The source of the new idiom "touching porcelain with a license" has already been mentioned in the previous article (law enforcement officers "bravely" jump out of the car, isn't this "making money"?). In the face of surging public opinion, the local authorities have now replied.
"The vehicle involved was an illegal "black car". When the law enforcement officers informed them that the vehicle involved in the case would be temporarily impounded, the driver involved in the case, Zhang, refused to sign, and Zhang's husband, Li Mounan, repeatedly verbally threatened and intimidated the law enforcement officers, and wanted to cover the vehicle involved in the case and forcibly leave. In order to prevent illegal vehicles from escaping, law enforcement officers have taken improper measures in emergency situations. ”
What people are most concerned about is obviously the problem of "wearing law enforcement uniforms and enforcing the law in this way". However, for this kind of key, the briefing was brushed aside, and almost all of the pages were devoted to the topic of "black cars". Describing law enforcement officers jumping out of the car as an "emergency" means that the masses who support public opinion have become people who do not distinguish between right and wrong.
But the fact is that no matter how you wash it, you can't wash away the fact that the video car has braked and slowed down and stopped, as well as the most essential difference between "illegal and criminal".
It's not surprising that there is such a reply from chickens and ducks, when the problem was first exposed on the Internet, they even told reporters that they "just didn't see it", and even refused to disclose whether it was their person who touched the porcelain law enforcement. If it weren't for the excessive public opinion, I'm afraid I wouldn't even give this kind of response to the bull's head and the horse's mouth.
But the question is, if the two sides are reversed, is the situation still the same? If the person who jumped out of the car was an ordinary person, wouldn't he have to accept legal punishment waiting for him?
Obviously not, picking quarrels and provoking trouble, obstructing official business, and even assaulting the police can be charged.
I've always made it a simple truth: you can't prove yourself right by someone else's fault. These are two completely separate things that don't have any logical connection.
In other words, even if the video car is a "black car without an operating permit", it does not change the fact that law enforcement officers have touched porcelain. The latter is even more problematic than the former.
In the words of the philosopher Bacon: The evil consequences of treating the people with unfair law enforcement far outweigh the people's violations themselves. Because people's lawlessness only pollutes the water, and unfair law enforcement pollutes the water.
It's not unfounded. In the face of public opinion, repeated evasion of the important and trivialized response reports have led to many incidents of unfair law enforcement and law enforcement violations. They don't have to worry about the cost, and every time they can "solve the problem" with a few "responses" at the end.
A few days ago, Jiaozuo City, Henan Province, was exposed to "a number of shop signboards on a street were smashed", and no one knew "who did it", and the local people didn't care. People have questioned whether the matter is related to regulations such as "city image and unified signboard".
After the public opinion became louder, the local community came forward to respond. The content of the response is even more outrageous than the response content of the above "touching porcelain law enforcement".
One: "There is no rain and sewage pipe network in front of the community, the floor tiles are damaged in many places, the phenomenon of splashing water and mud is serious every rainy day, and some of the billboards and walls at the door are aging, there is a risk of falling off, there are certain safety hazards, and the merchants and the surrounding people have strong reactions. ”
2: "After extensive consultation, the community and community properties have designed a number of sets of door billboard schemes, and the merchants who agree to the renovation are free to choose the style and style; Merchants who do not agree to the renovation will maintain the status quo. In order to save costs and facilitate construction, centralized procurement and construction are organized by the community. ”
Three: "On May 10, the construction party directly removed the font on the billboard on their front door without first informing the merchants that they had agreed to renovate it, resulting in damage to the billboards on the front of some merchants and causing dissatisfaction among the merchants. ”
Four: "After the incident, the office coordinated and dealt with it in a timely manner, and the construction party and the merchant have reached an understanding. ”
What do you say this is in response, smashing the shop signboard, and first talking about the rainwater and sewage pipe network, splashing water and clouds on rainy days, does this have anything to do with the "unified signboard"?
Then he talked about "in order to save costs and facilitate construction, centralized procurement and construction by community organizations", which is too ridiculous, can community organizations save money or what? It's impossible to talk about "convenient construction", right?
The most interesting thing is that the notice creates a scene where "the merchant agrees to change the signboard, and the construction team forgets to inform the merchant when it is replaced......
Just look at the picture to know that this is not a normal replacement at all, whose normal demolition will smash a hole in the signboard? And the merchant has agreed, so why should it be exposed? Especially "forget to inform the merchant", but if you don't smash other people's advertisements at night, you don't need to "tell" at all, because other people's merchants are not blind.
Such a response is simply rubbing people's IQ on the ground. And most of the content of the report is even more bullish and mischievable.
The increasing number of such official reports is sad. These circulars, which were supposed to give the masses a reasonable explanation for their illegal acts, have now become an opportunity for them to quibble. How can such an operation have any deterrent effect on the problem of violating the law, and how can the target of injustice be able to get a fair response?
A lot of things are common sense, you don't need to put in much thought at all, you can know who is right and who is wrong at a glance. Even so, the officials in some places still want to talk serious nonsense, which is not only offensive and insulting to the masses, but also ruthlessly tramples on the rule of law and the law.