Braun Bay Rafting Bill

[OCDACTIVE]

I don't know why we continue to propose legislature that is redundant. Just answer me this:

Aren't there already laws against littering?

Aren't there already disturbing the peace laws?

Aren't there already rafting laws?

Aren't there already drunk in public laws?

Why do we continue to restrict those who abide by the laws and try to enjoy our lake? Braun Bay has been a top rafting spot for decades. Generations of families have enjoyed it. Why are we trying to stop this?

Even residents of the bay who have posted here says these issues are not a problem. So why are we trying to enact a law to fix something that isn't broken... just my 2 cents.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

I don't know why we continue to propose legislature that is redundant.

Because in most jurisdictions the law enforcement agencies appreciate having as many bullets in their guns as they can. We see over and over again how lawyers weasel their clients out of convictions and how over-matched our police are when they get into court. If they cite someone for drunkenness, there will be a twelve month battle over the validity of the blood sample and their proper handling of it. If they cite them for littering, they will rely on hope that they can get fingerprints off the litter that are reliable enough to withstand the lawyer's long and expensive challenge. If they cite them for urinating, they will need dna samples that are carefully kept and protected from contamination so they cannot be refuted by some Johnny Cochoran. But a simple picture of the boats tied together with the Braun Bay shore in the background will be hard for even F. Lee Bailey to refute.

In most jurisdictions, law enforcers look at laws as tools that they can selectively use if and when the need arises, and know this is a good thing. They appreciate a full palette of laws that they can use at their discretion as the circumstances warrant.

In most jurisdictions, law enforcers aren't the one's complaining about the "enforceability" or "redundancy" of laws like the perpetrators do. They recognize their duty to do their best to enforce the will of the legislature and they do their job.

Law enforcers have discretion to enforce the laws when it is appropriate and in instances where they feel the citations can be upheld, so for them, having one more option when they see a violator can only be a benefit. Having a law that is "unenforceable" or "redundant" cannot hurt them...they don't have to cite it if they don't see the need. But citing someone with five violations always gives a better chance of one sticking than citing them with four. It is always one more charge that can be used to their advantage in a plea bargain. Only in Glendale does law enforcement generally seem more concerned about the rights of the perpetrators than the rights of the rest of society. And that is not their charge.

In most jurisdictions, law enforcement works with the legislature to craft laws that can be enforced, rather than sitting back in Glendale and trying to sabotage pending public-interest legislation by telling the public why a law under consideration will be unenforceable, and telling the potential perpetrators that they need not obey the law because there will be no attempt to enforce it anyway .

We see this pattern repeating itself over and over from Glendale and have to wonder sometimes whose side they are on.