Page 28 of 31 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 305

Thread: Los Angeles to boycott Arizona over immigration law

  1. #271
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Los Angeles to boycott Arizona over immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    You are aware that the law has been amended, haven't you? And you are aware that there are different versions of the law, right?
    Yes, I Am. The amendment improved the law but only slightly.

    Under the old version "reasonable suspicion" that the person might be undocumented could be the sole reason for the detention and search.
    Under the new version, if can't be the sole reason, but can be a reason to be considered among others.
    The new version still invites racial profiling, although it is not quite as bad as the first version.

    Neither, however, requires probable cause and neither requires a crime be committed in order for the officer to detain and search.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  2. #272
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Los Angeles to boycott Arizona over immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    The Arizona law does not require an arrest before they are allowed to search for identifying information.

    The Arizona only requires "reasonable suspicion" which is required to justify a detention.

    The reason why many believe that the Arizona law may not withstand Constitutional challenge is that the 4th Amendment does not allow a search absent probable cause.
    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    I have read the law. There is no requirement that they be stopped for some other offense.
    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    No. Perhaps that is what Fox News wants people to believe. That is untrue. There is no requirement that the person be committing a crime in Arizona.
    *SIGH* Here we go again.

    Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch.

    And, this has already been to the Supreme Court:

    Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

    For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry stop". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops.

    The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).

  3. #273
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Los Angeles to boycott Arizona over immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    *SIGH* Here we go again.

    Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch.

    And, this has already been to the Supreme Court:

    Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

    For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry stop". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops.

    The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).
    What you are missing is that a "Terry Stop" is limited to a pat-down for weapons and the police can only engage in a pat-down IF they have specific and articulable facts supporting a belief that the person might be armed.
    A "Terry Stop" does not give the officer the right to engage in a more intrusive search.

    Yes...if a person is stopped for a crime the police can ask for identification.

    But the Arizona law does not require that the person be stopped for a crime.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  4. #274
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Los Angeles to boycott Arizona over immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    But the Arizona law does not require that the person be stopped for a crime.
    But it does. Read other versions of the law and the amendment.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  5. #275
    Guru
    deltabtry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    MA.
    Last Seen
    11-26-16 @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    4,021

    Re: Los Angeles to boycott Arizona over immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Then this city would go bankrupt even faster. Do it. I'm tired of this ignorant city council.
    I would like to, but can't do anything these days without protest in one form or another. This country has lost it's senses and the time to pay the piper is getting closer. It appears to me that those who oppose this law are either ignorant of the law, don't live in Arizona, like cheap labor, need votes for the left, enjoy anarchy, crime, bankrupt hospitals, people that smile at you and agree with everything you say etc...

    Yes we have a problem, we have a gaping hole in the side of our over crowded ship and water is pouring in...**** we sinking. One would imagine that we should patch the hole first so we can fix the engine and then figure out who the stowaway's are and in that order. A very simple process

  6. #276
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Los Angeles to boycott Arizona over immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Perhaps you are feeling a little "attacked" because you know the answer to the question.

    You people claim "illegals" are coming in an stealing Americans jobs and that brown people are the main source of all your economic problems.
    Where did I claim this?

    You claim that the Arizona law is working because brown people are leaving Arizona and afraid to go out to seek work.
    Where did I claim this?

    If everything that you say is true....where are the masses of the unemployed able bodied Americans wanting to take those jobs? Have we seen them rushing down to stand outside Home Depot to take those jobs that the "illegals" had stolen from them or the migrant farm jobs that they so desperately wanted to have that the "illegals" took?
    Have I even brought this up as an issue? For me, the primary issue isn't jobs, it is abiding by the law. Like to create strawmen often?
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  7. #277
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,981

    Re: Los Angeles to boycott Arizona over immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    I have read the law. There is no requirement that they be stopped for some other offense.
    You are wrong again. I'm not sure what or where you got your copy that you read. But hey, just ask the LA city council what the law says, then believe the opposite. You will get it right someday.

    It will be interesting when the courts prove one of us wrong. I'm betting it will pass judicial review. I just love that the US AG Holder knows the laws wrong without reading it. Same for homeland security (ex Gov), havn't read it, but I know its bad.
    "I can explain it to you but, I can't understand it for you"

  8. #278
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Los Angeles to boycott Arizona over immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    I have read the law. There is no requirement that they be stopped for some other offense.
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  9. #279
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,981

    Re: Los Angeles to boycott Arizona over immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    What you are missing is that a "Terry Stop" is limited to a pat-down for weapons and the police can only engage in a pat-down IF they have specific and articulable facts supporting a belief that the person might be armed.
    A "Terry Stop" does not give the officer the right to engage in a more intrusive search.

    Yes...if a person is stopped for a crime the police can ask for identification.

    But the Arizona law does not require that the person be stopped for a crime.
    Can you read HB2162. It updated the Senate Bill.

    "any lawful contact STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST", .

    DD, got to keep up and not rely on the spin in the media or illegal supporters.
    "I can explain it to you but, I can't understand it for you"

  10. #280
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Los Angeles to boycott Arizona over immigration law

    HAHA, Mayor Papi Chulo here in LA is in for a very rude awakening. Arizona is now threatening to cut power to LA if they go through with the boycott. He's having a big OH **** moment now, the goofy son-of-a-bitch. Bet he'll think it through a little better next time he decides to butt his nose into another state's business.

    The Arizona Corporation Commission

    Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,

    I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).

    You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)

    I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
    If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

    People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.

    Sincerely,
    Commissioner Gary Pierce

Page 28 of 31 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... 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
  •