Masks in public now mandatory statewide (Korean, businesses, supermarket)

[CA4Now]

Goldberg makes a lot of good points.

Does anyone doubt that the failure to take the mask and social distancing rules seriously is a critical factor in why the United States has been less successful than many other countries in fighting the virus?

At a news briefing on Wednesday, Mayor Eric Garcetti said that he wasn’t urging the LAPD to enforce the mask order because “I don’t want to turn L.A. into a police state.”

But we enforce laws against jaywalking, public intoxication and walking dogs off the leash, among other things. We give out thousands of tickets every year. So why would enforcing this particular rule suddenly make us a police state?

LAPD Chief Michel Moore told my colleague Robin Abcarian in May that “if we take a strong, more enforcement-oriented position, we jeopardize the public’s trust.”

But I would argue that if you issue an order and then make it clear that you don’t care if it is obeyed, that too is a betrayal of the public’s trust.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...nforce-the-law

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

There is no PC 120295, it is not a penal code section it is a Health & Safety code section and that section outlines the punishment for violations of Specific Laws and Regulations Governing the Control of Communicable Diseases.

Thank you for pointing out the most minor detail you could find wrong in that post. Do you correct typos too? Anyway, does that correction change what I said? Didn't I literally say "The only criminal portion of that is pc {sic} 120295, so I assume that's what a person would be charged with however it's still unclear." which is precisely what you're repeating?


I heard there's some gnat poop in a pepper mill somewhere...

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

What in the world are you even talking about? Everything in the Health and Safety and Penal Code were voted on by the legislature.

Once more (perhaps for the tenth time), I'm not talking about the language of the emergency powers act itself. Maybe you don't know this but those sections of the HSC aren't new. It seems you and another poster just can't comprehend that it's NOT about that. What I said was the mask order is vague. Codifying it through the proper branch of government (the legislature, not the executive) would only enhance the public safety order for the reasons I'm not going to keep retyping. You don't have to agree. I personally don't care.

Would you like them to rewrite it and revote on it every time we have a new threat to the public safety? My guess is if they did that you would engage in a rant about how the California state legislature wastes time and money rewriting the law every time there is a new virus

Your guesswork about me is terrible but carry on.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Thank you for pointing out the most minor detail you could find wrong in that post. Do you correct typos too? Anyway, does that correction change what I said? Didn't I literally say "The only criminal portion of that is pc {sic} 120295, so I assume that's what a person would be charged with however it's still unclear." which is precisely what you're repeating?


I heard there's some gnat poop in a pepper mill somewhere...

Yeah, your posts don’t mete out any condescending drivel. Nah ... lol

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Thank you for pointing out the most minor detail you could find wrong in that post. Do you correct typos too? Anyway, does that correction change what I said? Didn't I literally say "The only criminal portion of that is pc {sic} 120295, so I assume that's what a person would be charged with however it's still unclear." which is precisely what you're repeating?

I heard there's some gnat poop in a pepper mill somewhere...

I pointed it out because if anyone reading this wanted to read the text of that section and tried to find it in the penal code they wouldn't be able to. No, a person is not charged with H&S 120295, that is the charging authority. The person would be charged with one of the sections referenced in 120295.

I know it's confusing, the same issue exists in the Penal Code (PC 1170(b)) That section lays out the possible sanctions for a felony conviction. You aren't sentenced to 1170b, but rather the section of the penal code you violated, i.e. PC 459 burglary, but 1170c indicates the sentencing options available to the judge.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Once more (perhaps for the tenth time), I'm not talking about the language of the emergency powers act itself. Maybe you don't know this but those sections of the HSC aren't new. It seems you and another poster just can't comprehend that it's NOT about that. What I said was the mask order is vague. Codifying it through the proper branch of government (the legislature, not the executive) would only enhance the public safety order for the reasons I'm not going to keep retyping. You don't have to agree. I personally don't care.
Your guesswork about me is terrible but carry on.

If you have a problem with any directive or order that's been issued the best way to approach that is to contact your state assembly member or senator.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Once more (perhaps for the tenth time), I'm not talking about the language of the emergency powers act itself. Maybe you don't know this but those sections of the HSC aren't new. It seems you and another poster just can't comprehend that it's NOT about that. What I said was the mask order is vague. Codifying it through the proper branch of government (the legislature, not the executive) would only enhance the public safety order for the reasons I'm not going to keep retyping. You don't have to agree. I personally don't care.

The lack of comprehension in these exchanges lies with you not grasping the point of having these Emergency Powers Acts in place ... why they were created by the federal and all 50 state governments to begin with.

So once more I will urge you to brush up on the history. The powers were created precisely to bypass the time and resource and logistical complexities of codification in times where time is of the essence to mitigate all manner of imminent and active threats.

You agree that the EO's are legal - yet suggest they are not ‘legal enough’ without the codification process. No, they ARE legal enough without further detail. That’s their very point in fact.

Emergency Powers are short term emergency measures.

Legislative codification is for long term regulation.

[looker009]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

The lack of comprehension in these exchanges lies with you not grasping the point of having these Emergency Powers Acts in place ... why they were created by the federal and all 50 state governments to begin with.

So once more I will urge you to brush up on the history. The powers were created precisely to bypass the time and resource and logistical complexities of codification in times where time is of the essence to mitigate all manner of imminent and active threats.

You agree that the EO's are legal - yet suggest they are not ‘legal enough’ without the codification process. No, they ARE legal enough without further detail. That’s their very point in fact.

Emergency Powers are short term emergency measures.

Legislative codification is for long term regulation.

Please define short term

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by looker009

Please define short term

Look it up yourself ... that’s your screen name, right? Looker?

[sheena12]

Good for California! Progressive as always.

I wish that were true here. We have four months of nice weather. I have asthma, and other pulmonary problems and I basically can't leave the house - BECAUSE THESE IDIOTS REFUSE TO GIVE A CRAP ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE.
I see entire families (from inside my car) walking into stores talking loudly - children especially.

Such selfishness!

Unless one is wearing an N-95 mask that protects yourself - masks are for the protection of others.