Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 108

Thread: Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

  1. #81
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Then you should worry about every law at every given time because that is always a potential problem with any law.

    Your "worry" could not be more general.
    As I've already stated, I'd be comfortable with this law if it referred to "probable cause" instead of "reasonable suspicion" as well as "lawful detainment" instead of "lawful stop." I think that was pretty specific, but your combination of absolutism and taking individual posts of mine out of context of the six-page discussion seems to be leading you astray.

    I'll expand on my previously-stated views:
    The premise of the law isn't the problem, it's the ambiguity. "Reasonable suspicion" combined with "lawful detention" gives too much leeway to the government for my liking. When it comes to civil liberties, I prefer to err on the side of the people rather than the government. Strange how I'm the one arguing for restricted government power and you're arguing for the stronger, wouldn't you say?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  2. #82
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    As I've already stated, I'd be comfortable with this law if it referred to "probable cause" instead of "reasonable suspicion" as well as "lawful detainment" instead of "lawful stop." I think that was pretty specific, but your combination of absolutism and taking individual posts of mine out of context of the six-page discussion seems to be leading you astray.
    I'll expand on my previously-stated views:
    The premise of the law isn't the problem, it's the ambiguity. "Reasonable suspicion" combined with "lawful detention" gives too much leeway to the government for my liking. When it comes to civil liberties, I prefer to err on the side of the people rather than the government. Strange how I'm the one arguing for restricted government power and you're arguing for the stronger, wouldn't you say?
    LOL You read your talking points well. I've found this parsing in quite a few places where liberals hang out.

    Actually I'd say you don't understand the defintion of the wording you are trying in vain to diagnose.

    And its not giving the government more leeway either since it is the same wording in the federal law or did you not know that as well?

    And you aren't arguing for restricting government law. If you really believe that you need to re-read the defintions of that wording.

    Lets look to some experts on what reasonable suspicion actually means:

    First, from “Jack Dunphy,” (pseudonym) a police officer with the LAPD:

    How will the police, ask the critics, determine what is “reasonable suspicion” to believe someone might be an illegal immigrant? On this I can speak from long experience, as I have spent a good part of my police career working in neighborhoods of Los Angeles where illegal immigrants can be found in abundance (there are many such neighborhoods here).

    As police officers develop on the job they learn to recognize certain cultural patterns, perhaps the most important of which are those displayed by men who have spent time in prison. Such men almost invariably adopt manners of dress, speech, and behavior that a seasoned police officer can recognize instantly — and he had better, if he wants to end his day in the same condition he started it.

    Even if you were to dress an ex-con in a Brooks Brothers suit, give him a hundred-dollar haircut, and place him among a group of men similarly dressed and coiffed, any cop who had been around a while would have no trouble at all picking him out of the crowd.

    This is not to equate illegal immigrants with ex-convicts, but the concept of noticing cultural cues nonetheless applies. Regardless of a given person’s ethnicity, there are mannerisms and behaviors that are more common on one side of our southern border than the other, and the degree to which a person displays these mannerisms and behaviors offers the careful observer an idea of which side of that border the person is from and how long it has been since he crossed it.

    Next, an answer from Mark Spencer, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association:

    The second issue: What does “reasonable suspicion” mean to a police officer?

    The law has been clarified to state that race, color or national origin cannot be considered “except to the extent permitted” by the U.S. and state constitutions.

    Spencer said reasonable suspicion could include an admission of being in the country illegally, having fake identification, having foreign identification without a visa or U.S. immigration documentation, or having no identification.


    So What Constitutes “Reasonable Suspicion” for Arizona Police Officers Enforcing SB1070? « The West Coast Outpost

    Now explain to us how that is unreasonable? Do you not trust the police?

    Now to Lawful stop:

    stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.

    “It was the intent of the legislature for ‘lawful contact’ to mean arrests and stops, but people on the left mischaracterized it,” says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the law. “So that term is now defined.”



    In response to critics, Arizona tweaks new immigration law | Washington Examiner

    Again, what is wrong with this wording SPECIFICALLY? I don't care about your "feelings" on the wording, I want specific examples of why your terminology will not hurt the ability for officers to do the job this law specifies.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  3. #83
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Seems like it would be fairly easy to track the cases where the citizenship-checking is done to see whether it is applied disproportionately to hispanics.
    Of course its going to APPEAR disproportionately aimed at hispanics.

    Hispanics make up roughly 80% of the illegal immigrants in this country. This number is even higher in border states.

    The law is aimed at catching illegal immigrants, meaning that it allows officers to take further actions in instances that would give one reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal immigrant.

    When you combine these together, common sense says the law is going to be disproportionatly used against hispanic people because hispanic people are disproporationately greater in number within the illegal immigrant population which happens to be the population this is going to be targeting.

    This does not mean there is any proof of racial profiling. It is simply a side affect of the law when mixed with reality. For example, with the ID's, lets say 100 people are pulled over. 10 of those people don't have ID's. 1 ends up being that they're driving on a restrict liscense, 1 is an illegal asian immigrant, and 8 are illegal hispanic immigrants. Suddenly some, based on your reasoning above, would say that shows racial profiling because "it targetted a disproportionate number of hispanics" but in reality it was not racial profiling, it was simply that a disproportionate amount of hispanics made up the population that didn't have ID.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    So you admit that race will be a factor in determining the "reasonable suspicion" of being illegal? Despite the law supposedly ruling that out?
    No, race isn't a factor, however disproportionate enforcement upon a particular race does not necessarily equal profiling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    You should ask ICE about that. I'm not in law enforcement. If I had to guess, I'd say they probably work off of people with fake/stolen SSNs, or are unable to provide a SSN, lack a driver's license/other form of ID, don't file a tax return despite appearing to have income, or whatever.
    Indeed.

  4. #84
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    As I've already stated, I'd be comfortable with this law if it referred to "probable cause" instead of "reasonable suspicion" as well as "lawful detainment" instead of "lawful stop." I think that was pretty specific, but your combination of absolutism and taking individual posts of mine out of context of the six-page discussion seems to be leading you astray.
    So you'd be fine with this law, if it required far more certainty then other laws similar to it.

    For example, is asking for proof of citizenship truly any more of an action than frisking someone for a firearm?

    Probable Cause is something that should be needed to arrest someone. You can not arrest someone under this law because they don't have a driver's liscense or other sort of issues. You can however investigate further, which is the whole purpose of reasonable suspicion. You're basically saying "I dislike this law and what it does, so I think it should have a higher burden of proof then is reguarly required for the type of action that its doing".

    It shows its not about the law for you, its about the cause and your disagreement with that.

  5. #85
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

    If the law results in racial profiling, then that means the law was never followed property as it clearly makes racial profiling illegal.
    The attorney general or county
    29 attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race,
    30 color or national origin.
    You can read the whole bill here http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

    It's going to be obvious that more Latinos will be arrested when this law takes effect because the majority of illegal immigrants are Latino. It would be a dishonest and deceitful attempt to say the law is racial profiling because more Latinos have been arrested.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  6. #86
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    So you'd be fine with this law, if it required far more certainty then other laws similar to it.

    For example, is asking for proof of citizenship truly any more of an action than frisking someone for a firearm?

    Probable Cause is something that should be needed to arrest someone. You can not arrest someone under this law because they don't have a driver's liscense or other sort of issues. You can however investigate further, which is the whole purpose of reasonable suspicion. You're basically saying "I dislike this law and what it does, so I think it should have a higher burden of proof then is reguarly required for the type of action that its doing".

    It shows its not about the law for you, its about the cause and your disagreement with that.
    Yes, I dislike the idea of legal citizens being detained for not carrying a passport. I'm sorry if my views on civil liberties offends you. The frisking for a hand gun thing is not equivalent. My citizenship status isn't a potential danger to the officer.
    And despite what MrV and Tex have been saying, no, not all driver's licenses will pass the test.

    Can you cite other situations where I can be detained for not having documentation on me while walking down the street or sitting in my own front yard? Is reasonable suspicion the level there? And since when is "well we wrote other laws this way" good enough reason to do anything?
    Last edited by Deuce; 07-12-10 at 12:36 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #87
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Yes, I dislike the idea of legal citizens being detained for not carrying a passport. I'm sorry if my views on civil liberties offends you. The frisking for a hand gun thing is not equivalent. My citizenship status isn't a potential danger to the officer.
    And despite what MrV and Tex have been saying, no, not all driver's licenses will pass the test.

    Can you cite other situations where I can be detained for not having documentation on me while walking down the street or sitting in my own front yard? Is reasonable suspicion the level there? And since when is "well we wrote other laws this way" good enough reason to do anything?
    Seems you are alone in this thread and to be fair, I'm gonna help you out

    This is what deuce is worried about....


  8. #88
    Sage

    Mason66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,482

    Re: Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    FOXNews.com - Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

    So they realize they'll probably lose the first suit and are laying the groundwork for the 2nd.
    I would love to be in the courtroom for this suit.

    The federal law says it is OK to ask anybody at any time for proof of citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that was OK, so on what grounds would the feds sue the state when the state law does not conflict with the fed law? Are they going to say that there was no profiling in the state law when it is ok in the fed law so they are not compatable?

    I want to see that one.

  9. #89
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Can you cite other situations where I can be detained for not having documentation on me while walking down the street or sitting in my own front yard?
    Until you want to discuss this without the hyperbole or over exaggeration then you can proceed to have a conversation with yourself. Seeing how this long doesn't allow you to be detained for not having documentation simply for walking down the street or sitting in your front yard I'm not dealing with your moronic hypothetical.

  10. #90
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Holder Floats Possibility of Racial Profiling Suit Against Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    Seems you are alone in this thread and to be fair, I'm gonna help you out

    This is what deuce is worried about....

    And its idiotic for him to be worried about that.

    You need reasonable suspicion to be able to be asked for proof of citizenship.

    Simply going down the street on a bicycle isn't reasonable suspicion.

    Generally this will occur upon finding out information during the investigation of another potential crime, such as speeding. At which point, if there's reasonable suspision to believe another crime is being commited, IE entering the country illegally, an officer may further investigate. If there's evidence to suggest that the crime was commited you can be arrested while further investigation happens.

    If I'm pulled over for a traffic stop because I'm speeding, that's fine. If then in that traffic stop they smell marijuana and notice rolling papers on the seat they can search my car. If they find marijuana then they can arrest me and I'll have a chance to defend myself in court.

    If you're pulled over for a traffic stop because you're speeding, that's fine. If then in that traffic stop you can't provide a legal drivers license the officer can ask for proof of citizenship. If you can't provide that then they can arrest you and you'll have a chance to defend yourself in court.

    In the first case if somehow the individual had a lisense for medical marijuana but didn't have it on him at the time, he could produce it later for the court and attempt to get off that way.

    Likewise, in the second case, if the individual did have proof of citizenship and simply failed to have it with him at the time, he could produce it later for the court and attempt to get off that way.

    Being in this country illegally is a crime. Having probable cause to believe you've commited that crime warrants detention. The ability to investigate to find that probable cause is reasonable suspicion.

    The law is known, its not hidden, its not secret. If you don't carry identification of some kind on you in Arizona expect there to be potentially a problem and an inconvience if you're breaking the law and get caught because you may be asked for it. That's the risk you take in not having it on you. However if you're honestly a citizen here all it will amount to is an inconvience as you'll be able to show and prove soon enough, or more they'll be unable to prove, that you're a U.S. citizen once you are able to produce the paperwork.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 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
  •