Sunday, October 14, 2012

More Californicated, LE edition: Updated

The Los Angeles Times characterized the chief’s motives thus:

Back over on the east coast, you have Democrat politicians joking about how they'll cheat in the election.

And an opinion on what to say/how much to say to the cops if you have to use a weapon in self-defense.

Update: had a comment about the CoP in LA's actions.  My response:
Big part of the problem is the people claiming "I can't get Americans to do the job" often mean "I can't get Americans to do the job for what I can pay illegal aliens to do it.  Which has distorted things enormously.  If the .gov- often at the urging of corrupt business people, desires of socialist politicians, other times out of PC bullcrap- had not allowed so many illegals to come, and stay, etc., we wouldn't have that distortion.

And that doesn't count all the costs of the illegals: how many hospitals have closed because of the costs of being required to treat them?  Welfare and so on?  This isn't simply a few minor offenses, this is the big one of coming here illegally to start with, and all the crap that's followed.

For instance: used to know a guy on the local PD who said flatly that if it weren't for the illegal alien gangs, there'd be 2/3 fewer(maybe more) gang problems in the area; that crap puts an enormous cost on the area: LE, medical, theft, robberies and so forth.

This chief isn't saying 'ignore this law' because he's being caring and sensitive: I think he's doing it because the illegal alien lobby is so big in the region that it's popular, and makes the politicians who suck up to it happy.  Which helps the Chief keep his job, and screw the people actually paying for it.

And, very often now, leaving the state because of it.


Luton Ian said...

It's strange, I've just read the PJ media blog about the LAPD chief, and the background story came across to me as one of essentially Jeffersonian nullification.

I'm certainly not going to try to wind you up here, but surely that nullification is not in itself a bad thing.

The first paragraph in the article struck me too;


It is indeed an abstraction, just as differentiating those who live on this side of a street, from those who live the other side of a street is an abstraction.

If no one this side of the street wanted to employ folk from the "other side" of the street, they'd soon stop crossing that line someone painted down the middle.

The jobs they cross the line to do, would then cost more to have done, so;

many of those jobs would remain un-done

Those that were done would be drawing money and people who are at present satisfying more urgently felt wants in other areas of the economy.

These are minor "offences", doing 33 in a 30 limit, parking in the wrong place, leaving the dog in a parked car for 2 minutes...

I'm not saying that the cop is an angel, perhaps he has his guys throwing incendiary grenades through house windows on no knock raids like the ones in the update here did (wrong house- they badly burned a 12 year old girl - bloody terrorists)

While you still have "local" police, they need to represent the local community, not the Federal leviathan,

Looks like the LAPD guy is representing his community, and is willing to go against the Feds to do it.

skidmark said...

Doing the jobs Americans won't do" has never cut it. While some jobs may go undone for some peeriod of time, the marketplace will assert itself and either get workers to do those jobs or decide that the jobs are unneccessary after all.

Complaining about enforcing laws concerning "petty crimes" only shows that someone does not get it. For all his faults, Rudy Guilliani positively impacted NYC's crime rate by enforcing jaywalking, littering, and abandoned property laws - get people to understand that the little stuff is important and they will then demand that attention be paid by not only the police but the populace to the big stuff as well.

I'm not sure anybody will ever have "the best" answer about what to do with the illegals already here, but effectively encouraging even more of them to come here is NOT the answer. If they were all law-abiding (well, except for that immigration status bit) and tax-paying I might be a little more inclined to cut them some slack. But they eat up tax dollars way out of proportion to what they contribute.

As an aside - I do not care if the first generation never learns to speak English - my great-grandparents did not either - but surely by the third generation they ought to be at least bi-lingual if not native speakers. That they are not is an indication of not wanting to be an American and only wanting the economic benefit of being here as opposed to somewhere else. Only half in jest do I suggest they go to France, where they can push the Muslim imigrants out as the most prolific and tax-consuming group.

stay safe.

skidmark said...

*&*%#$ typos! Speel-czheher not working today.

stay safe.

Luton Ian said...

Hi Skidmark,

I used to hold to the conservative line that what is on the books should be obeyed/enforced until it is repealed.

I think the main points which lead to me re thinking my position, were,

The question of what defines a "law" as opposed to advice or a recommendation

and the traditional common law and John Locke position of "no victim, no offence", which (thankfully) the examples I gave, do not fall foul of.

there's a lot more to it, which I'd be happy to elaborate upon.