Politicians and the law
It appears that open season on Lompoc Mayor Lingl has begun.
Recent guest commentaries by Ron Fink that were critical of Councilman Mosby seem to have drawn the fire of Mosby's friends. Hence the guest commentary by Katherine Dettamanti, "Civil discourse and public threats.” However, the fire was aimed at Lingl, not Fink.
She began by stating that Mayor Lingl's opening remarks at the July 11 budget session were an attempt to advance his own agenda by "egregiously" invoking the name of a local lad who lost a battle with cancer. Then we realize this was only an opening to the main event.
At the Old Town market July 21, with the mayor and Mosby present, someone asked Lingl what he would like to do about a budget issue.
The mayor shaped his thumb and forefinger into a gun, and pointed it at Mosby, who has been an obstacle to resolving those issues. Mosby said he didn't feel threatened by this gesture, but when he related the incident to his wife, she thought it represented a threat, and urged him to report it to police, so he did.
Police investigated, but took no action because no crime had been committed.
Dettamanti says she discussed this with Chief Walsh, who said his philosophy is to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.
Not good enough to use effectively in the next campaign for mayor, Mr. Linn.
Lingl has calmly suffered those trying to attack him for blocking the motor sports park boondoggle that was Mosby and Linn's project, and they haven't forgiven him. If that commentary was meant to make me "question whether this behavior is fitting for the highest elected official who represents this city,” it failed miserably.
Judith L McKinnon
Take political filters off
In City X there is a historic statue in the public square that offended members group of Group A, who in turn wanted it removed. There were members of Group B who were against removal, and requested and were granted a permit to assemble and voice their grievance in accordance with the First Amendment to the Constitution.
But members of Group A did not want Group B to heard, and gathered as a mob and confronted them. The result being, borrowing a term from my Boston high school days, a “rumble”. During this mayhem, an individual (assumedly associated with Group B) recklessly drove a vehicle into the battling crowd and killed a member of Group A.
Is it rational to assume that every person present in both or either of the groups was evil and predisposed to death and destruction? My guess is that there were well intentioned participants in each group who were swallowed up in the mass melee, and would not have participated if the outcome was foreseen. It is important to note that city police were present and took no preventative action prior to the blow out.
So honestly ask yourself, why is President Trump being dumped on because he initially condemned this violence without accusing everyone present of being evil? This event is another obvious example that there are destructive elements in our society (sore losers, anarchists, Antifa, BLV, etc.) that are doing everything possible to incumber this administration, and attempt to destroy US culture.
We need remember it takes two to tango (tangle).