Why of course they do. Every time a cop decides to make an arrest - or not - that's precisely what is happening.
And another thing. Go look at the videos from 1964 Birmingham and 1965 Selma and say to yourself that Bull Conner was just enforcing the law.
>> Why of course they do. Every time a cop decides to make an arrest - or not - that’s precisely what is happening. <<
discretion in enforcement is not nullification.
>> And another thing. Go look at the videos from 1964 Birmingham and 1965 Selma and say to yourself that Bull Conner was just enforcing the law. <<
Uh, OK.
Bull Connor was a member in good standing of a domestic terrorist organization. That organization burned down schools and blew up churches in his jurisdiction, and he did nothing to prevent them from doing so, nor did he investigate the crimes. He falsely imprisoned people, going so far as to cite vagrancy when raiding people’s homes.
Was he just enforcing the law? No, he didn’t enforce it at all; he WAS the criminal.
The scenes of the attack dogs are meaningless outside of that context. Had they been a mob out to “protest” a Korean small business opening in their neighborhood, we wouldn’t be horrified at the abuse of power, we’d be complaining that incompetent enforcement tactics made a bad situation far more dangerous.
But what Americans saw wasn’t only police brutality, they saw the desperation that Bull Connor’s terrorist friends had driven the blacks of Birmingham to. They knew that the water cannons and the dogs weren’t to uphold the law, they were punish and terrorize.
A man declining to ride a bus doesn’t isn’t the interest of law enforcement and public safety officials. A man creating a mile-long back-up on an interstate highway, effectively shutting down a truck inspection station is.