Matt Foley
Death2Globalists
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 5,574
- Reaction score
- 641
- Location
- ExecuteTheTraitors
- Political Leaning
- Other
Not so much. Two of the bigger cases in Arizona in the last 20 years tend to confirm that:
"The first case, in 1997, involved a joint operation between Chandler police and U.S. Border Patrol agents that arrested 432 undocumented immigrants but also swept up hundreds of legal immigrants and U.S. citizens of Hispanic descent. Chandler paid $400,000 to settle a $35 million civil-rights lawsuit. Federal investigators concluded that Border Patrol agents had not documented basic information about the people they detained, and that they had conducted the sweep in poorer parts of the city.
In 2001, 11 motorists sued the state Department of Public Safety, accusing officers in northern Arizona of targeting minority drivers for traffic stops and searches.
The Republic writes: "The suit was dismissed, appealed and ultimately settled, with the stipulation that DPS launch a data-collection campaign that included information on every stop officers made, including the reason for the stop, characteristics of the driver and vehicle, and the stop's date, time and location. The agency later agreed to give the information to an outside team to evaluate.""
In Arizona, 2 big racial-profiling cases changed policing
I'm not sure what you think this proves. If you're trying to argue that people in the US illegally aren't afforded Bill of Rights protections, you're wrong, and pretty much every case ever on this issue will demonstrate as much.
So what, who cares what unreasonable judges think.
It means that illegals aren't subject to any juristiction, they are outside the law.
Right. So... you've got nothing. Thanks for playing. Try again when you can back up your assertion with precedent.
So I was right. You are making the entirely specious argument that people entering the country illegally aren't entitled to the protections of the Constitution. I'm assuming you can back this up with actual evidence? Caselaw, perhaps?
Wow, you're unreasonable too. All globalists are unreasonable.
The American Constitution is for American citizens.
What you globalist propose is as lame as some Chinese citizen suing the Chinese government for violating their Right to Bear Arms cause it's in the US Constitution.
I imagine calling me a globalist (whatever the hell that is) is a slur from your perspective, so... shame on you for insulting me? I guess?
Again: Surely you have some kind of evidence to back up this claim. It cannot possibly be the case that you're just talking entirely out of your ass... right?
Based on that reasoning, I'm assuming that you also believe a US citizen in China is subject exclusively to US law?
Perhaps you should learn to check out your facts before posting them on the Internet. That may save you from making more smart-assed remarks in the future, eh?Perhaps you should learn to read a thread before spouting off with smart-assed remarks, eh?
Perhaps you should learn to check out your facts before posting them on the Internet. That may save you from making more smart-assed remarks in the future, eh?
Based on that reasoning a United States citizen cannot demand Chinese rights and privileges that are exclusive to Chinese nationals in China.
The American Constitution is for American citizens.
But, putting that aside, what Arpaio is accused of doing, amongst other things, is using racial profiling. Racial profiling means deciding to target an entire race rather than just those who are here illegally. He is violating the constitutional rights of Hispanic US citizens every single day.
But, putting that aside, what Arpaio is accused of doing, amongst other things, is using racial profiling. Racial profiling means deciding to target an entire race rather than just those who are here illegally. He is violating the constitutional rights of Hispanic US citizens every single day.
Question: How would you descibe the majority of people crossing the Mexican border into the US without permission? When you do is it racial profiling?
I am not saying what MCSO does is correct all the time. The issue of illegal aliens from Mexico is a complex problem and not easily addressed.
Too bad "hispanic" isn't a race.
tea:
imo you have overblown what happens in Maricopa country.
we will agree to disagree.
Members of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona are upset by the immigration tactics of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Tribal members in the town of Guadalupe say they are being pulled over because they look Mexican. It's part of Arpaio's effort to crack down on people who are in the U.S. illegally.
What was Arpaio's response to the news that his Kris Kobach-trained deputies has violated the civil rights of a single mother and terrorized her no end?
"That's just normal police work, " he shrugged in a news conference following the raid. "Sometimes you do have probable cause, you do take people in for questioning, and they're released."
So it's arrest 'em if they're brown first, and sort 'em out later. False arrest and imprisonment be damned.
Perhaps the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI should follow Arpaio's way of doing things. There's probable cause enough out there that Arpaio's deprived others of their civil rights and done so under the color of law.
So arrest him, and sort out the details later.
The "racial profiling" carried out by the MCSO has meant that some folks who have lived in the region a bit longer than Sheriff Joe have also been targeted.
April 2008
then there is Arpaio's blatant racism which has caused him to run his mouth more than once, probably some of those past words will come back to haunt him in a courtroom
March 2010
Why not? What's good for the goose should be fine for the gander, right?
She wasn't arrested, she was detained for questioning. Everyone has to deal with it. Obviously it can be an upsetting experience, so can a lot of things in life. Deal with it and move on. You aren't a special snowflake.
Nice way to play with words. Tell me, what is the difference between being "arrested" and being "detained"?
Nice way to play with words. Tell me, what is the difference between being "arrested" and being "detained"?
Arrested means charges are filed against you. The police can detain a person for up to 48 hours in most areas without filing charges.
Like it or not, there is a difference.
Detaining someone is a relatively short period of time
Does 'several days" constitute a "relatively short period of time"? What if you lose your job because you have been detained unjustly and can't show up for work?
Can you provide a legal citation for these definitions? Would the definition be different in different states? If "charges are filed" and later found to be based upon a falsity, either evidential or the words of the arresting officer, would that still constitute an arrest as the "filed" charges were found to be invalid?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?