Applying a ‘Chokehold’ to Overreach
“This is just one more position and there’s many thousands of government workers already.”
That’s one example of the ignorance, apathy and misguided principles behind the San Antonio Justice Charter (SAJC) petition drive being advanced by Act4SA, and why we recommend NOT signing it.
They were behind Prop B in the 2021 municipal elections, the unsuccessful attempt to defang the San Antonio police officers’ union by stripping away their collective bargaining rights. Now, they seek to enshrine not one, not two, not three, but six changes to the city charter.
One of them is the creation of a Justice Director, alluded to in the lead quote.
The other five: decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana, a ban on chokeholds and no-knock warrants by the police, the cite and release program instituted by Bexar County, and the de-prioritization of prosecution of state abortion laws.
Incidentally, given the way this petition was constructed, SAJC was arguably the victim of a chokehold itself, losing blood circulation to their collective head. This police tool was banned by the state last year.
Somewhat confusing are the marijuana decriminalization and cite/release (CR) portions.
Even though you can’t be cited for possession, the police “may seize” the substance if they have “probable cause to believe” it’s marijuana. Unless of course it’s because it smells like marijuana, in which case they cannot. Got that?
Regarding the CR, there seems to be ongoing confusion as to what exactly constitutes a crime. Consuming marijuana is an example of a ‘fake’ crime; no one else gets hurt. Stealing (or defacing) someone’s property, or a service they provided, is an act of aggression against another.
We can debate what levels of punishment should apply in various cases, but reducing punishment to a “citation, ticket or verbal warning” has multiple negative outcomes.
One, ticketing amounts to little more than a cash-grab by the governing jurisdiction. Two, does the victim see no restitution? Three, it signals to perpetrators that they can get away with harming others. They’ll then either continue committing such crimes, or move on to more egregious ones. Or both!
All this is ostensibly intended to “lower city liabilities on police abuse cases, saving valuable tax dollars.” That brings us back to the Justice Czar.
The fact that it is mentioned in the same breath as saving “scarce city resources” shows how poorly thought-out this was. Either that, or it betrays a degree of contempt for voters. It certainly lays bare a disdain for the taxpayer, who is unmentioned in all of this.
Once pro-government forces (except the police force, of course) have their clutches on the tax loot, the taxpayer no longer matters. Putting it to the voters is also problematic.
“Direct democracy in action” has a certain patriotic ring to it. However, it’s been abused of late.
Most recently, it was used to score a political victory disguised as a workforce training program (Ready to Work, RtW). A couple years before that, it served to foist another anti-employee mandate on employers (paid sick leave ordinance, PSL).
The RtW has predictably encountered all manner of hiccups on its way to lackluster enrollment. Also, after sales tax revenues surged, it turned out to be another vehicle for wealth redistribution, much like the PSL would have had it not been struck down by the courts.
If anything, the city charter should be amended to make it more difficult for political operatives to manipulate citizens. As it is, the omnibus method that Act4SA is employing here compounds the issue.
It’s all or nothing for them, and that may be the biggest problem of all.