Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: Ariz. sheriff faces crossroads in civil rights case

  1. #1
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,725

    Ariz. sheriff faces crossroads in civil rights case

    Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio faces an April 14 deadline for concluding talks with the U.S. Justice Department to settle a wide range of civil rights allegations, including that the sheriff launched some immigration patrols based on letters from people who complained about people with dark skin congregating in a given area or speaking Spanish but never reporting an actual crime. The sheriff has become nationally known for his tough stance against illegal immigration.
    If Arpaio fails to settle the cases, he is going to be dragged into court in a pretty massive lawsuit. But I believe he will settle the cases before it gets that far. First of all, I like his tough stances against illegal immigration, but enforcement has to be done according to the Constitution. You cannot go after someone just because he looks "Mexican" or just because he speaks Spanish. That is profiling, which is illegal. However, if he goes about what he is doing lawfully, then I have no gripe at all with him. We need tough cops on our borders who will stop the inflow of illegal aliens. If Arpaio does that, and does it according to the law, then I will support what he is doing. This is the road I believe that he is going to take, and if he takes this road, he will not only still be America's toughest sheriff, but he will be a Constitutional one as well, which must be the bottom line, here in America. And as far as his actually rounding up illegal aliens, the Federal government needs to just butt out and let him do his job, which is to enforce the law. It may be a Federal law, but EVERYBODY must abide by it, which means that Federal agents don't have a monopoly on enforcement. They can still ensure that it is done Constitutionally, with no rights being violated, but if Sheriff Joe wants to "round them up", then he is in the right, and unless there is an issue of civil rights being violated, then the Feds have no right to stop him.

    Article is here.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  2. #2
    Death2Globalists Matt Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ExecuteTheTraitors
    Last Seen
    11-24-12 @ 12:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,574

    Re: Ariz. sheriff faces crossroads in civil rights case

    Oh hehe, thought this was about the Pinal County gay sheriff who threatened his hispanic boyfriend with deportation.

    Ariz. sheriff blames gay lover* - New York Daily News

    Welcome to Arizona, we do stuff with an exclamation point.

  3. #3
    Death2Globalists Matt Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ExecuteTheTraitors
    Last Seen
    11-24-12 @ 12:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,574

    Re: Ariz. sheriff faces crossroads in civil rights case

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    First of all, I like his tough stances against illegal immigration, but enforcement has to be done according to the Constitution.
    Really? Where is racial profiling prohibited in the Constitution?

  4. #4
    Sage
    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,014

    Re: Ariz. sheriff faces crossroads in civil rights case

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Foley View Post
    Really? Where is racial profiling prohibited in the Constitution?
    Well, according to the fourth amendment:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    How can a person be secure in their persons, houses, papes and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures if these things are done solely on racial profiling?

    Also the 14th amendment which says all people in the jurisdiction of the US have the right to equal protection under the law. Racial profiling does not give equal protection under the law for those in the jurisdiction of the US.
    Former military man (and now babysitter of Donald Trump) John Kelly, is a big loud lying empty barrel!

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Prague, Czech Rep.
    Last Seen
    10-10-12 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,880

    Re: Ariz. sheriff faces crossroads in civil rights case

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter King View Post
    Well, according to the fourth amendment:



    How can a person be secure in their persons, houses, papes and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures if these things are done solely on racial profiling?

    Also the 14th amendment which says all people in the jurisdiction of the US have the right to equal protection under the law. Racial profiling does not give equal protection under the law for those in the jurisdiction of the US.
    You seem to be presuming what "unreasonable" means. If a inordinate amount of crime is committed by people of certain identifiable characteristics. is it then "unreasonable" for the police to focus on them?

    "Unreasonable" is clearly a relative term open to interpretation and that interpretation is in the realm of SCOTUS.

  6. #6
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,121

    Re: Ariz. sheriff faces crossroads in civil rights case

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Foley View Post
    Really? Where is racial profiling prohibited in the Constitution?
    4th Amendment

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  7. #7
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,121

    Re: Ariz. sheriff faces crossroads in civil rights case

    Quote Originally Posted by Meathead View Post
    You seem to be presuming what "unreasonable" means. If a inordinate amount of crime is committed by people of certain identifiable characteristics. is it then "unreasonable" for the police to focus on them?

    "Unreasonable" is clearly a relative term open to interpretation and that interpretation is in the realm of SCOTUS.
    Are you really a libertarian?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  8. #8
    Sage
    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,014

    Re: Ariz. sheriff faces crossroads in civil rights case

    Quote Originally Posted by Meathead View Post
    You seem to be presuming what "unreasonable" means. If a inordinate amount of crime is committed by people of certain identifiable characteristics. is it then "unreasonable" for the police to focus on them?

    "Unreasonable" is clearly a relative term open to interpretation and that interpretation is in the realm of SCOTUS.
    Yes, I do presume what unreasonable means. It means that with no justification someone is being stopped and searched. Now if he commits a traffic violation than this goes out the window. The police is under those circumstances given a wide berth to search and stop. But if I am walking home from my job from work and I speak spanish to a co-worker there is no reasonable reason to stop and search me purely because of the language I spoke.

    What's next, staking out a school for people learning english to flush out the illegals?
    Former military man (and now babysitter of Donald Trump) John Kelly, is a big loud lying empty barrel!

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Prague, Czech Rep.
    Last Seen
    10-10-12 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,880

    Re: Ariz. sheriff faces crossroads in civil rights case

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter King View Post
    Yes, I do presume what unreasonable means. It means that with no justification someone is being stopped and searched. Now if he commits a traffic violation than this goes out the window. The police is under those circumstances given a wide berth to search and stop. But if I am walking home from my job from work and I speak spanish to a co-worker there is no reasonable reason to stop and search me purely because of the language I spoke.

    What's next, staking out a school for people learning english to flush out the illegals?
    The legal definition of "unreasonable" is not yours a assume. However, I think most would agree that simple the speaking of any foreign language would not be reasonable. What is reasonable and is not is something which should be dictated by common sense, rather than some application of self-righteous or moral principle which is far more subjective. While walking down a street, people have a mechanism which is imbedded in the instinct of survival which observes and analyzes every animate object that we pass. Those actions of a "reasonable" person should apply rather than the politically correct who assume themselves to be the arbitrators of morality.
    Last edited by Meathead; 04-01-12 at 06:01 AM.

  10. #10
    Sage
    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,014

    Re: Ariz. sheriff faces crossroads in civil rights case

    Quote Originally Posted by Meathead View Post
    The legal definition of "unreasonable" is not yours a assume. However, I think most would agree that simple the speaking of any foreign language would not be reasonable. What is reasonable and is not is something which should be dictated by common sense, rather than some application of self-righteous or moral principle which is far more subjective. While walking down a street, people have a mechanism which is imbedded in the instinct of survival which observes and analyzes every animate object that we pass. Those actions of a "reasonable" person should apply rather than the politically correct who assume themselves to be the arbitrators of morality.
    but that was the whole issue here, men were targeted by immigration patrols because of the color of their skin or the fact that they spoke spanish, and that IMHO is very unreasonable if there is not even any suspicion of a crime.

    the sheriff launched some immigration patrols based on letters from people who complained about people with dark skin congregating in a given area or speaking Spanish but never reporting an actual crime.
    That is according to me racial profiling and that is (at least according to me) prohibited by the constitution.
    Former military man (and now babysitter of Donald Trump) John Kelly, is a big loud lying empty barrel!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •