Arizona = Arian Zone - Page 6

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

'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...

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? 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?

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.

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..

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.

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?

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.

Hi Wormhole!

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?

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?

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.



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 "

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.

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.

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.

Or a bloody glove in my back yard...

Well put.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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. \

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.

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.

and now Mexico is joining in on the lawsuit to declare Arizona's law unconstitutional.

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


But the actual point...


BS if I ever read it...