or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Arizona = Arian Zone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Arizona = Arian Zone - Page 6

post #201 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

As far as I know, this is not stated in the law explicitly. And it needs to be, for this law to be acceptable.

Never heard of a "tonton" doll. What is it, a sex doll or something? I know tonton is a common term of endearment for "uncle" in French, and I've been asked if I'm French a handful of times.

Like I said (did you read what I said?) I don't condone the practice.

You do know the difference between Hong Kong and China, right? Hong Kong residents were never, ever, in history, required to "carry the red book". Your ignorance is showing.

Actually, it does, but you wouldn't be the only one who has condemned it, without bothering to read the law.
Quote:
B.\tFOR 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 AN 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. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

'Lawful contact' when discussing state code and police actions refers to investigations of crimes.

A tonton is a child's toy in Taiwan.


Oh, boy, I wasn't aware Hong Kong residents didn't have to carry the little Red Book...
post #202 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post

Actually, it does, but you wouldn't be the only one who has condemned it, without bothering to read the law.

That's not at all what I gather from that statement in the law. Again, it is against the law to not carry valid papers. To question someone with regard to their papers when it's suspected (reasonably?) that they are in the US illegally, would be lawful contact. So this "lawful contact" does nothing at all to prohibit random checks based on ambiguous suspicion. Which is why this law is wrong. As I stated.
Quote:
'Lawful contact' when discussing state code and police actions refers to investigations of crimes.

And not carrying papers is a crime. Are police not allowed to investigate that crime?
Quote:
A tonton is a child's toy in Taiwan.

Not that I know of. Or my Taiwanese girlfriend from college. Is it an ethnic Taiwanese minority term?
Quote:
Oh, boy, I wasn't aware Hong Kong residents didn't have to carry the little Red Book...

You were aware that from 1947 to 1997, Hong Kong, including Kowloon and the New Territories (Hong Kong Proper) was a British colony, right? And before that, Hong Kong Island and Kowloon was owned by the British? And NT was controlled by the Nationalists before their defeat in the revolution, right?

Why on Earth would the British require their residents to carry Maoist propaganda?

Do they even teach world history in American schools any more? Do students even care enough to learn it?

I guess they do teach history... as long as that history is twisted to pretend that the motivation of all of the founding fathers was pro-Christian religious (it wasn't) and that there was no "slave trade" and that Jefferson... well... you get it. But that's US history. What on Earth are they teaching in world history these days if graduates don't know that Hong Kong was British?
post #203 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

That's not at all what I gather from that statement in the law. Again, it is against the law to not carry valid papers. To question someone with regard to their papers when it's suspected (reasonably?) that they are in the US illegally, would be lawful contact. So this "lawful contact" does nothing at all to prohibit random checks based on ambiguous suspicion. Which is why this law is wrong. As I stated.
And not carrying papers is a crime. Are police not allowed to investigate that crime?

Not that I know of. Or my Taiwanese girlfriend from college. Is it an ethnic Taiwanese minority term?

You were aware that from 1947 to 1997, Hong Kong, including Kowloon and the New Territories (Hong Kong Proper) was a British colony, right? And before that, Hong Kong Island and Kowloon was owned by the British? And NT was controlled by the Nationalists before their defeat in the revolution, right?

Why on Earth would the British require their residents to carry Maoist propaganda?

Do they even teach world history in American schools any more?

Your interpretation of the law is different than the actual law. I take it you haven't taken Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. I can't explain basic law to someone who doesn't have the basic foundations.
"Not carrying papers" is a crime under the federal statute, not the Arizona law.

Not that I know of. Now I remember. It is the pig from Naruto.

I am well aware about Hong Kong. 3rd world countries just didn't hold my interest all that much.
Not even Party members had to carry the Red Book? How about today? My knowledge of China is mostly limited to military infrastructure and weapons programs.
post #204 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post

Your interpretation of the law is different than the actual law. I take it you haven't taken Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. I can't explain basic law to someone who doesn't have the basic foundations.

Of course I've taken college level fundamentals of law. I've also worked for NGOs and been to meetings at the UN in Geneva, where ambiguous laws have been discussed thoroughly. How about you?
Quote:
"Not carrying papers" is a crime under the federal statute, not the Arizona law.

So? State and local officers investigating a "suspected" breach of Federal law is still lawful contact. I can't explain basic law to someone who either ignores this or is intellectually dishonest enough to weasel around it.
Quote:
Not that I know of. Now I remember. It is the pig from Naruto.

Um... Jesus... you don't even know the difference between Taiwan and Japan... OMG.
Quote:
I am well aware about Hong Kong. 3rd world countries just didn't hold my interest all that much.

Oh, the irony!

I am absolutely sure we've had this discussion before. Hong Kong is the most capitalist society on Earth. It has the greatest amount of economic freedom in the world. Your ignorance is not only showing, it is blatant. Unless you're trying to be ironic or confrontational.
Quote:
Not even Party members had to carry the Red Book? How about today? My knowledge of China is mostly limited to military infrastructure and weapons programs.

Why would CCP members be living in British territory and have PRC laws apply? And today, not even the PRC requires "the red book" to be carried by its own people.
post #205 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course I've taken college level fundamentals of law. I've also worked for NGOs and been to meetings at the UN in Geneva, where ambiguous laws have been discussed thoroughly. How about you?

So? State and local officers investigating a "suspected" breach of Federal law is still lawful contact. I can't explain basic law to someone who either ignores this or is intellectually dishonest enough to weasel around it.

Um... Jesus... you don't even know the difference between Taiwan and Japan... OMG.

Oh, the irony!

I am absolutely sure we've had this discussion before. Hong Kong is the most capitalist society on Earth. It has the greatest amount of economic freedom in the world. Your ignorance is not only showing, it is blatant. Unless you're trying to be ironic or confrontational.

Why would CCP members be living in British territory and have PRC laws apply? And today, not even the PRC requires "the red book" to be carried by its own people.

How is it you don't understand the basic text of the Arizona law? Suspicion of being illegal is clearly not grounds for verifying someone's status.

I'm not 13, so don't know anything about Naruto, other than you are named after a pig character on the show.

I recently saw a documentary concerning Hong Kong. The average citizen lives no different than the average citizen in a Chinese city- in abject poverty.

You know PRC members? I guarantee most, if not all carry the Little Red Book..
post #206 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post

How is it you don't understand the basic text of the Arizona law? Suspicion of being illegal is clearly not grounds for verifying someone's status.

I'm not 13, so don't know anything about Naruto, other than you are named after a pig character on the show.

I recently saw a documentary concerning Hong Kong. The average citizen lives no different than the average citizen in a Chinese city- in abject poverty.

You know PRC members? I guarantee most, if not all carry the Little Red Book..

Tonton :
Quote:
Of course I've taken college level fundamentals of law. I've also worked for NGOs and been to meetings at the UN in Geneva, where ambiguous laws have been discussed thoroughly. How about you?

Stevegmu :
Quote:
I recently saw a documentary concerning Hong Kong.

Oh god!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #207 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Tonton :

Stevegmu :

Oh god!

If you think un laws have anything to do with this case, you are clearly out of touch, or just a troll.
post #208 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post

If you think un laws have anything to do with this case, you are clearly out of touch, or just a troll.

It was an example! Geez! It could be anyone's laws and SDW would still be showing preferential treatment.

What does your statement have to do with anything?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #209 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post

The average citizen lives no different than the average citizen in a Chinese city- in abject poverty.

Not quite. The average citizen in Hong Kong actually lives more comfortably than the average citizen an a large American city. Which is still not good enough. I'd love for the average citizen in Hong Kong and the US to live like the average citizen in Norway. Except not as cold.
post #210 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not quite. The average citizen in Hong Kong actually lives more comfortably than the average citizen an a large American city. Which is still not good enough. I'd love for the average citizen in Hong Kong and the US to live like the average citizen in Norway. Except not as cold.

Well we cannot all live in small population oil rich country.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #211 of 374
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Well we cannot all live in small population oil rich country.

No, our oil is being shipped from the Gulf of Mexico and from Alaska to China and we get no royalties from BP, they also pay no taxes in the US. we like to be raped by foreign corps that makes us good capitalists.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #212 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

No, our oil is being shipped from the Gulf of Mexico and from Alaska to China and we get no royalties from BP, they also pay no taxes in the US. we like to be raped by foreign corps that makes us good capitalists.

Hi Wormhole!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #213 of 374
The crux of the argument against SB 1070 appears to be over 2 words: "reasonable suspicion".

Opponents of the bill have come to the ridiculous conclusion that this will give police free license to scour the streets, rounding up people based solely on skin color.

Here's the thing: police detain and question people every day based on "reasonable suspicion" that they may be violating the law.

If a police officer pulls over and detains a person of Latino descent on "reasonable suspicion" of DUI, did that police officer just commit an act of racial profiling?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #214 of 374
The law states one has to be questioned about another crime before they can inquire the legal status of said perp. Pretty much all police investigations involve establishing the identity of those questioned. Any adult in the US should have either a license, state ID, picture ID of some sort, or be in the system. Failure to provide any type of said documents seems like reasonable suspicion to me. Where's the problem?
post #215 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post

The law states one has to be questioned about another crime before they can inquire the legal status of said perp.

No, it absolutely doesn't. Please stop spreading that lie/misinformation.

There is nothing stopping the police/sheriff from stopping someone to question them about this crime. Nowhere in the law does it say "another crime".

And even that wouldn't be so bad if not for the "loser pays" clause. That clause makes it almost impossible to claim wrongdoing on the part of the police.
post #216 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No, it absolutely doesn't. Please stop spreading that lie/misinformation.

There is nothing stopping the police/sheriff from stopping someone to question them about this crime. Nowhere in the law does it say "another crime".

And even that wouldn't be so bad if not for the "loser pays" clause. That clause makes it almost impossible to claim wrongdoing on the part of the police.

You are completely wrong. "Lawful contact" means that they have to be suspected of another crime. AZ even clarified this recently.

Quote:
From Phoenix KNXV:

Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word solely from the sentence, The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.

Another change replaces the phrase lawful contact with lawful stop, detention or arrest to apparently clarify that officers dont need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.

A third change specifies that police contact over violations for local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.

The laws sponsor, Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, characterized the race and ethnicity changes as clarifications just to take away the silly arguments and the games, the dishonesty thats been played.


That summary is a bit clumsy. Here is the actual pertinent section:

http://24ahead.com/arizona-immigrati...more-resistant


The law is as clear as possible. Just read it. People must be suspected of other violations. It even states "made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state "
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #217 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You are completely wrong. "Lawful contact" means that they have to be suspected of another crime. AZ even clarified this recently.

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

Lawful contact means any crime. Not "another crime". And since not carrying papers is a crime, it qualifies. If they really want it to be "another crime" then just put that in black and white.

[EDIT]Just saw your last paragraph. Glad that they changed the language and that makes it better, but...

Quote:
A third change specifies that police contact over violations for local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status."

"Officer, why did you pull me over?"

"Broken tail light. I'll need to see your papers."

"But I don't have a broken tail light."

(Kicks the tail light, breaking it)
"Are you lying to an officer of the law, sir? Papers."

And under loser pays, do you think the guy is going to make a claim? Seriously?
post #218 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

Lawful contact means any crime. Not "another crime". And since not carrying papers is a crime, it qualifies. If they really want it to be "another crime" then just put that in black and white.

[EDIT]Just saw your last paragraph. Glad that they changed the language and that makes it better, but...



"Officer, why did you pull me over?"

"Broken tail light. I'll need to see your papers."

"But I don't have a broken tail light."

(Kicks the tail light, breaking it)
"Are you lying to an officer of the law, sir? Papers."

And under loser pays, do you think the guy is going to make a claim? Seriously?

Nice, create a racist where there may not be one... Have you forgotten that every police cruiser has a camera in the vehicle that records stops? The cop would have to be a world-class idiot.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #219 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

Lawful contact means any crime. Not "another crime". And since not carrying papers is a crime, it qualifies. If they really want it to be "another crime" then just put that in black and white.

[EDIT]Just saw your last paragraph. Glad that they changed the language and that makes it better, but...



"Officer, why did you pull me over?"

"Broken tail light. I'll need to see your papers."

"But I don't have a broken tail light."

(Kicks the tail light, breaking it)
"Are you lying to an officer of the law, sir? Papers."

And under loser pays, do you think the guy is going to make a claim? Seriously?


No, no and no. The law is exceptionally clear. People cannot be stopped on the mere suspicion of being illegal. The entire point is to give the police the ability to inquire about status AFTER someone is suspected of committing a separate violation. Previously, police were not even allowed to ask about immigration status, which in my view is simply nuts. You're in the country illegally, and local/state law enforcement cannot even ask you about your status?

As for your example, that would be bad police work by the officer, and could happen with our without this legislation. There will always be examples of people that don't do their jobs correctly. No way around that.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #220 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

Lawful contact means any crime. Not "another crime". And since not carrying papers is a crime, it qualifies. If they really want it to be "another crime" then just put that in black and white.

[EDIT]Just saw your last paragraph. Glad that they changed the language and that makes it better, but...



"Officer, why did you pull me over?"

"Broken tail light. I'll need to see your papers."

"But I don't have a broken tail light."

(Kicks the tail light, breaking it)
"Are you lying to an officer of the law, sir? Papers."

And under loser pays, do you think the guy is going to make a claim? Seriously?

Tonton, to put it simply, stop making up stuff. Everyone has explained reasonable suspicion and lawful contact to you. They aren't just made up nonsense. They are fully fleshed out legal concepts with case law clarifying them in a number of manners. In addition to that the law and clarifications to this law have repeatedly sought to make sure that the understanding of stopping and asking for paperwork based off nothing more than race is not allowed.

Finally, who would be safe from your corrupt cop caricature above? You are and I, who happen to be two American citizen white guys could be jailed just as easily by him because right after he busts out the tail light he's going to drop a dime bag in your trunk. Corrupt is corrupt and wrong is wrong but you can't use this caricature strawman argument to knock down the legitimate law.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #221 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Finally, who would be safe from your corrupt cop caricature above? You are and I, who happen to be two American citizen white guys could be jailed just as easily by him because right after he busts out the tail light he's going to drop a dime bag in your trunk.

Or a bloody glove in my back yard...
post #222 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Tonton, to put it simply, stop making up stuff. Everyone has explained reasonable suspicion and lawful contact to you. They aren't just made up nonsense. They are fully fleshed out legal concepts with case law clarifying them in a number of manners. In addition to that the law and clarifications to this law have repeatedly sought to make sure that the understanding of stopping and asking for paperwork based off nothing more than race is not allowed.

Finally, who would be safe from your corrupt cop caricature above? You are and I, who happen to be two American citizen white guys could be jailed just as easily by him because right after he busts out the tail light he's going to drop a dime bag in your trunk. Corrupt is corrupt and wrong is wrong but you can't use this caricature strawman argument to knock down the legitimate law.

Well put.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #223 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

Lawful contact means any crime. Not "another crime". And since not carrying papers is a crime, it qualifies. If they really want it to be "another crime" then just put that in black and white.

[EDIT]Just saw your last paragraph. Glad that they changed the language and that makes it better, but...



"Officer, why did you pull me over?"

"Broken tail light. I'll need to see your papers."

"But I don't have a broken tail light."

(Kicks the tail light, breaking it)
"Are you lying to an officer of the law, sir? Papers."

And under loser pays, do you think the guy is going to make a claim? Seriously?

A really good example. In a state that operates this way this exchange is probably commonplace.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #224 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Nice, create a racist where there may not be one... Have you forgotten that every police cruiser has a camera in the vehicle that records stops? The cop would have to be a world-class idiot.

And yes it wouldn't be the first time a camera records an officer breaking the law.

And if you take this far enough who handles the recordings?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #225 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Tonton, to put it simply, stop making up stuff. Everyone has explained reasonable suspicion and lawful contact to you. They aren't just made up nonsense. They are fully fleshed out legal concepts with case law clarifying them in a number of manners. In addition to that the law and clarifications to this law have repeatedly sought to make sure that the understanding of stopping and asking for paperwork based off nothing more than race is not allowed.

Finally, who would be safe from your corrupt cop caricature above? You are and I, who happen to be two American citizen white guys could be jailed just as easily by him because right after he busts out the tail light he's going to drop a dime bag in your trunk. Corrupt is corrupt and wrong is wrong but you can't use this caricature strawman argument to knock down the legitimate law.

trumpy when I was younger I got stopped by police that had no reason to stop me. I remember once an officer stopped me for a burnt out tailight. When he was behind me looking at it he forgot that my car was being reflected in the glossy paint on his. I said " Let me try it " and I was holding the brake down. The guy still claimed it wasn't working until I pointed out how I knew it was. He then said " There! Now I guess it's working. " He left right away after that.

This really happened in 1970's USA.



If you have a government ( even at the state level ) that operates this way I'm sure justice is difficult for the individual to come by.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #226 of 374
Seriously, I haven't lived in the States for fifteen years. Do they really require all law enforcement vehicles to have cameras now? Sure I've seen a few (like 2) episodes of reality crap where cameras were there, and I'm aware that in some municipalities, it's a requirement. But does every state have such a requirement on the books? Does Arizona? Or is it municipal? Or is it an elective choice to protect the officers?
post #227 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Seriously, I haven't lived in the States for fifteen years. Do they really require all law enforcement vehicles to have cameras now? Sure I've seen a few (like 2) episodes of reality crap where cameras were there, and I'm aware that in some municipalities, it's a requirement. But does every state have such a requirement on the books? Does Arizona? Or is it municipal? Or is it an elective choice to protect the officers?

Not sure how wide spread it is as a requirement, but it is pretty common these days. There are two base reasons that have driven it (other than the camera system maker getting his income):

- officer safety
- officer accountability

In the past it was pretty easy for the police to win a he said/she said argument. With video evidence this is much harder if the cop did something bone-headed (this apparently is not all that uncommon either). It can also be used as evidence against someone if they do something they shouldn't, you know like give the officer any lip, fail to assume that the officer is God. Like that.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #228 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Not sure how wide spread it is as a requirement, but it is pretty common these days. There are two base reasons that have driven it (other than the camera system maker getting his income):

- officer safety
- officer accountability

In the past it was pretty easy for the police to win a he said/she said argument. With video evidence this is much harder if the cop did something bone-headed (this apparently is not all that uncommon either). It can also be used as evidence against someone if they do something they shouldn't, you know like give the officer any lip, fail to assume that the officer is God. Like that.

Interesting. That's not at all what Noah claimed.
post #229 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Or a bloody glove in my back yard...

You too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

A really good example. In a state that operates this way this exchange is probably commonplace.

Yes because all law enforcement is just a corrupt caricature that does whatever the hell they want and stares out at all minorities with the mirrored sunglasses and the toothpick in the corner of their mouth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

trumpy when I was younger I got stopped by police that had no reason to stop me. I remember once an officer stopped me for a burnt out tailight. When he was behind me looking at it he forgot that my car was being reflected in the glossy paint on his. I said " Let me try it " and I was holding the brake down. The guy still claimed it wasn't working until I pointed out how I knew it was. He then said " There! Now I guess it's working. " He left right away after that.

This really happened in 1970's USA.



If you have a government ( even at the state level ) that operates this way I'm sure justice is difficult for the individual to come by.

We all know this story is a totally made up impossibility Jimmac because you are a white male and the police would never stop you without proper cause nor harass you. That would take away precious time from them pulling over minority community members, smashing out their taillights and then planting evidence for various crimes.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #230 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Interesting. That's not at all what Noah claimed.

That is not at all what you assumed by my post. True. It is more common than not that a police cruiser will have a camera in it. Rodney King and other police mishaps have made that occur.

It is obviously better to exaggerate on the side of police corruption and brutality than on the side of them being actually accountable to the people they are there to "Serve and to Protect".
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #231 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Interesting. That's not at all what Noah claimed.

I'll let Noah speak for himself. I don't know what the laws on this are. I just know that dashboard cams are very, very common these days. Required? One hundred percent? I don't know.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #232 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You too?



Yes because all law enforcement is just a corrupt caricature that does whatever the hell they want and stares out at all minorities with the mirrored sunglasses and the toothpick in the corner of their mouth.



We all know this story is a totally made up impossibility Jimmac because you are a white male and the police would never stop you without proper cause nor harass you. That would take away precious time from them pulling over minority community members, smashing out their taillights and then planting evidence for various crimes.

Quote:
We

Once again who's we?

I'm sorry but it really happened right on good old Court st. Salem Oregon. Since I was young and drove a car that looked like the Batmobile at the time I can guess why he singled me out. You know nothing trumpy.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #233 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

No, no and no. The law is exceptionally clear. People cannot be stopped on the mere suspicion of being illegal. The entire point is to give the police the ability to inquire about status AFTER someone is suspected of committing a separate violation. Previously, police were not even allowed to ask about immigration status, which in my view is simply nuts. You're in the country illegally, and local/state law enforcement cannot even ask you about your status?

As for your example, that would be bad police work by the officer, and could happen with our without this legislation. There will always be examples of people that don't do their jobs correctly. No way around that.

Quote:
No, no and no. The law is exceptionally clear. [B]People cannot be stopped on the mere suspicion of being illegal.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #234 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Once again who's we?

I guess i depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #235 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I guess i depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

So tell me who " We " is that makes it relevant to this topic? I mean they certainly don't apply to all the people here as most don't agree with you or trumptman. So how's it relevant? And how is it on topic?

Other than taking a shot at me and not the topic.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #236 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So tell me who " We " is that makes it relevant to this topic? I mean they certainly don't apply to all the people here as most don't agree with you or trumptman. So how's it relevant? And how is it on topic?

Other than taking a shot at me and not the topic.

Quit pretending that you actually want to discuss the topic of any thread here. It makes you look even more foolish. If you wanted to talk about the topic, you would. You don't, so you don't. \

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #237 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You are completely wrong. "Lawful contact" means that they have to be suspected of another crime. AZ even clarified this recently.




That summary is a bit clumsy. Here is the actual pertinent section:

http://24ahead.com/arizona-immigrati...more-resistant


The law is as clear as possible. Just read it. People must be suspected of other violations. It even states "made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state "


Staying at my folks' home here in good old Mesa, AZ for a bit....Looks like Sheriff Joe (a blighter of a human if there ever was one) IS enforcing the law accordingly.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...TmXxAD9GA4CAO3

Seems that the initial investigation was for identity theft...
an aye for an eye, the truth is a lie; a fish cannot whistle & neither can I.
Reply
an aye for an eye, the truth is a lie; a fish cannot whistle & neither can I.
Reply
post #238 of 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by user23 View Post

Staying at my folks' home here in good old Mesa, AZ for a bit....Looks like Sheriff Joe (a blighter of a human if there ever was one) IS enforcing the law accordingly.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...TmXxAD9GA4CAO3

Seems that the initial investigation was for identity theft...

Not only that but:

The sheriff's office received a tip from a former Sizzler manager who claimed he had been fired for his refusal to hire employees without the proper documents, Lee said.

They were specifically following a tip.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #239 of 374
The thing I'm confused about is when did Americans become unwilling to work at Sizzler?

We've all been told that illegal immigrants only take jobs that Americans are unwilling to do so the question becomes, when did everyone become unwilling to work at Sizzler and what makes it such a terrible place to work.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #240 of 374
and now Mexico is joining in on the lawsuit to declare Arizona's law unconstitutional.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...ntent=My+Yahoo

Quote:
Until recently, Mexican law made illegal immigration a criminal offense -- anyone arrested for the violation could be fined, imprisoned for up to two years and deported. Mexican lawmakers changed that in 2008 to make illegal immigration a civil violation like it is in the United States, but their law still reads an awful lot like Arizona's.

Arizona's policy, which President Felipe Calderon derided during a recent U.S. trip as "discriminatory," states police can't randomly stop people and demand papers, and the law prohibits racial profiling.

Mexican law, however, requires law enforcement officials "to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country before attending to any issues."

But the actual point...

Quote:
Citing "grave concerns," Mexico said its interest in having predictable, consistent relations with the United States shouldn't be frustrated by one state.

BS if I ever read it...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Arizona = Arian Zone