What’s Wrong with the World

Is it terrible of me that the first thing I noticed was that the "code officer" who apparently kicked this whole thing off is a woman? I dunno. Clyde Carter is a man. But I still can't help wondering if the Lady Code Officer was one of those officious hen-like females who lack, shall we say, imagination.

For a society that increasingly thinks that all ethics are situational, we seem to have a problem with looking at situations and making good choices.

There is certainly a lack of internal coherence between the theories people like this general hold - or think they hold - about what constitutes good ethics, and what they actually put into practice. The legal positivism that is behind this idiotic "that's the law, and we have to enforce it even on 7 year olds running a lemonade stand" doesn't comport well with the subjective morals they teach people in subjective college. Yet even the legal positivism is, itself tied up with the fatally damaged lack of coherence in a view of law that is untethered to principle or source of law outside of man's will, such as natural law and God.

Tony, maybe the incongruity we see there is just the working-out of a contradiction that critics of subjectivism/relativism have pointed out from the beginning: The practical consequences of the rejection of transcendent standards of morality include the imposition of "might makes right" in their place. Since life without some standard is impossible, and since appeal to supra-human standards is rejected on principle, the force of law, or even just force as such, is all that's left. Since the rules have to be accessible to everybody, and since informal authority is considered arbitrary, there can't be exceptions made. So we are ruled by the pitiless indifference of the bureaucracy.

Add this to the ever growing list of reasons why the white middle class now has little respect for law enforcement.

Mike, you're not kidding. The model of local law enforcement as a brute political interest group--and one whose interests converge with those of the administrative state in particularly perverse ways--was never bound to inspire much love and loyalty.

"Add this to the ever growing list of reasons why the white middle class now has little respect for law enforcement."

I sense outrage here. Now how might you feel and react if the cops had shot the girls? But nothing like that would ever happen - not even in, oh say, Missouri, Ohio, New York, or Maryland.

"Both of them are completely caught up in progressive-think."

I believe stupidity and lack of judgment are to be found all along the political spectrum but one would have to remove ones ideological blinders to know that. Rusk and Smith counties are very conservative and try as we might it is unlikely that we lefties have gotten far in our efforts to subvert those parts (except for the police departments - everyone knows the police in Texas are all commies).

BTW, licensed and inspected establishments have never used improper storage, never, ever. Some folks actually ferment lemonade for a tasty beverage but selling that would get one into a whole other licensing morass (also some cities in the area are dry so the girls might then be real criminals).

I sense outrage here. Now how might you feel and react if the cops had shot the girls? But nothing like that would ever happen - not even in, oh say, Missouri, Ohio, New York, or Maryland.

Remind me, al--did those shooting incidents involve the sale of apples, or oranges?

Sheesh.

And did they involve 7-year old girls?

And did the 7-year olds pack a fantastic punch, maybe? Or a gun in their teensy left pocket?

And do 2 wrongs make a right?

And did this very blog not deplore some of those self-same excesses in Ohio, etc?

I believe stupidity and lack of judgment are to be found all along the political spectrum but one would have to remove ones ideological blinders to know that.

Thanks to the Establishment of anti-Christianity as the public religion and basis of moral sentiment (e.g. in public schools and colleges), most people in this country (because most have been educated in said schools) have been forced to drink deeply of the progressive mind-think about morals and law even while some have retained a generally (somewhat) conservative bent. The fact that many so-called "conservatives" are roughly as liberal as George McGovern was in 1972 should be indicative. Or that 40% + of the country think gay "marriage" is even possible, much less ought to be legal. If that's the breadth of "spectrum" under consideration, it is indeed true that stupidity and lack of judgment are found all through that spectrum.

Well said Tony.

I'm surprised that no one here has picked up on the implication that according to Al, grown black men have roughly the same level of moral culpability as would be assigned to 7 year old white girls for their actions which break the law.

I know this may sound a bit cruel, but there is, functionally, no difference between lemonade made in a restaurant and a lemonade stand. Laws are written for average cases and, as such, should be obeyed, barring specific exceptional circumstances (assuming the laws are moral).

That being said, the law is not specific enough and the officers were not creative enough in this situation. Most citrus drinks must be consumed within 2 hours at room temperature at a conservative estimate to prevent even possible spoilage that might harm the immuno-compromised. Without knowing when the kids set up the lemonade stand, the officers had no knowledge of whether or not the drink had even possibly begun to spoil, so the question of potential harm is not clear. Yes, they could have stuck to the letter of the law, but the simplest answer would have been to simply inform the kids to make a fresh batch of lemonade every two hours. Then, there would have been no problem with possible contamination and the spirit, if not the letter of the law, would have been satisfied. Alternately, the kids could have squeezed the lemonade from fresh lemons, each time. The police really had a failure of imagination and the law is not geared for exceptional cases.

This is not the first time this has happened, however:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/01/opinion/la-oe-martin-regulations-20110501

The Chicken

While I understand what you're saying, TMC, there is another side of this. Only a fool would think that the children are running the stand according to "best practices" or government health regulations.

What this country desperately needs is to flush out the current crop of hyper-legalists and replace them with men who understand the meaning and value of "de minimus non curat praetor."

Agreed, Mike. The situation called not for creativity, but for discretion.

Unfortunately, it appears that the trend is towards increased and total regulation, which is presumed to be for the good humankind...

That being said, the law is not specific enough and the officers were not creative enough in this situation.

Well, I don't want the law to get even MORE specific about some things. It should not be necessary for the law to spell out that food spoilage laws that are meant for restaurants doesn't need to speak to a little kid's lemonade stand. It should go WITHOUT SAYING, and thus it really shouldn't have to say it.

It really was the police's fault for not applying common sense and discretion. A few minutes observation: they had already made $25, so the stuff wasn't sitting around all day long. A few words to the kids about freshness. A comment to Mom about ice. A smile and a mention that you don't want to make your own neighbors sick. A hint that the "big permanent stands" have to worry about rules. Raise some consciousness about the reason for the law, and it practically takes care of itself. Or just go and buy some ice for the kids yourself, for cryin' out loud.

Most citrus drinks must be consumed within 2 hours at room temperature at a conservative estimate to prevent even possible spoilage that might harm the immuno-compromised.

Anyone who knows they are immuno-suppressed (like my kid on a special drug), if they go around courting disaster by doing things like drinking juice that has been out all day (whether in their own home or at a stand), they get what's coming to them. That is to say, there are risks all around their world, and they just have to THINK about their own situation and be responsible. Not try to make 7-year old kids be responsible for them.

That is to say, there are risks all around their world, and they just have to THINK about their own situation and be responsible. Not try to make 7-year old kids be responsible for them.

That is in general a very important point, and not only for people who are immune-suppressed.

Life is not without risk.

How often does this need to be said? We have this major problem that we try to eliminate the risk in life by way of regulation, and it just does not work. In fact, sometimes the regulations and the intended solutions create additional risks. (E.g. "Oh, boy, that insulation is a carcinogen. I have a great idea! Let's *tear it all out*" which of course spreads particles of the carcinogen all through the air and causes a problem that was not being caused by the insulation sitting quietly up in the roof of the building.)

In new News from the Future, I will be modifying this post title to make an award called "Dumb as a Trump". When a circus peanut launches a presidential campaign to promote his lame TV show the possibilities for humor are endless. Thanks Tony.

And did this very blog not deplore some of those self-same excesses in Ohio, etc?

Lydia condemned the police misconduct in New York, Mike T wrote some negative comments about Ohio. The one in Baltimore was treated in the comments as prosecutorial overreach, which is blatantly false.

I could go along with "Dumb as a Trump". Good idea there. I know there isn't any official hurdle you have to get past to throw your hat in the ring to try for the presidency,hah but surely there should be sufficient social detriment to something like a Trump trying that he would sheer off in fear of the social damage. That there isn't speaks poorly of our society. Or, perhaps I should say, of HIS society.

Lydia condemned the police misconduct in New York, Mike T wrote some negative comments about Ohio. The one in Baltimore was treated in the comments as prosecutorial overreach, which is blatantly false.

I didn't remember precisely which ones we spoke out on, and I didn't look it up, but yes, we DID speak against grave police excesses. You are probably mis-remembering the actual import of comments about Baltimore (which, according to my memory mainly condemned rioting), either way but my comment remains valid.

So, Step2, I (or somebody) have to write a post taking the "police were wrong" position on every high-profile instance of police misconduct in the country or we're a bunch of mainstream conservatives who knee-jerk defend the police? Puh-lease. For the record, I think the Baltimore officers should have been charged, but probably not with the exact charges that were brought. It was a weird situation where charges were definitely justified (presumably some sort of gross negligence) but where the prosecutor was _also_ clearly politically motivated.

Oh, and rioting and destruction are absurd and wicked responses to police misconduct and police brutality and should be punished to the full extent of the law. And property should be defended.

Now that I've said that and risked derailing Tony's entire thread, I hope you're happy.

Given the behavior in the mayor's office in Baltimore, one would have to worry about prosecutorial motivations being political even if the specific charges were rational.

So, Step2, I (or somebody) have to write a post taking the "police were wrong" position on every high-profile instance of police misconduct in the country or we're a bunch of mainstream conservatives who knee-jerk defend the police?

Which is very amusing since liberals almost invariably knee-jerk defend the family law courts raping the lives, liberties and properties of married men and fathers.

Or how about we force liberals to specifically address crimes like this individually, without resorting to group and society-centered rhetoric before commenting on race issues.

"What this country desperately needs is to flush out the current crop of hyper-legalists and replace them with men who understand the meaning and value of "de minimus non curat praetor."

This is not a matter of law - it is a matter of microbiology. Most kids know very little about pathogenics. Officers, apparently, do not, either, but the fact that one is a kid does not alter the laws of pathogens. Kids do not or should not need a restaurant permit to run a lemonade stand, but they should have some schooling in basic hygiene practices.

The Chicken

I'm well aware of those points and even agree with you that the police should have just told them how to do it safely. That should go without saying for those situations where the authority doing the harassment is a health official.

That still doesn't change my opinion that the law should offer very little protection to anyone who buys lemonade from little kid and expects anything beyond clean water and washing their hands after relieving themselves. It's about like buying drugs from a street dealer and then claiming victim status under the Pure Food and Drug Act... the frack did you expect could/would happen when you bought from that source?

"But if her department got a complaint about a kid in another neighborhood, the enforcement team would be dispatched."

That's from the article MC referenced and it occurred to me yesterday that a complaint from some neighborhood busybody may be underlying the original story and that changes things. Ignore the complaint and someone gets sick and CLAIMS it was from the stand - well, welcome to our judicial system.

(Tony suggested setting the jug in ice which is a good idea but, since no one likes warm lemonade on a hot day, it's possible there is ice in the jug (a bad idea) or in the blue bucket (a very bad idea). If there was no complaint then Tony's suggestion should have been sufficient. After all, this is about lemonade not egg salad sandwiches.)

"Thanks to the Establishment of anti-Christianity as the public religion and basis of moral sentiment ..."

I don't see much clarity coming from drawing apocalyptic conclusions based on some combination of spite/pettyness (if we had a complaint) and poor judgment ( if this came about on the code officer's initiative).

This incident does reinforce a conclusion I came to long ago - in a democratic system the closer and smaller the governmental level is to one, the more annoying and even oppressive it is likely to be (hence subsidiarity will often fai as a solution) and that is why I live on a barely paved, private road in unincorporated territory in a largely rural county.

"I'm surprised that no one here has picked up on the implication that according to Al, grown black men have roughly the same level of moral culpability as would be assigned to 7 year old white girls for their actions which break the law."

Factoring in age, isn't that the way things are supposed to work? What does color have to do with anything?

"We have this major problem that we try to eliminate the risk in life by way of regulation, and it just does not work."

How do folks even formulate nonsense like the above - again with the ideological posturing and (perhaps sheer ignorance)? We developed and require safety glass in automobiles because people got shredded before that. A state regulation requires me to have to a back flow device on my meter connection because I have a well for irrigation and a cross connection can contaminate a large part of the district's system. We have to have regular inspections of our septic systems because they can leak and contaminate things. Said required inspection just caught a leak in a house down the road. There are thousands of regulations that save lives and improve living conditions that we just take for granted and don't think about because they do work.

Lydia's insulation example is just weird. If the insulation is shedding fibers it needs to be dealt with. Ditto if one is doing a remodel that involves disturbing the product. There are rules on mitigation and disposal that minimizes exposure. (A rental we have has asbestos siding (still common in the area) and the attic insulation has been compromised by bats so I have some experience here.)

Oh, and rioting and destruction are absurd and wicked responses to police misconduct and police brutality and should be punished to the full extent of the law. And property should be defended.

If you'll show me where I've supported riots and destruction of property...oh nevermind, you can't.

For the record, I think the Baltimore officers should have been charged, but probably not with the exact charges that were brought. It was a weird situation where charges were definitely justified (presumably some sort of gross negligence) but where the prosecutor was _also_ clearly politically motivated.

Thanks for going on record, but except for the driver all the charges brought stem from gross negligence and a lack of probable cause in the initial arrest, so I'm still not clear on what charges you think are not justified. Furthermore, if you think a charge is justified, why does the motivation matter? A prosecutor is doing their job correctly - must be politically motivated. It makes no sense.

Or how about we force liberals to specifically address crimes like this individually, without resorting to group and society-centered rhetoric before commenting on race issues.

If you are going to deflect at least provide something tangentially relevant.

If you are going to deflect at least provide something tangentially relevant.

If you think it's not relevant, you're either dishonest or stupid since blaming "the legacy of racism and slavery" for blacks behaving badly is the go-to response for a significant number of people on the left.

so I'm still not clear on what charges you think are not justified

Depraved heart murder, for one. I'd have to go over them to see if these are others. This overshooting is part of the evidence for political motivation on the part of the prosecutor. The speed with which the charges were brought is another.

Lydia's insulation example is just weird. If the insulation is shedding fibers it needs to be dealt with. Ditto if one is doing a remodel that involves disturbing the product. There are rules on mitigation and disposal that minimizes exposure. (A rental we have has asbestos siding (still common in the area) and the attic insulation has been compromised by bats so I have some experience here.)

Al, I doubt that the example I'm aware of is atypical. In this case a major state institution went into a publically used building with asbestos insulation and tore it all out for no reason other than that it was asbestos. As to whether it was "shedding fibers," as far as I know no *specific* evidence was brought for shedding in *that* building. The removal was carried out on general principles--it's asbestos, it's gotta go. I continue to maintain that this is stupid and foolish and was much more likely to spread carcinogenic bits around in the air (yes, mitigation notwithstanding) than leaving it undisturbed.

Other examples could be given. I saw a discussion the other day of "carseat safety" in which it became absolutely clear that the danger feared in the example being given was *caused by the carseat itself*, yet the author seemed blissfully unaware of the complications introduced by the actual example. E.g. If the author was admitting, indeed stressing, that the child was likely to be killed *by the carseat* if the chest clip wasn't placed just right to within a few centimeters, then how clear was it that the child was better off with the carseat than with a lap belt?

I myself am continually in danger of being badly injured by my car's airbag in the event of a minor collision, because I am small and the airbag was intended for a much larger driver. I finally gave up having the airbag disconnected and decided to pocket my fears and principles and take the insurance discount instead. Besides, other people sometimes drive the car.

If you don't like these examples (which you probably won't), then use your (undeniable) intellect and ingenuity and find some of your own, but if you deny that fussy attempts to make life perfectly safe often create safety hazards of their own, so that the cure is worse than the disease, then you have an unmovable a priori commitment to the wonderfulness of safety regulation, and there's no point in debating the point with you.

If you think it's not relevant, you're either dishonest or stupid since blaming "the legacy of racism and slavery" for blacks behaving badly is the go-to response for a significant number of people on the left.

If you think liberals believe the Freddie Gray case is mostly about racism you are Dumb as a Trump, half the officers involved are black. You also misunderstand the way the left talks about "the legacy of racism and slavery" which has far, far more to do with economics and the failed drug war (which you have often voiced opposition to). In any event, structural issues like those are not considered the sole cause of criminal behavior, every population is going to have its violent criminal element. If I were to point to a case of a white serial killer or a mafia boss, it would be absurd beyond belief to claim this is indicative of anything wrong with the white race.

This overshooting is part of the evidence for political motivation on the part of the prosecutor. The speed with which the charges were brought is another.

It is truly amazing when the medical examiner rules the death of someone in police custody a homicide that they charge the police responsible for his custody. As if mere police officers could be held responsible for the mysterious tragedies which befall the superhuman prisoners in their custody; especially those mutants who request medical assistance multiple times. Let’s not forget neglecting protocol four different times to put a seat belt on the prisoner before Gray was found unresponsive, (the sergeant talked to the back of his head while he was silently prone on the floor of the police wagon) yet apparently still breathing so not rushed to a hospital. It was only when Freddie Gray was delivered to the police station – a few blocks from where he was illegally arrested and 45 minutes after his unplanned tour of Baltimore began – and in cardiac arrest that he received any medical care. It could happen to anyone dealing with a mutant, why should anybody believe those are probable grounds for prosecution?

Step2, why are you being such a Grade A Jerk about every word that proceedeth out of my keyboard on this? I never knew you were one of those "Conservative = evil racist" types, despite all the years we have sparred. For crying out loud, is it really *all that hard for you to figure out* that I'm actually *against* the police on that case? Heck, I took flak for it in plenty of conversations on Facebook, for example. I'm more likely to agree with the people who write for Reason on these cases than with the knee-jerk conservatives you want to class us with. And *I* was the one who made the whole us-vs.-them point (though I think it's a matter of distancing from those categorized as criminals rather than a racial issue) in my post on the New York case! So what's with all the nonsense about "mutants," etc.? When I implied that speed was evidence of motivation, I was _combining_ that with the overreach on the charges. Deciding *precisely which* charges to bring is part of being a good prosecutor, and bringing overreaching charges extremely fast is not being a good prosecutor. But charges did need to be brought, the police were highly blameworthy, we do have a major problem in our country with the police thinking no one can hold them to account, and moreover, we have a major problem with conservatives who think that anybody who has a rap sheet is subject to any degree of police mistreatment or brutality and that we should always defend the police in dealing with them.

How much clearer do I have to be? Stop being a donkey.

Step2,

Who am I going to believe? You, or my lying eyes that see countless headlines, articles and comments where left-of-center individuals claim precisely that it is various flavors of racism (person, societal, institutional) that are responsible for cases like this? I've seen plenty of people make arguments that the black officers acted the way they did precisely because they were part of a racist institution and it deeply influenced their treatment of blacks.

If I were to point to a case of a white serial killer or a mafia boss, it would be absurd beyond belief to claim this is indicative of anything wrong with the white race.

Where did I claim or imply that there is something wrong with blacks as a race? There is, however, what appears to be a much larger percentage of American blacks willing to participate in criminal activities than is true of other races. The best explanation for that is sociological: the breakdown of the black family is far worse than the breakdown of other racial groups' family structure and popular society (if not the government) is more tolerant of black criminality than it is in other groups.

Lydia,
I know I was being provocative and also very sarcastic. So to some extent I accept your characterization and warning. Only to an extent though, you were mockingly saying "Puh-lease" and implying I approved of riots and generally treating my trust in the Baltimore district attorney as totally outside the bounds of reason. This would be fair if I had been a jerk about the political motivations and biases of the St. Louis or New York prosecutors, but I trusted the system no matter how flawed I believed it was. Yet in this case it is simply assumed that the district attorney should be blamed for any prosecutorial discretion she uses - which in comparison to what McCulloch did is trivial- and this sort of attacking-the-referee mentality is not corrosive to public trust.

Mike T,
Where did I claim or imply that there is something wrong with blacks as a race?

Wait...

There is, however, what appears to be a much larger percentage of American blacks willing to participate in criminal activities than is true of other races.

...and there it is. Okay, short story time. About 40 miles northeast of my Tennessee city is a 96% white rural county that has one main industry, crime, and it has been that way since the days of moonshining. Teenagers are brought into the criminal lifestyle to any extent possible so their juvenile status provides some legal protection; the adult criminals conduct their activities at a feverish pace because they know they will eventually get caught so they want to hide enough money to enjoy life after prison. Yep, going to prison is part of their planned career path. About 23% of the population officially lives under the poverty line but nearly everyone drives a stolen expensive vehicle. At one point during the last few decades, there was a ban placed by trucking companies from stopping within twenty miles of the county because they had so many incidences of hijackings. Over the years multiple sheriffs, a retired city police captain and his family, even state troopers assigned to the area have been caught in various stings of bribery and corruption. One of the most famous stings is described below:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/local-news/a-tough-case-to-crack
I suppose I should deduce something about white tendencies towards criminal activity based on the long and systemic criminal corruption of this county.

The best explanation for that is sociological: the breakdown of the black family is far worse than the breakdown of other racial groups' family structure and popular society (if not the government) is more tolerant of black criminality than it is in other groups.

You started off with a reasonable point, then it fell into an abyss.

you were mockingly saying "Puh-lease"

Yes, in response to your baiting and strongly implying that we ought to have a post about Freddie Gray, specifically, or else...something. (We aren't doing our duty in life as bloggers? Unpleasant things can be assumed about our attitudes? My earlier post on Garner wasn't enough?)

implying I approved of riots

Nope. You were hypersensitive about that from the beginning and misunderstood it. I only put in that bit about riots because, if I was going to address the issue at all "for the record," I thought I should put something in about riots. (Esp. since some other white Christians I've seen who said some similar things to other things I said also felt they had to excuse the riots, thereby annoying the heck out of me.) It wasn't about you at all.

generally treating my trust in the Baltimore district attorney as totally outside the bounds of reason.

Nope, and don't even know why you think it. In fact, I don't think that it is "totally outside the bounds of reason." I just happen to disagree with you. All I've ever done is to defend my own attribution of political motives and my disagreement with some of what the prosecutor did. Which is, y'know, my prerogative as a person with a mind of my own.

Now enough meta.

Yeah, enough.

"In 1996 alone, 600 lives were saved by air bags. During this same period, eight children died -- all of whom were incorrectly restrained or not restrained at all. Many people who transport children in cars do not understand how air bags work. They fail to fully appreciate the threat passenger-side air bags pose to young children and do not realize why they must take steps to protect children up to 12 years of age. The bottom line: children and air bags do not mix. Air bags could seriously injure or even kill children who are in the front seat."

"In addition, short stature adults are also at risk when positioned too close to the air bag module, especially when unbuckled. There have been over 20,000 air bag deployments in which the driver was under five feet tall. In these cases, there have been nine fatalities -- all of whom were positioned too close to the air bag or unbelted. Air bag risk is minimal if a driver can sit 10 to 12 inches or more away from the steering wheel."

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/alcohol/Archive/Archive/safesobr/12qp/airbag.html

Also this may be of interest:

http://www.michiganautolaw.com/blog/2012/02/15/air-bag-safety-tips-for-shorter-drivers/

"If you don't like these examples..."

People can also be injured by seat belts and improperly placed child carriers however that isn't an argument against them. I hope you can resolve the problems you have with airbags.

I assume you're referring to Michael Fumento's 1989 article in the American Spectator about McAteer High School in San Francisco. I won't go into the specifics but the violation of a regulation isn't automatically an argument against the regulation itself and neither is boneheaded misinterpretation. The general principle is that asbestos that is sound should be left in place.

Your statement that I was reacting to seemed overly broad and uninformed as to the effectiveness of health and safely regulations in general. I do have strong priors as to the ability of humans to create unintended problems and also in the ability of we humans to act collectively to solve those problems. That perfection is impossible doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to improve things. Many problems are due to various failures inherent in market systems and long experience has shown that action at some level of government is the best way to deal with those failures
.

--
Viva la Quinta Brigada

Air bag risk is minimal if a driver can sit 10 to 12 inches or more away from the steering wheel

Hahahahahahaha. If you are under five feet tall, good luck figuring out how to drive safely while sitting that far from the wheel.

I assume you're referring to Michael Fumento's 1989 article in the American Spectator about McAteer High School in San Francisco.

Actually, no.

The general principle is that asbestos that is sound should be left in place.

Call the newspapers. Al and I actually agree about something!

Al, let me be as plain as I can. I am on record in these pages for NOT repudiating all safety rules, for NOT rejecting the notion that government has a right role in certain areas of regulating.

Government also has a duty to not only write such rules well, but to apply them well. This takes judgment. Discretion. Common sense. Every time a policeman pulls someone over clocking them at 11 miles over the speed limit, and lets the guy go with a warning, he is using discretion about NOT enforcing the explicit rule with absolute complete impact. Indeed, every time a policeman sets the radar warning level more than 10 miles over the speed limit, instead of AT the speed limit, that is another instance of the policeman using discretion about which cases of violation to ignore and which cases to apprehend. Every policeman who ignores a 7 year old child on a bicycle who fails to signal a stop, fails to signal a turn, fails to ride on the right side of the road, is passing up violations that he could cite - but he does not, out of prudence and right thinking.

Officials in all walks of life, in all positions of authority, every day have cases of insignificance, smallness, triviality that they let go. They have cases obviously non-deliberate, non-malicious, non-problematic violations, which they choose to not to pursue. It is part of their job to do so wisely.

These two enforcement officials failed. The first in even pushing the issue as a violation, the second for backing him up and insisting that the law is the law and they cannot brook ANY failures to comply of any sort whatsoever.

And whatever mentality that went into making those officers into thinking that this represented their proper behavior is damaged thinking. Wrongheadedness.

Tony, ???. Why is the above post addressed to me? Have you read my posts?

I objected to your, "I am guessing that at least one of these two officials don't have kids. Both of them are completely caught up in progressive-think," which is a strange statement especially given the location. There is nothing progressive or conservative or whatever going on here. They either got a complaint that put them in a bind or they merely exercised bad judgment.

..and there it is.

Except that what I actually said was not attributing it to their race as the root cause or a root factor.

There is nothing progressive or conservative or whatever going on here. They either got a complaint that put them in a bind or they merely exercised bad judgment.

I could have accepted the first enforcer's mistake that way. In fact, the first time I read it, that's kind of what I did. Dumb cop, make a bad judgment. But the second is what got me thinking. And realizing. There is more to it.

The City agreed to waive the $150 fee for a ‘Peddler’s Permit,” but the health department would prove a bigger problem.

That anyone even thought to ask "the City" about it shows the chief also (a) had dumb judgment about it, instead of telling the enforcement officer to figure out a better solution than hitting little kids with a bat the size of City Hall, and (b) he went through the hassle of raising the point with "the City". Which he should have known better. And obviously someone in "the City" did know better, because they didn't want to impose permit requirements on a 7-year old for a stinkin' 3-day lemonade stand, but THEN SOMEONE HAD TO INVOLVE THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT?! What the heck? This goes beyond bad judgment here. This is something else.

I am of course using guesswork and intuition as to exactly what the "else" is. I made it rather clear I was guessing - at least about one or both not having kids. My intuition tells me that a policeman and chief who cannot allow City Hall to shove it under a "de minimus" rug, but have to continue to make an issue out of it, have to involve the health department, don't grasp the the role of judgment in law enforcement. That is a DIFFERENT problem than that of making a bad judgment. And, in my opinion, it is symptomatic of a "justice" system that has been damaged by 60 years of liberals mis-teaching in schools and colleges what justice and the justice system really are.

Complaints that come in can be dealt with more creatively than just being dumb.