecting themselves to the rule of law. Every totalitarian leader is also for enforcing laws on his subject population, while being exempt from such laws himself. Hence no rule of law in North Korea, but plenty of rigorously enforced laws.

It's not clear that a law designed to prevent employers from forcing employees to confront thieves who may be violent abrogates RULE OF LAW, as the principle is generally understood. The law proposed in your link is certainly not about excepting those who govern from the laws they make for everyone else.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/rule-of-law

rule of law, the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power. Arbitrariness is typical of various forms of despotism, absolutism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism.

(09-14-2023, 06:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Have you been living under a rock the last three years?

Apparently not.  I just asked a question. Why the unnecessarily hostile tone?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-15-2023, 02:21 AM)GreenDragon Wrote: Funny. I don't remember joining a militia. So that argument is ridiculous. 

We're not talking about the First Amendment. We're talking about the SECOND Amendment. Try to stay on point. 

Oh, I apologize.  I thought you were trying to discuss this, but it's clear you're just here to be silly.  Noted.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-15-2023, 05:33 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I don't think I've ever seen it explained that way. And it makes a lot of sense.

When it comes to the 2A argument I just always want to know why can't I buy a thermonuclear weapon? If I'm competing against the same well regulated militia that is protecting this country... WTF? cant even buy grenades. If we are really going for the true nature of the amendment then we should be able to have nukes. If not then the fight over rifles and magazines and stuff just seems silly to me.

The armed forces are not a militia, they are a standing army (note no caps).  As for the thermonuclear weapon part, one must consider that a national treaty bans anyone not already in possession of them from doing so.  A cogent argument could be made that such weapons have no value outside of deterring others from using them on you.  Also, a similar logical argument could be made that the ability to kill millions with a press of a button should not be left to the whims of a single individual, as indeed it is not in our military.  So, even at that level there are significant restraints on their use.  I get the point you're trying to make, but I think nuclear weapons are a bad example for reasons already given.

As for the grenades argument, that makes more sense.  After all, you can buy and own a flamethrower, so why not a grenade?  And it turns out you can, with the necessary permits.  There are people who own functioning tanks and artillery.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-15-2023, 10:16 AM)Dill Wrote: I think you may be conflating "rule of law" with "law and order." One may easily support the latter separate from the former.

rule of law, the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power. Arbitrariness is typical of various forms of despotism, absolutism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism.

A distinction without a substantive difference.  Without the rule of law there will be no law and order.  When DA's routinely ignore the law to the benefit of criminals and the detriment of the citizenry that erodes both.

Quote:Apparently not.  I just asked a question. Why the unnecessarily hostile tone?

Because you'd have to be living under a rock to not notice the increase in criminality within the last three years.  It's only on the news every single night.  So either you are wholly ignorant of current events, which I don't believe to be the case, or your question was not sincere.  Unless you want to parse hairs, which would surprise absolutely no one.

[Dill]

(09-15-2023, 10:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A distinction without a substantive difference.  Without the rule of law there will be no law and order.  When DA's routinely ignore the law to the benefit of criminals and the detriment of the citizenry that erodes both.

Because you'd have to be living under a rock to not notice the increase in criminality within the last three years.  It's only on the news every single night.  So either you are wholly ignorant of current events, which I don't believe to be the case, or your question was not sincere.  Unless you want to parse hairs, which would surprise absolutely no one.

No.  Rule of law is certainly about maintaining laws, but the principle did not evolve to reduce some general "criminality"; and that's not the metric for rule of law.  It evolved to control arbitrary rule. 

If an authoritarian ruler were voted into office, abrogated the US Constitution, 

but "decreased criminality" with an expanded police force, that increase in "order"

would not mean the US was finally living under rule of law.  It would mean the opposite.


That's why there is indeed a "substantive difference" between law and order and RULE of LAW.

Conflating the two can have negative consequences for the preservation of rule of law, especially during a time when
so many seem to have difficulty distinguishing authoritarian from non-authoritarian rule. 

[hollodero]

(09-15-2023, 11:38 AM)Dill Wrote: No.  Rule of law is certainly about maintaining laws, but the principle did not evolve to reduce some general "criminality"; and that's not the metric for rule of law.  It evolved to control arbitrary rule. 

If an authoritarian ruler were voted into office, abrogated the US Constitution, 

but "decreased criminality" with an expanded police force, that increase in "order"

would not mean the US was finally living under rule of law.  It would mean the opposite.


That's why there is indeed a "substantive difference" between law and order and RULE of LAW.

Conflating the two can have negative consequences for the preservation of rule of law, especially during a time when
so many seem to have difficulty distinguishing authoritarian from non-authoritarian rule. 

So what is your opinion on a law banning retail staff from stopping thievery?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-15-2023, 11:38 AM)Dill Wrote: No.  Rule of law is certainly about maintaining laws, but the principle did not evolve to reduce some general "criminality"; and that's not the metric for rule of law.  It evolved to control arbitrary rule. 

If an authoritarian ruler were voted into office, abrogated the US Constitution, 

but "decreased criminality" with an expanded police force, that increase in "order"

would not mean the US was finally living under rule of law.  It would mean the opposite.




That's why there is indeed a "substantive difference" between law and order and RULE of LAW.

Conflating the two can have negative consequences for the preservation of rule of law, especially during a time when
so many seem to have difficulty distinguishing authoritarian from non-authoritarian rule. 

I'll leave it at this because I can already see where this is going.  You are conveniently leaving out the "law" from the phrase "law and order"  If I meant just order that's what I would have said.  You can't have "law" and order without an adherence to the law.  Please don't bother parsing hairs it's both pointless and tiring.

I will now kindly leave you to answer Hollo's direct question.

[Dill]

(09-15-2023, 12:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll leave it at this because I can already see where this is going.  You are conveniently leaving out the "law" from the phrase "law and order"  If I meant just order that's what I would have said.  You can't have "law" and order without an adherence to the law.  Please don't bother parsing hairs it's both pointless and tiring.

I will now kindly leave you to answer Hollo's direct question.

I quite understand you meant "LAW and order." 

And no one is arguing that we can't have "law and order" without law.

If that's your pretext for bailing, so be it. 

You are going on record as disputing any essential distinction between rule of law and law and order,

but you are not going to defend that claim, because you can see where that would go. I can too.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-14-2023, 06:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll give you just the latest example.

https://www.newsweek.com/store-retail-violence-robbery-theft-stealing-california-1804565

Have you been living under a rock the last three years?

Isn't SF one of dem Sanctuary cities where crime is supposed to be low and citizens feel safe in?

San Francisco has been gripped by a crimewave that has seen Whole Foods close its downtown location after just a year of business, with bosses saying they were unable to "ensure the safety" of their staff in the city. Nordstrom followed suit by leaving the city this month, but many smaller businesses have had no choice but to remain, despite attacks on their premises.

[Dill]

(09-15-2023, 11:56 AM)hollodero Wrote: So what is your opinion on a law banning retail staff from stopping thievery?

I'd like to know a bit more about it.

Was it written in response to retail employees, like high school kids, some certainly girls, 

being asked to confront potentially violent adult male thieves to protect store property?

If so, then for the moment I don't have a problem with it.

I would if it were written to include, say, security guards--people hired to do that job.

[hollodero]

(09-15-2023, 12:18 PM)Dill Wrote: I'd like to know a bit more about it.

Was it written in response to retail employees, like high school kids, some certainly girls, 

being asked to confront potentially violent adult male thieves to protect store property?

If so, then for the moment I don't have a problem with it.

I would if it were written to include, say, security guards--people hired to do that job.

I would agree with that, employers should probably be disallowed to force their employees to personally stop thieves and robbers. If a law said just that, I'd see no issue... but it does not. It makes it illegal to intervene, that much is clear from the linked article.

My ability to put myself in Californian shopkeeper's shoes, or Californian shoes as a whole, ist for sure limited. But there is a stark increase in crime in that state, including thievery. 400 millions loss through thievery in 2022 alone? That is stark. And I for one can full well understand how frustrating and enraging it must be if the response from lawmakers just is, well we ban everyone from showing civil courage, in fact we declare it illegal to do so, just as the thievery itself. Which is, put it that way, further easing the deed and will not deter future thieves at all. Imho, that is a real fair issue to raise.

And musing about rule of law versus law and order, imho, misses the point. You might be right about the semantics, but it's about the law and the mindset it represents.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-15-2023, 12:40 PM)hollodero Wrote: I would agree with that, employers should probably be disallowed to force their employees to personally stop thieves and robbers. If a law said just that, I'd see no issue... but it does not. It makes it illegal to intervene, that much is clear from the linked article.

Indeed.  The article explains the law rather well.

Quote:My ability to put myself in Californian shopkeeper's shoes, or Californian shoes as a whole, ist for sure limited. But there is a stark increase in crime in that state, including thievery. 400 millions loss through thievery in 2022 alone? That is stark.

That's $400 million for Target alone.  Let that sink in, $400 million in losses for a single retailer.  Of course, people who actually purchase items like civilized people are the ones who absorb this loss through higher prices.

Quote:And I for one can full well understand how frustrating and enraging it must be if the response from lawmakers just is, well we ban everyone from showing civil courage, in fact we declare it illegal to do so, just as the thievery itself. Which is, put it that way, further easing the deed and will not deter future thieves at all. Imho, that is a real fair issue to raise.

We have a saying at work, in California cops are criminals, criminals are victims and victims are invisible.  Literally everything proposed is about making it harder to deter crime, enabling criminals and lessening penalties.

https://ktla.com/news/california/california-will-release-76k-inmates-early-including-violent-felons/

More than 63,000 inmates convicted of violent crimes will be eligible for good behavior credits that shorten their sentences by one-third instead of the one-fifth that had been in place since 2017.



That includes nearly 20,000 inmates who are serving life sentences with the possibility of parole.

That's from 2021, but please believe this kind of thing continues.  We have a DA who intentionally mischarges criminals so they face fewer penalties.  I could literally give thousands of examples.  We had a 17 year old, who was turning eighteen the next month, commit seven armed robberies in the span of a weekend.  He robbed people at gun point.  When he was finally caught our joke of a DA charged him with seven counts of attempted robbery.  No firearm enhancement on any of the charges btw. 

Why did he charge him with attempted robbery when every single one of the robberies was successful?  Because 211 PC (robbery), is a 707(b) WIC offense, meaning a juvenile with a sustained charge for it can, and will receive a strike.  But Gascon has stated it is unfair for juveniles to accrue a strike offense that will follow them into adulthood (except in extreme cases like murder), hence the gross mischarge by his office.  We had another seventeen year old, also very close to turning eighteen, who stabbed a guy twelve times in the face, neck and torso.  Attempted murder you would think, right?  Nope, a single count of 245(a)(1) PC (assault with a deadly weapon).  What happened to him, he was placed in an open setting group home.  Oh, and he was arrested for murder less than two months later when he used a knife to fatally injure a victim during a robbery.  I'm not exaggerating a little when I tell you I could give you literally over a thousand examples just from the past year.

Quote:And musing about rule of law versus law and order, imho, misses the point. You might be right about the semantics, but it's about the law and the mindset it represents.

When it comes down to engaging in semantics or facing the complete and utter failure of Democratic policies a partisan has little choice.  The GOP has their issues, lord knows, but the Dems have inflicted far more human misery with their soft on crime and anti-law enforcement rhetoric and policies.  The ironic thing is that the majority of this crime occurs in the "black and brown" (I loathe that term btw) neighborhoods that these politicians pretend to care about.  When I say I could never vote for a Democrat again, I mean it.  I've seen first hand just how destructive their policies are and when confronted by their failures they just double down, as seen in the new CA law.

[CKwi88]

(09-15-2023, 12:40 PM)hollodero Wrote: I would agree with that, employers should probably be disallowed to force their employees to personally stop thieves and robbers. If a law said just that, I'd see no issue... but it does not. It makes it illegal to intervene, that much is clear from the linked article.

It does no such thing. The link is outdated and doesn't apply to the current iteration of the bill. Current bill can be found here. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-15-2023, 02:08 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: It does no such thing. The link is outdated and doesn't apply to the current iteration of the bill. Current bill can be found here. 

Two possibilities.  One, it's still in there hidden among the legaleeze.  Two, they removed it after it become public because people were rightfully outraged.  Both are equally possible and neither exonerates them the way you seem to believe.

[hollodero]

(09-15-2023, 02:08 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: It does no such thing. The link is outdated and doesn't apply to the current iteration of the bill. Current bill can be found here. 

Oh ok. I only commented on the law as depicted in the article. Seems the passages I commented on have been taken out, which imho is the sensible thing to do. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

The bill was amended on 09/01, 09/12 and 09/14/23. Not long after this.

https://sacobserver.com/2023/09/controversial-senate-bill-553-sparks-debate-over-crime-rates-in-california/

While Hollo is being rather generous by praising the apparent removal of the text in question I, having dealt with these clowns for years, would point out that it should never have been in there in the first place. And you can damn well believe that it would still be in the bill if it hadn't received such a public pushback.

[CKwi88]

(09-15-2023, 02:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Two possibilities.  One, it's still in there hidden among the legaleeze.  Two, they removed it after it become public because people were rightfully outraged.  Both are equally possible and neither exonerates them the way you seem to believe.

I merely pointed out that the link you provided is no longer current and posted the actual text of the bill. Not sure how you deduce that I think there is any exoneration to be had. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-15-2023, 02:55 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: I merely pointed out that the link you provided is no longer current and posted the actual text of the bill. Not sure how you deduce that I think there is any exoneration to be had. 

Probably by your very first sentence.  If that is not the case then my bad.

[Belsnickel]

(09-15-2023, 02:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Two possibilities.  One, it's still in there hidden among the legaleeze.  Two, they removed it after it become public because people were rightfully outraged.  Both are equally possible and neither exonerates them the way you seem to believe.

When I looked at the Senate floor analysis from 5/27, which would be for the version of the bill that the article was about, there is no mention of the prohibition.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB553

Apparently, the earlier version of the bill said an employer could not force a non-security employee to intervene, but that was removed.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/09/12/false-claim-california-bill-would-outlaw-stopping-shoplifters-fact-check/70807687007/

Quite frankly, I think it should be law that an employer can't force it. If it isn't in your job description to confront an individual in a situation like that, and you aren't trained to, then you shouldn't be expected to.

Edit to add: I did a deeper dive on this, comparing the 5/22 version that initially passed the Senate to the current version that is due to become law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVersionsCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB553&cversion=20230SB55395AMD

The Newsweek article did, in fact, misrepresent what was in the bill at that time. The part that was removed was as USA Today described, a prohibition against an employer requiring non-security employees to intervene.