Actually, when laws are NOT enforced, law enforcement, codifies a new law neutralizing, invalidating or removing the old law. Example: Failure to enforce stop sign law. This is law enforcements defacto codifying a new law removing the old requirement to STOP. Consequently, no one actually stops at supposedly controlled intersections or, for that matter, even slows down enough in preparation to stop as required in an intersection WITHOUT stop signs. Law enforcement by their defacto actions mandates the state of anarchy.
When law enforcement is left to the personal discretion of the policing officer or court, law in and of itself ceases to exist as these individuals become the defacto law. In this regard, Thomas Hannah is right. Legitimate authority and right to enforce law ceases to emanate or derive its power from its justifiable base, citizen consensus and consent, and rests upon or is motivated by the “tough cop” authority, mentality and attitude.
Furthermore, the seriousness of such lawless conduct, when people deliberately, with full intent to violate the law, whatever consequence result are deliberate and with malice.
A read of Thomas Hannah's long-winded and perfunctory My Word commentary asks “what Eureka's elected and appointed executives officials are doing to protect the property owners and voters from the hazards ... Who is really looking out for the interest of the residents in the city of Eureka?” He continues: “During recent years, I have been troubled by the growing tendency to mitigate or find exceptions to laws, ordinances and regulations by our city officials. Responsible enforcement is the duty of every elected and appointed official. When laws and their counterparts are not enforced, there is no law.”
Herein lies the answer as to why everyone seems to think they have a choice as to whether or not to comply. His use of the word “duty.” Elected and appointed officials are legally obligated to enforce the law and their sworn oath. Failure to do so violates their legitimate right to hold that office or position. The only way they can justify retaining their elected position or other office is by getting the people, to a certain extent using coercion, threats and force to go along with their lawless conduct. In effect, codifying their lawlessness.
In the Eureka City Council's case they think to bribe Eureka citizens with: Council courts public input on hiring new police chief – "City to hold pair of public forums, poll residents online."
They hope to mitigate their actions and they say as much, for firing police Chief Garr Neilsen without cause. When they go ahead and hire the kind of person they want, they can hide behind their fig leaf of some sort of independent “public forums.” Wishful thinking at this point: “That might be a way to heal some of the huge rifts in the community.” I wonder how they plan to heal this rift: Mayor Frank Jager seems to think: “”We've got the police department right now in the able hands of Mr. (Interim Chief Murl) Harpham, and I think it would behoove us not to rush this,” Mayor Frank Jager said.”
Thomas Hannah shows that there is more of a problem than just wanton failure to stop. He may try to hold the elected officials, in particular the Eureka City Council, accountable for their chicanery, but I see it as everyone's responsibility. Everyone is obligated to obey the law and as a consequence, enforce the law. When everyone practices anarchy, their elected representatives, as anarchists, shall enforce anarchy.
--Joe
Hannah says "stay tuned".
ReplyDeleteHow long?
Probably until they hire a new police chief.
ReplyDelete