• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Pimp Slaps Infamous Douche Bag Al Sharpton

Bubba,

It's actually relatively easy to determine that the person isn't in the U.S. legally when the police have already had contact with him/her for criminal reasons.
 
1984 said:
No, it's not a "chicken or egg" argument at all. The law clearly states that "lawful contact" is the only justifiable pretense under which an LEO can attempt to determine a person's immigration status.

You just took a provision of the law out of context and made it seem like that was the pretense, when it clearly isn't.



Again, whether or not a person is required to have documentation of sorts is not at issue. You asked how an LEO could have a "reasonable suspicion" (incident to "lawful contact") that someone was an illegal immigrant. If an LEO pulled someone over for speeding and that person didn't have a driver's licence or any other kind of government ID, and couldn't tell the officer their address, the LEO could have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person was an illegal alien. That's what you asked me, and I gave you a perfectly legitimate answer.



You're obviously having some difficulty in understanding the language of this provision. An LEO can only attempt to determine someone's immigration status incident to "lawful contact"; all the potentialities that you are describing are not "lawful contact", which means they are just strawmen arguments.
Click to expand...

a weak dodge
to suspect illegal behavior the potential for illegal behavior must exist
if not having a residential address is not illegal, then the failure to have one cannot be the suspicion that is use to allege possible illegal behavior
if not having a personal identity on one's person is not illegal, then the failure to have such identity cannot then be found suspicious of illegal behavior
 
justabubba said:
a weak dodge
to suspect illegal behavior the potential for illegal behavior must exist
if not having a residential address is not illegal, then the failure to have one cannot be the suspicion that is use to allege possible illegal behavior
if not having a personal identity on one's person is not illegal, then the failure to have such identity cannot then be found suspicious of illegal behavior
Click to expand...

1. Your premise is logically flawed. For instance, having bloodshot eyes and poor coordination is not illegal, but it is certainly an indication that someone has been driving drunk.

2. I DID give an example of something illegal, i.e., driving without a driver's licence.
 
Oh wow on the posts on the page to the video link for this thread someone left this on it...........WeAreGeo So Al thinks he's going to protect the Constitution by advocating socialism. What a moron.
Frederick Douglass would whip his ass. 1 hour ago
 
1984 said:
1. Your premise is logically flawed. For instance, having bloodshot eyes and poor coordination is not illegal, but it is certainly an indication that someone has been driving drunk.
Click to expand...
but it is not necessarily so
using your "logic" it would be reasonable to then incarcerate someone who had not slept recently and was entering a diabetic coma

2. I DID give an example of something illegal, i.e., driving without a driver's licence.
Click to expand...
license? but what of the passengers who would then be subject to the LEO scrutiny. must they provide personal identity to show they are American citizens and what form of identity would be required under the law for that

keep trying
 
justabubba said:
but it is not necessarily so
using your "logic" it would be reasonable to then incarcerate someone who had not slept recently and was entering a diabetic coma
Click to expand...

Strawman.... No one is talking about incarcerating someone on suspicion of anything, just checking them out if “probable cause" is present. Please read the law so you will know what is being discussed.
license? but what of the passengers who would then be subject to the LEO scrutiny. must they provide personal identity to show they are American citizens and what form of identity would be required under the law for that

keep trying
Click to expand...

Another strawman. A police officer can't under any circumstances demand identification from a passenger in a traffic stop.... he can ask for ID, but you are free to decline and he is SOL.

It’s obvious to me that you have no desire to discuss this topic rationally, you just don’t like the idea of any State kicking your voter base out… that much is obvious.
 
justabubba said:
but it is not necessarily so
Click to expand...

And I never said it was "necessarily so". The criteria we are using is a "reasonable suspicion", not an "absolute certainty". You need to stop misrepresenting my position.

using your "logic" it would be reasonable to then incarcerate someone who had not slept recently and was entering a diabetic coma
Click to expand...

No, that would be your misrepresentation of my logic.

license? but what of the passengers who would then be subject to the LEO scrutiny. must they provide personal identity to show they are American citizens and what form of identity would be required under the law for that

keep trying
Click to expand...

Keep trying? I've already refuted your assertions about "concocting reasons", arbitrary stops and detainments, and "targeting" Hispanics; now I'm just trying to help you understand the law, but I suspect you already understand it and are just trying to rationalize your misrepresentation of it.

Maybe we need to review the specific provision again:

FOR 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).

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Click to expand...

It plainly states that determinations of immigration status can ONLY occur incident to "lawful contact" AND where there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal alien. You, however, continually use examples of unlawful contact as a pretense to such determinations, which is why your position is either purposely dishonest in regards to or willfully ignorant of the meaning of this law. You also refuse to admit that not having proper ID and being ignorant of one's home address is cause for "reasonable suspicion" that a person MIGHT be an illegal alien.

Clearly, you are either being obtuse or dishonest.

This law does not permit LEOs to arbitrarily stop and detain anyone for any reason, no matter how much you want to believe it does. Stop misrepresenting my position and stop spreading misinformation about this law.
 
JustaB.:

You are right in Arizona there are a large population of hispanics that are American citizens or here legally. The news has stated that there is estimated >400,000 illegals and +1,000 entering the US/Arizona daily.

You don't like the new law. So help us in AZ out. So how would you go about identifying those that have entered illegally into the US from Mexico? Or do you want us to just look away?

I have been in Az since 89 and NM before that. When I was working I had contact with the public, sometimes in town and sometimes out on forest/public lands. While not 100% accurate, over time you can see how people react and tell if they were in the US legally or illegally.

IMO, the Feds need to secure the border and stop the illegal crossing. The Feds need to manage/control legal immigration.
 
jamesrage said:
I was disappointed by the video, I was hoping that it was an actual pimp slap. I wish all law enforcement officials were like Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with that. I think he's one of the most wasteful LEO's in this country. It all makes for good sound bytes but, in practice, it's anything but fiscally conservative.
 
zimmer said:
With Obama, don't we have nothing more than Sharpton with a "cleaner" delivery?

.
Click to expand...

WINNER!! That statement is the biggest piece of ignorant crap of the day...

And more veiled (only slightly) racism from a far-rightie...

And even people on the right find some of Sheriff Joe's methods distasteful and possible illegal...
 
jallman said:
I can't agree with that. I think he's one of the most wasteful LEO's in this country. It all makes for good sound bytes but, in practice, it's anything but fiscally conservative.
Click to expand...

What has he done that is wasteful? The inmates stay in tent cities, work in chain gangs,wear pink underwear, no air conditioning, eat only bologna sandwiches and water, the tvs only has two channels(last I checked, this may have changed). How are those things more expensive? Are those bologna sandwiches and water made with Boars Head brand bologna on Brioche and Gleneagles water? Are those pink boxers made of out silk? Are those tvs in jail the new Samsung 3d tvs? Do they strap gold ball and chains to the inmates working in chain gangs? Is he using select comfort beds for the inmates? Are those state of the art tents he is using to house those inmates? Or is he lying about the tent cities, bologna sandwiches,chain gangs and so on?
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
What has he done that is wasteful?
Click to expand...

His civil rights violations and deviations from standard penal practices in the US.

The inmates stay in tent cities, work in chain gangs,wear pink underwear, no air conditioning, eat only bologna sandwiches and water, the tvs only has two channels(last I checked, this may have changed). How are those things more expensive? Are those bologna sandwiches and water made with Boars Head brand bologna on Brioche and Gleneagles water? Are those pink boxers made of out silk? Are those tvs in jail the new Samsung 3d tvs? Do they strap gold ball and chains to the inmates working in chain gangs? Is he using select comfort beds for the inmates? Are those state of the art tents he is using to house those inmates? Or is he lying about the tent cities, bologna sandwiches,chain gangs and so on?
Click to expand...

I fully believe he does exactly as he claims. I also fully believe that the law suits defending his showboating cost far more than just putting the inmates in jails that meet the accepted standards.

We already went through this before. You failed to defend him then and you will fail now. Let's just enjoy the fact that he wailed on Sharpton for a bit.
 
jallman said:
His civil rights violations and deviations from standard penal practices in the US.
Click to expand...

What civil rights violations and how does that equate to more financial waste on his part? OOh they don't have air condition waa, they have to wear pink underwear boo hoo, they get to eat only bologna sandwiches waa, they have to work in chain gangs oh the horror.

How does his deviations from standard penal practices cost more on his part? Does it cost more to feed inmates only bologna sandwiches, house inmates in tent cities and run chain gangs? Surely pink dye for some boxers shouldn't cost much.


I fully believe he does exactly as he claims.
Click to expand...

I hope he does do what he claims.

I also fully believe that the law suits defending his showboating cost far more than just putting the inmates in jails that meet the accepted standards
Click to expand...
.

Lawsuits by scumbag and scumbag sympathizers does not mean he is not doing his job right. Nor does it mean he is the one costing the money.

You failed to defend him then and you will fail now.
Click to expand...

I did not fail to defend him.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Lawsuits by scumbag and scumbag sympathizers does not mean he is not doing his job right. Nor does it mean he is the one costing the money
Click to expand...

There you go with the "scumbag and scumbag sympathizer" michael savage impersonation and I just stop listening to you. We're done here.
 
jallman said:
His civil rights violations and deviations from standard penal practices in the US. .
Click to expand...
The Grand jury is still out on Joe. Why do you assume he is guilty before he has had his day in court and assume the people MCSO arrest are all innocent?

jallman said:
I fully believe he does exactly as he claims. I also fully believe that the law suits defending his showboating cost far more than just putting the inmates in jails that meet the accepted standards..
Click to expand...
Tent City has been in place for years and is ran on a very cost efficient budget. For all the terms Joe has been Sheriff and his jails were not meeting standards, why hasn't the county/state/feds done anything? Maybe because MCSO jails are ok. (Don't bother to bring up some of the law suite regarding treatment. I bet if I researched many LE offices have been sued.)

jallman said:
We already went through this before. You failed to defend him then and you will fail now. Let's just enjoy the fact that he wailed on Sharpton for a bit.
Click to expand...

Yes, he wailed on Sharpton a bit. Ever notice that Sharpton while saying the Feds have not done their job, gives no answers to how to stop the flow of illegals or that it is wrong for them to be here in the first place. Legal immigration yes, illegal immigration no.
 
mike2810 said:
The Grand jury is still out on Joe. Why do you assume he is guilty before he has had his day in court and assume the people MCSO arrest are all innocent?
Click to expand...

Give him his day in court. The court issues cost money in and of themselves.

I never claimed innocence for those arrested. If you can show where I did, you are invited to try.

Tent City has been in place for years and is ran on a very cost efficient budget.
Click to expand...

Again, I never claimed lack of lowered cost for "tent city". I claimed the cost of keeping it legal in terms of legal battles exceeds what is saved.

Why don't we go back and try to address what I actually said before we move on to anymore mistakes on your part?
 
jallman said:
Give him his day in court. The court issues cost money in and of themselves..?
Click to expand...


jallman said:
I never claimed innocence for those arrested. If you can show where I did, you are invited to try.?
Click to expand...
Did you not state MCSO Sheriff Joe violated rights of individuals? You must think MCSO should not have arrested them.



A
jallman said:
gain, I never claimed lack of lowered cost for "tent city". I claimed the cost of keeping it legal in terms of legal battles exceeds what is saved.?
Click to expand...
No you claimed that his jails did not meet standards. I disagree.

Why don't we go back and try to address what I actually said before we move on to anymore mistakes on your part?[/QUOTE]

No mistakes on my part. I just think you know nothing about MCSO other than what you get from news source.

So back on track we go.
 
mike2810 said:
JustaB.:

You are right in Arizona there are a large population of hispanics that are American citizens or here legally. The news has stated that there is estimated >400,000 illegals and +1,000 entering the US/Arizona daily.

You don't like the new law. So help us in AZ out. So how would you go about identifying those that have entered illegally into the US from Mexico? Or do you want us to just look away?

I have been in Az since 89 and NM before that. When I was working I had contact with the public, sometimes in town and sometimes out on forest/public lands. While not 100% accurate, over time you can see how people react and tell if they were in the US legally or illegally.

IMO, the Feds need to secure the border and stop the illegal crossing. The Feds need to manage/control legal immigration.
Click to expand...
it's waste of time and effort guarding the border
we should enfore the laws presently on the books
such as the hiring of illegals. let's put a bounty on every illegal working for a business or individual. that bounty - an increasing stiff one with each offense - will be paid by the employer of the illegal. the bounty will be paid to whoever informs the (former) INS of the illegal hire. the INS will be required to prosecute those who hire illegals. it will be open season on illegal employees and a bonanza for Americans now working beside illegals
next, we prohibit ANY government funded services being provided to illegals. you want the service, then prove your citizenship or your legal resident status to qualify for what is available to legal residents. if you cannot, then no school for your children, no medical care for your family (unless to avoid fatality), no drivers license, no bank account, no food stamps, no welfare benefits. nada
then get out of the way, because those estimated 12 million illegals will be in a massive caravan headed south of the border where they can resume earning a living

please tell me, anything about that approach require anying other than a commitment to enforce the law?
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
How is this racist jackass anyway are a part of the Obama admiration. Oh, and bicycleman every politician does in someway use a teleprompter its easier for them to keep their eyes on the audience that way. :)

I may not like Aprio, but I really liked that he took a punch to Sharpton face. See not every, liberal like Sharpton who is a racist pig who race baits all the freaking time.

Zimmer what the hell is The Kummunidy is that somehow related to Kennedy family?
Click to expand...

I got it from the Ebonics Dictionary.
Not too far from ax. Like "ax" me no questions fool.

justabubba said:
he advocates racist policies



he pulls you over for some concocted reason while you are driving
and someone in your car does not have a drivers license
the absence of a drivers license by a non-driver does not mean that person is not a citizen, and therefor subject to incarceration
the sheriff applauds the new state law because it authorizes him to make such unConstitutional arrests of persons who may be American citizens. why would someone who defends the Constitution approve of that outcome

you are walking down the street with a bag of your possessions, not appearing to have significant means. even tho you are a citizen you are not required - at least not now - to carry anything on your person which identifies you to be an American citizen. but because you do not have such identification the sheriff, under this new state law. is now able to detain you, unConstitutionally

and the persons who will be targeted under this new law are those who appear to be of Hispanic ethnicity. which causes him to be a racist, because he endoreses - applauds - such new unConstitutional authority

thanks for asking
Click to expand...

You obviously did not watch the video.
Sharpton, his mob and other bitter clingers of his kind have been following Arpaio's men... with camera's for quite some time.
They have been under scrutiny, and nothing has come of it.
It's obvious the race whores like Obama, Sharpton and the press are just itching to clobber Arpaio.
He hasn't given them ANYTHING.

Arpaio's just doing his job, following the law.
Too bad we don't have more doing like kind in DC.


What is it about "illegal" Obama and the press do not understand and fail to accurately report?

.
 
Last edited:
mike2810 said:
Did you not state MCSO Sheriff Joe violated rights of individuals? You must think MCSO should not have arrested them.
Click to expand...

Please, show me the fantastic leap in logic that equates Joe being a douche who costs the county money to the "criminals are innocent". I would love to see what bends and contortions of clear thinking lead to that erroneous conclusion.

As for the rest, once we've corrected your comprehension of the foundation, we can move on to your other mistakes.
 
jallman said:
There you go with the "scumbag and scumbag sympathizer" michael savage impersonation and I just stop listening to you. We're done here.
Click to expand...

You trying to put the on cost of all those lawsuits by scumbags and scumbag sympathizers onto Sheriff Joe Arpaio ,as though he is the one filing those lawsuits. It is like birther-tards(bither+retard, yeahs its using two synonymous words together) trying to place the cost of all those birther lawsuits on Obama. You are basically arguing that we should be lenient on criminals out of fear of lawsuits by those people and those who sympathize with them. My term scumbag and scumbag sympathizer used to describe the people filing the lawsuits is accurate. I seriously doubt any normal person who does not misplace their sympathy would be filing those lawsuits. Because normal people do not want criminals coddled. Normal people tend to think that criminals should not get gyms, libraries,magazines, cable television, air conditioning and other things that even in this country would be considered luxuries. Normal people tend to think inmates should pay their debt back to society by working in chain gangs.
 
jallman said:
Please, show me the fantastic leap in logic that equates Joe being a douche who costs the county money to the "criminals are innocent". I would love to see what bends and contortions of clear thinking lead to that erroneous conclusion.

As for the rest, once we've corrected your comprehension of the foundation, we can move on to your other mistakes.
Click to expand...

Didn't answer my question. You have no undestanding of what is going on in AZ. Until you do and correct your understanding we cannot go on. Have fun.
 
hazlnut said:
WINNER!! That statement is the biggest piece of ignorant crap of the day...

And more veiled (only slightly) racism from a far-rightie...

And even people on the right find some of Sheriff Joe's methods distasteful and possible illegal...
Click to expand...

Nice weasel words. You are POSSIBLY a communist. Just saying...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom