New Mexico governor deliberately violates Constitution

[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.