(04-24-2010 10:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 10:33 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 10:24 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 09:59 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Illegal immigration is a crime. If you fit the description of a burglary, rape, murder, or hit and run suspect, you can and should be questioned. That could be thousands of people in any city. And most questioned will be innocent. A high percentage of people will be cleared to eventually find the one guilty.

If a robbery suspect is 5'10" 160 pounds and white, that's who is and should be looked at. If the suspect happened to be black or brown, you get charges of racism and profiling. It's neither. It's the description.

"Suspected" is good enough for other crimes. Why not this one? If legal immigrants get annoyed at answering questions, maybe they will stop sending money and encouraging 18 family members to illegally cross the border, move in with them, take good American jobs and drive down labor rates.

And unlike other crimes were many get questioned to find the one guilty, an extremely high percentage of people who fit the description of the illegal criminal are going to be guilty. Some large neighborhoods will see close to 100% of those questioned guilty.

If a small child is kidnapped, and there's a description of the kidnapper, I'm fine with the cops questioning every single person who fits it. Same for any other crime.

Please show me a law that uses such a low standard as "suspected".

Really? Every law. If you fit the description, you can be stopped and questioned.

I've been jailed with no charges, no Miranda warning, no questioning, for a couple of days. Was never even told why I was being held until after I was released. I don't want the cops allowing a possible murderer to walk the streets because of a possible/probable inconvenience to me. When they released me, I asked and was told why I was held. Other than me sitting in jail a couple of days, it wasn't a big deal. They were doing their jobs.

You are a hell of lot more tolerant than I am....I find your past experience totally outrageous in terms of civil liberties. What you described is what you would find in totalitarian regimes. Pretty damn scary IMO.

If this actually happened to him, it is wrong and he should have brought charges against the police(however, I think he is leaving out a part of the story). It also explains why he thinks the way he does. This is EXACTLY what this new Arizona law makes legal. THis is why so many are so angry.

(04-24-2010 10:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 10:33 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Really? Every law. If you fit the description, you can be stopped and questioned.

I've been jailed with no charges, no Miranda warning, no questioning, for a couple of days. Was never even told why I was being held until after I was released. I don't want the cops allowing a possible murderer to walk the streets because of a possible/probable inconvenience to me. When they released me, I asked and was told why I was held. Other than me sitting in jail a couple of days, it wasn't a big deal. They were doing their jobs.

You are a hell of lot more tolerant than I am....I find your past experience totally outrageous in terms of civil liberties. What you described is what you would find in totalitarian regimes. Pretty damn scary IMO.

Yeah, Paul, you should have probably been a lot more pissed (complaining might have actually gotten you out faster). Its one thing to be held for a couple of hours, but by then you should have spoken with an attorney or seen a judge. A few days makes no sense. In fairness, it sounds like the police screwed up rather than abused power intentionally.

There is no profile for illegal immigrants. Canada is one of the top sources (#4 in 1996) of illegals. I'm sure people will be outraged if the police in Arizona aren't spending enough time verifying the citizenship of the snowbirds to root out those dirty canucks.

(04-24-2010 10:20 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 09:15 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  I don't think that anyone is allowing the police to wholesale round up and jail Hispanics. In a situation where a person might reasonably be expected to be carrying ID. is where the police will focus. If a large portion of Hispanics are breaking the law, don't you think the police have a duty to the community, to protect the community from this lawbreaking. The people will have their due process, their day in court.

Maybe you should read the damn bill?

Asswipe, the police still have to have probable cause. If the police see a bunch of Day Labors on a street corner, do they have probable cause to check their status? No. If they see them getting into a truck to go to work. No. If they are in a motor vehicle without a seatbelt? Yes. It does not matter if they are Hispanic, Black or White. If the police see a crime being committed, they have probable cause to make a stop.

This is the fear tactics just like when liberals did not want states to allow CCL. Saying there will be gun fights in the streets. I don't buy it. For the greater part the police are professionals and those that are not will be weeded out in short order.

(04-24-2010 10:51 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 10:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 10:33 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 10:24 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 09:59 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Illegal immigration is a crime. If you fit the description of a burglary, rape, murder, or hit and run suspect, you can and should be questioned. That could be thousands of people in any city. And most questioned will be innocent. A high percentage of people will be cleared to eventually find the one guilty.

If a robbery suspect is 5'10" 160 pounds and white, that's who is and should be looked at. If the suspect happened to be black or brown, you get charges of racism and profiling. It's neither. It's the description.

"Suspected" is good enough for other crimes. Why not this one? If legal immigrants get annoyed at answering questions, maybe they will stop sending money and encouraging 18 family members to illegally cross the border, move in with them, take good American jobs and drive down labor rates.

And unlike other crimes were many get questioned to find the one guilty, an extremely high percentage of people who fit the description of the illegal criminal are going to be guilty. Some large neighborhoods will see close to 100% of those questioned guilty.

If a small child is kidnapped, and there's a description of the kidnapper, I'm fine with the cops questioning every single person who fits it. Same for any other crime.

Please show me a law that uses such a low standard as "suspected".

Really? Every law. If you fit the description, you can be stopped and questioned.

I've been jailed with no charges, no Miranda warning, no questioning, for a couple of days. Was never even told why I was being held until after I was released. I don't want the cops allowing a possible murderer to walk the streets because of a possible/probable inconvenience to me. When they released me, I asked and was told why I was held. Other than me sitting in jail a couple of days, it wasn't a big deal. They were doing their jobs.

You are a hell of lot more tolerant than I am....I find your past experience totally outrageous in terms of civil liberties. What you described is what you would find in totalitarian regimes. Pretty damn scary IMO.

If this actually happened to him, it is wrong and he should have brought charges against the police(however, I think he is leaving out a part of the story). It also explains why he thinks the way he does. This is EXACTLY what this new Arizona law makes legal. THis is why so many are so angry.

Charges for what? I believe the law has always been that they can hold you without charge for x number of hours for suspicion. They didn't interrogate me or torture me. They treated me just fine. I used to put myself in situations and position's that it was reasonable for me to expect my frequent encounters with the police. I don't fault them for the life I led. I was jailed many time when I was younger, and except for this one time, was always there for something I had done. And this time, I put myself someplace and when there was a charge of murder, just speaking for myself, I find it totally reasonable for the police to take that seriously and investigate. They were wrong this time (not their fault) but I should file charges and imped any future investigations? I don't want to tie the police's hands and then be told by them when someone I know gets killed that I was responsible for them not being allowed to do there jobs effectively. Reasonable actions are not stepping on anyones civil liberties. They didn't just round me up for no reason. They were responding to a call. They did their jobs, there was no murder, just a false charge and they released me. Now, I could have taken action against those making the false claim, but it had already taken two days of my life, I wasn't going to invest more time to it. Today I would.

Might as well finish the story now so Robert doesn't think anything is left out of a story I had no desire to tell anyway. When I got back to my car, which was at the peoples house who made the false claim (against me and a friend) all the windows were out, the seats were cut up and everything was stolen. They were terrified for a while. Good enough for me at that time.

As for my tolerance, I suppose I would be less so today because I simply don't put myself in situations that would get me arrested any more. But I still wouldn't throw a fit. I find reasonable things to be, well, reasonable. If your child is missing, it's reasonable that your at the top of the suspect list. If your wife is murdered, ditto. If you hang around a criminal element, again, reasonable to have encounters with the police.

If your Hispanic and live in a predominately illegal alien community, expect to show ID when asked.

(04-24-2010 12:11 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 10:20 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 09:15 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  I don't think that anyone is allowing the police to wholesale round up and jail Hispanics. In a situation where a person might reasonably be expected to be carrying ID. is where the police will focus. If a large portion of Hispanics are breaking the law, don't you think the police have a duty to the community, to protect the community from this lawbreaking. The people will have their due process, their day in court.

Maybe you should read the damn bill?

Asswipe, the police still have to have probable cause. If the police see a bunch of Day Labors on a street corner, do they have probable cause to check their status? No. If they see them getting into a truck to go to work. No. If they are in a motor vehicle without a seatbelt? Yes. It does not matter if they are Hispanic, Black or White. If the police see a crime being committed, they have probable cause to make a stop.

This is the fear tactics just like when liberals did not want states to allow CCL. Saying there will be gun fights in the streets. I don't buy it. For the greater part the police are professionals and those that are not will be weeded out in short order.

dumb***, the police under this bill DO NOT need probable cause. THat is one of the big issues with this bill. Read the bill.

(04-24-2010 12:16 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 12:11 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 10:20 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 09:15 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  I don't think that anyone is allowing the police to wholesale round up and jail Hispanics. In a situation where a person might reasonably be expected to be carrying ID. is where the police will focus. If a large portion of Hispanics are breaking the law, don't you think the police have a duty to the community, to protect the community from this lawbreaking. The people will have their due process, their day in court.

Maybe you should read the damn bill?

Asswipe, the police still have to have probable cause. If the police see a bunch of Day Labors on a street corner, do they have probable cause to check their status? No. If they see them getting into a truck to go to work. No. If they are in a motor vehicle without a seatbelt? Yes. It does not matter if they are Hispanic, Black or White. If the police see a crime being committed, they have probable cause to make a stop.

This is the fear tactics just like when liberals did not want states to allow CCL. Saying there will be gun fights in the streets. I don't buy it. For the greater part the police are professionals and those that are not will be weeded out in short order.

dumb***, the police under this bill DO NOT need probable cause. THat is one of the big issues with this bill. Read the bill.

Show me, it does not allow stops that are not based on probable cause.

(04-24-2010 10:57 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 10:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 10:33 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Really? Every law. If you fit the description, you can be stopped and questioned.

I've been jailed with no charges, no Miranda warning, no questioning, for a couple of days. Was never even told why I was being held until after I was released. I don't want the cops allowing a possible murderer to walk the streets because of a possible/probable inconvenience to me. When they released me, I asked and was told why I was held. Other than me sitting in jail a couple of days, it wasn't a big deal. They were doing their jobs.

You are a hell of lot more tolerant than I am....I find your past experience totally outrageous in terms of civil liberties. What you described is what you would find in totalitarian regimes. Pretty damn scary IMO.

Yeah, Paul, you should have probably been a lot more pissed (complaining might have actually gotten you out faster). Its one thing to be held for a couple of hours, but by then you should have spoken with an attorney or seen a judge. A few days makes no sense. In fairness, it sounds like the police screwed up rather than abused power intentionally.

This would have been about 33-34 years ago and I was stoned back then. But even without the weed, I was just naturally quite and mellow. I just let everything run off me. Now I'm a cranky old fart that blows up about everything. Now, my buddy that was in there with me shouted the whole time making demands. I just lay on my bunk telling him "Franks not here, man".

(04-24-2010 12:20 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 12:16 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 12:11 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 10:20 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 09:15 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  I don't think that anyone is allowing the police to wholesale round up and jail Hispanics. In a situation where a person might reasonably be expected to be carrying ID. is where the police will focus. If a large portion of Hispanics are breaking the law, don't you think the police have a duty to the community, to protect the community from this lawbreaking. The people will have their due process, their day in court.

Maybe you should read the damn bill?

Asswipe, the police still have to have probable cause. If the police see a bunch of Day Labors on a street corner, do they have probable cause to check their status? No. If they see them getting into a truck to go to work. No. If they are in a motor vehicle without a seatbelt? Yes. It does not matter if they are Hispanic, Black or White. If the police see a crime being committed, they have probable cause to make a stop.

This is the fear tactics just like when liberals did not want states to allow CCL. Saying there will be gun fights in the streets. I don't buy it. For the greater part the police are professionals and those that are not will be weeded out in short order.

dumb***, the police under this bill DO NOT need probable cause. THat is one of the big issues with this bill. Read the bill.

Show me, it does not allow stops that are not based on probable cause.

Read the bill. It is there. They don't need probable cause. THe bill has a lower standard.

"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS A ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."

Reasonable suspicion < probable cause.

Here is the bill(since you are to lazy( stupid? ) to look it up:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

(04-24-2010 03:46 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Read the bill. It is there. They don't need probable cause. THe bill has a lower standard.

"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS A ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."

Reasonable suspicion < probable cause.

Here is the bill(since you are to lazy( stupid? ) to look it up:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

I highlighted what you continue to willfully ignore.

(04-24-2010 04:33 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-24-2010 03:46 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Read the bill. It is there. They don't need probable cause. THe bill has a lower standard.

"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS A ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."

Reasonable suspicion < probable cause.

Here is the bill(since you are to lazy( stupid? ) to look it up:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

I highlighted what you continue to willfully ignore.

You are hopeless.

It's in english bud. Continue you phony argument if you must.

If your going to look something up and post it, you may want to actually read it in the future.

Paul is right Mr. Fear Monger. "ANY LAWFUL CONTACT" = ANY PROBABLE CAUSE

(04-24-2010 05:14 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Paul is right Mr. Fear Monger. "ANY LAWFUL CONTACT" = ANY PROBABLE CAUSE

Any lawful contact would seem to include walking up to someone walking and saying "hi". It is lawful contact. It the guy looks hispanic or isn't speaking English, he then can ask for their "papers". But go ahead. Spin away. "Any lawful contact" doesn't = "any probable cause. If it did, they would have used the words "probable cause" but they didn't and set the bar MUCH lower.