Reading the coverage and comments on the local protests in this paper, I have noticed some pretty fanciful interpretations by left-wing partisans on what the “law” is. Having practiced law for more than 40 years, and being insufferably pedantic, allow me to correct some of these curious notions.
First, the law does not punish anything just because it pisses you off. Sorry, but something must be specifically proscribed in writing by the proper government entity to be punished. For example, I find Hillary Clinton and Adam Schiff insufferable, and yet, they continue to walk about freely and to opine incessantly. Reality TV and the Kardashians are allowed to infect the popular culture. TV pharmaceutical hucksters are permitted to relentlessly beguile the afflicted with ads for new and pricy nostrums promising not just relief, but an idyllic life. But the law provides me with no relief from these things, despite their assaults on my emotional well-being.
Some are in a snit because the police violated the perceived “right” of protesters to block the freeway and to vandalize the cars of motorists who try to bypass them. Some are in a lather because law enforcement declined to arrest armed men guarding a store during a protest march. And, there was even a demand that local law enforcement officials be arrested and prosecuted for the newly contrived “felony” of “upholding and perpetuating institutional racism.” You’ll be disappointed to learn that the law doesn’t back you up on these things.
Tianna Arata was arrested for inciting and leading protesters onto the freeway to block it, resulting in violence and danger to the public, acts in violations of specific portions of the vehicle and penal codes. Despite the opinions of activists, there is no “right” to block a freeway. Elias Bautista was arrested for the crime of vandalizing a car trying to avoid the blockade. There is nothing in the law excusing this conduct just because a person feels really, really strongly about their cause.
Further, a motorist seeking to avoid becoming entrapped in a mob has no legal duty to obey traffic diktats by self-appointed “traffic cops” in the mob. Many of us who are old enough to have watched live on TV during the LA riots as Reginald Denny’s truck was blocked, and he was dragged out of it and had his head caved in with large chucks of concrete. Recently in Portland, a mob of protesters dragged a motorist out of his car, beating and kicking him while helpless on the ground. Shots have been fired at “disobedient” motorists. Most folks can understand why a person might be anxious to escape a mob
While you might dismiss the blocking of motorists to be merely a permissible “inconvenience,” consider this: Would you support pro-life demonstrators being allowed to block access to an abortion clinic, because they, too, feel strongly about exercising their First Amendment rights and expressing their opposition?
And, despite opinions of several commentators, the police are under no legal obligation to immediately read anyone their Fifth Amendment rights. That is just TV. The reading of rights is only necessary in case you wish to use a defendant’s statements against them.
Standing on a rooftop with guns during a protest march is not illegal, no matter how much it may have offended you, and made you “feel unsafe.” The law is clear that someone may possess guns on their private property to protect it. And, in view of the fact that protests in other locations have devolved into arson, looting, and murder, most of us can certainly understand why a merchant might think it prudent.
An aside to you kids: The fact that something may make you subjectively feel “unsafe” does not give you a veto over that activity, no matter what your indulgent school teachers and parents may have told you. The law does not guarantee you a “safe space” from dissenting opinions and from others exercising their rights.
Likewise, even a left-wing lawyer will tell you that there is no law criminalizing “upholding and perpetuating institutional racism,” no matter how much the social justice warriors wish it otherwise. What does that even mean, precisely? Sorry, but if you want to lock up your political opposition, you’ll have to do better than just flinging vague rhetoric and jargon.
And speaking of “institutional racism,” I have yet to hear anyone delineate any specific acts and practices performed locally which they feel constitute “institutional racism.” Slogans won’t do. A core principle of criminal law is that a law must be sufficiently precise to identify the specific behavior that is prohibited. Specifically, what acts are local law enforcement engaging that are racist and should be barred? What makes them “racist”?
If you activists insist on citing the law to support your cause, you may want to learn it first. Your hysterical rhetoric may work up the crowd at your political pep rallies, but it is unlikely to have much influence on the responsible people who actually run things. Δ
John Donegan is a retired attorney in Pismo Beach who had lots of legal certitude before law school and experience beat it out of him. Write a response for publication and send it to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Aug 27 – Sep 6, 2020.
HERE HERE…. LOVED IT
Selective enforcement of the law is tantamount to creating your own law. Like Dow on churchgoers gathering indoors and Parkinson on California’s gun control laws, it is undemocratic and dangerous for law enforcement to make those decisions. In Kenosha, we had local police encourage out-of-state militias to attack protesters. Are these the ‘responsible people who run things’ you refer to?
How far does this have to go before America sees what a force of oppression we have created in our police force? When I watched the police respond in Kenosha to a crazed white 17 year old carrying a still smoking rifle, after murdering protesters, I was appalled at their response. They told him to ‘get out of the street!” If he was black, he would have had more holes than swiss cheese. Defund, Disband, demilitarize, and prosecute the police. Especially in SLO where they shoot dogs and persecute teenage girl activists.
There is nothing “selective”. At the gun store, none of California’s laws were violated, while their is no equivence between holding a church service in violation of covid orders, and protesters who block a freeway and take motorists hostage. I have no idea what is happening in Kenosha, but it seems that both sides are sending armed groups.
America’s law enforcement is out of control as are it’s protesters.
I understand the frustration of feeling no one is listening. That you have no voice. No say. However, the solution is not protesting in the streets. Try speaking up at public meetings, writing letters or OpEditorials like this one, organizing to elect officials who will bring real change to your community. There are peaceful means to move forward. A protest always has the potential to get out of control endangering not only the public but the protesters and counter protesters – who simply add to the problem.
I know that there are place where We The People have no say in their government and no Constitutional Right “to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” but this county is not such a place. Nor is this country.
Knowing the possibility that a protest will spark opposition and even disorderly behavior should inspire the organizers to work harder to ensure there is no anti-social behavior. Organize well and remain in one place so no one can say it was you or your friends who created an incident. Walk the streets only when the streets are closed to traffic. Never cause concern for the safety of your, yours or others.
You use big words to create a sense of legal authority and moral superiority, but beneath it all, your logic does not hold up. You claim the motorist on the free-way had an objectively valid fear for his life, so he was entitled to endanger the life of protesters, but your claim is based on a single incident in a different place and a different time. Yet you dismiss anyone’s fear of armed men on rooftops of businesses who have not been targeted at “subjective”? Your logic fails.
Your allegiance to law and order is self-serving and biased. You think by labeling the protesters a “mob” you can excuse the reckless and dangerous actions of the driver who plowed into protesters by describing it as not obeying “traffic diktats by self-appointed “traffic cops”. You ignore the fact that endangering the lives of persons is illegal even if the person is engaged in illegal activity, such as blocking the traffic. Being stuck on the freeway may be inconvenient and infuriating, but no one on that freeway was in any danger. Out of the tens or hundreds of blocked motorists, only one decided to run over protesters. That fact alone undermines any pretense that there was an objectively valid fear of imminent harm.
Finally, and this is the real point, you ask for instances of discriminatory laws, when the real problem often is not the law itself, but the discriminatory manner in which it is applied. Black men are far more likely to be pulled over, arrested and sentenced to longer sentences that white men. But I suspect you already know this.
Interesting how Donegan & other “Law & Order” zealots are also devoted to the most lawless regime in U.S. history.
As long as we lean hard on BLM, We diminish the heroes who sort and protect us from discourses within our shared civil environments. Our heroes will always do their good work with a proper sense of purpose.
Rob Sutterfield, Atascadero