Feds: Yeah, Joe Arpaio is kind of a dick

[Churchill]

I remember being a little kid and always hearing about how gangs controlled phoenix (and I also lived in Maryvale, so sup vatos)

I don't hear about gangs anymore.

[Correction]

I remember being a little kid and always hearing about how gangs controlled phoenix (and I also lived in Maryvale, so sup vatos)

I don't hear about gangs anymore.

I remember being a little kid and always hearing about how the tooth fairy leaves quarters under my pillow.

I don't hear about the tooth fairy anymore.

[Churchill]

then you were a dumbass kid

[Skjie]

I remember being a little kid and always hearing about how gangs controlled phoenix (and I also lived in Maryvale, so sup vatos)

I don't hear about gangs anymore.

http://newsgrift.com/wp-content/uplo...trol-plane.jpg

[Yuri-G]

http://newsgrift.com/wp-content/uplo...trol-plane.jpg

so I have this rock that repels tigers...

[Jonny]

your a fucking racist.

sorry for the slow response but i was having dinner with my White wife....(projection much?)

also i was responding to your Drugs and Sex slave kidnapping. so now you're saying that its ransoms? Not that i don't agree with you, but then again its mainly Brown on Brown and the Media always likes to spin it like they are threatening the way of life for everyone. (not saying we shouldn't crack down on it) if we keep pushing and pushing them more into the deep desert they will have to find ways to come here even if they are Dangerous to make a better life for themselves.

Sorry if i come off a bit angry but like i said before i have been pulled over MANY MANY times for being fucking of Mexican descent and it pisses me the fuck off when i feel like America the country i was BORN in looks at me like i don't fucking belong.

[Yuri-G]

so basically everyone in this thread who's cool with racial profiling is white

the one Latino person here who has actually been profiled is pretty pissed about it

sounds about right...

[Correction]

then you were a dumbass kid

At least I grew out of being a dumbass kid.

You seem to this very day be implying a causal relationship between the extreme abuse of power of this sherrif's department and a drop in the gang violence you heard about second hand from thousands of miles away.

[Kellanved]

This is relevant: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...al-immigration

With respect to the pretextual situation Jonny encountered, the sad reality is that it’s generally constitutionally permissible (and common) police practice.

It’s permissible to detain [drivers] using racial profiling (this still violates the equal protection clause, but what’s a right without a remedy?) for virtually any bullshit reason so long as there is “reasonable suspicion” of [traffic violation] and/or criminal conduct. (see Terry v. Ohio, Whren v. United states). But the suspect can only be detained just long enough to confirm or dispel the suspicion. The seizure must be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.

A limited seizure, justified only by “reasonable suspicion” becomes unlawful (constitutionally unreasonable seizure) if prolonged beyond the time reasonably necessary to develop “probable cause.” It becomes a de facto arrest not justified by probable cause.

What can the police do during that time? Where the duration of a stop is justified by [the offense suspected] and the ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop, the police may pursue any lawful purpose within that time, so long as such pursuit does not prolong the justified duration. (Illinois v. Caballes)

What are “lawful purposes”? well, that depends. Can they ask for a name? for identification? Is the suspect required to answer?

The constitution itself cannot require a suspect to answer questions during a Terry stop, a State law could impose such a requirement, under threat of criminal sanction, provided that the required production was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the stop (i.e. likely to confirm or dispel the suspicion). (Hiibel v. 6th judicial district). So, naturally police ask for license and registration when they stop people for “traffic violation,” and the suspect best have it.

On the subject of reasonable suspicion, it is a very loose standard. It is a level of suspicion “considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence” (United States v. Sokolow), Reasonable articulable suspicion contains two elements, (1) An assessment based on the totality of the circumstances, (2) yielding a particularized suspicion that the particular individual being stopped is engaged in wrongdoing. (United States v. Cortez)

The totality of the circumstances as a whole, from the perspective of a reasonably trained officer must be considered in a determination of reasonable suspicion. One by one, individualized consideration of the factors that make up the circumstances is to be rejected. A series of acts each perhaps innocent in itself can add up to reasonable suspicion when considered as a whole, to a reasonably trained police officer. (United States v. Avizu)

The process deals not with hard certainties, but probabilities (not the 49-51% kind by the way). The evidence thus collected must be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement. (Cortez)

Now then, “probable cause” is all that is necessary to support a full custodial arrest for any violation of the law (Felony or misdemeanor) if in public. (United States v. Robinson, Atwater v. City of Lago vista). Yet in regulating immigration, congress maintains that, absent a federal officer actually viewing an immigration violation, warrantless arrests under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1357(a) require a likelihood that the immigrant will escape before a warrant can be obtained. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1357(a)(2), (4), (5). (U.S. v. Arizona, the case on appeal) Thus, under federal law, probable cause is not enough to detain for immigration violation (absent exigency), let alone reasonable suspicion. Now, why do you suppose that is?

The point really is that the practice here at issue is fundamentally without sound reason and generally violates basic constitutional rights, even if it’s held that States are permitted to co-regulate immigration with the federal government on the State’s own terms. But who knows.

[Rhinox]

Illegal. Immigration. is. illegal. do something about it.

i'm not saying profiling is ok but it is nearly impossible if not at all impossible to call out racism when trying to detain a mexican.

I keep saying to come up with something that can persecute Illegal immigrants which solves everyones problems? For some reason people seem to throw away the notion that the illegal immigration law was made only to harm and not there to help those from being used and abused which by the way was rampant until a recent law that severely punished businesses that hired illegals.

Is this guy for real?

Protip: being here illegally is not a crime.

[Churchill]

It is in Arizona

[Rhinox]

Actually it's not. Theres an injunction on the provision that would do that.

[archibaldcrane]

Spoiler: show

This is relevant: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...al-immigration

With respect to the pretextual situation Jonny encountered, the sad reality is that it’s generally constitutionally permissible (and common) police practice.

It’s permissible to detain [drivers] using racial profiling (this still violates the equal protection clause, but what’s a right without a remedy?) for virtually any bullshit reason so long as there is “reasonable suspicion” of [traffic violation] and/or criminal conduct. (see Terry v. Ohio, Whren v. United states). But the suspect can only be detained just long enough to confirm or dispel the suspicion. The seizure must be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.

A limited seizure, justified only by “reasonable suspicion” becomes unlawful (constitutionally unreasonable seizure) if prolonged beyond the time reasonably necessary to develop “probable cause.” It becomes a de facto arrest not justified by probable cause.

What can the police do during that time? Where the duration of a stop is justified by [the offense suspected] and the ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop, the police may pursue any lawful purpose within that time, so long as such pursuit does not prolong the justified duration. (Illinois v. Caballes)

What are “lawful purposes”? well, that depends. Can they ask for a name? for identification? Is the suspect required to answer?

The constitution itself cannot require a suspect to answer questions during a Terry stop, a State law could impose such a requirement, under threat of criminal sanction, provided that the required production was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the stop (i.e. likely to confirm or dispel the suspicion). (Hiibel v. 6th judicial district). So, naturally police ask for license and registration when they stop people for “traffic violation,” and the suspect best have it.

On the subject of reasonable suspicion, it is a very loose standard. It is a level of suspicion “considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence” (United States v. Sokolow), Reasonable articulable suspicion contains two elements, (1) An assessment based on the totality of the circumstances, (2) yielding a particularized suspicion that the particular individual being stopped is engaged in wrongdoing. (United States v. Cortez)

The totality of the circumstances as a whole, from the perspective of a reasonably trained officer must be considered in a determination of reasonable suspicion. One by one, individualized consideration of the factors that make up the circumstances is to be rejected. A series of acts each perhaps innocent in itself can add up to reasonable suspicion when considered as a whole, to a reasonably trained police officer. (United States v. Avizu)

The process deals not with hard certainties, but probabilities (not the 49-51% kind by the way). The evidence thus collected must be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement. (Cortez)

Now then, “probable cause” is all that is necessary to support a full custodial arrest for any violation of the law (Felony or misdemeanor) if in public. (United States v. Robinson, Atwater v. City of Lago vista). Yet in regulating immigration, congress maintains that, absent a federal officer actually viewing an immigration violation, warrantless arrests under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1357(a) require a likelihood that the immigrant will escape before a warrant can be obtained. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1357(a)(2), (4), (5). (U.S. v. Arizona, the case on appeal) Thus, under federal law, probable cause is not enough to detain for immigration violation (absent exigency), let alone reasonable suspicion. Now, why do you suppose that is?

The point really is that the practice here at issue is fundamentally without sound reason and generally violates basic constitutional rights, even if it’s held that States are permitted to co-regulate immigration with the federal government on the State’s own terms. But who knows.

Holy shit, do we have a lawyer on BG who actually knows wtf?

[Lestat]

The circumstances would be the same if the majority of illegals were coming into North Dakota and Montana from Canada. Then white people would close to the border would be constantly stopped or those with heavy Canadian accents would be suspect, but i get the feeling no one would complain as much because its only racist when it happens to those with a darker skin tone apparently. The issues at hand arises with the problem at hand especially when more then half of all illegal immigrants are Hispanic. Especially when the state trying to get a grip on the problem is sharing a large part of the border which is the main source to this problem.

Also again i will reiterate that its not just to keep people out but to protect these immigrants from users and abusers that will take advantage of these people, we can't let things get so bad that the entire economy would fail because its is being supported off of extremely cheap labor, which is the case with farmers going out of business because they rely on the cheap use of illegal immigrants to pick there crops and that is just one small example. I will let the following site share some info on the burden with taxpayers although the speaker sounds like a douche.

http://www.illegalimmigrationstatist...yers/#more-331

http://youtu.be/H8lLU7XjcWc

[Lestat]

As for Jonny your comment with the (Your precious white children) was indeed a racist comment, just because having a white wife does not mean you have a pass to discriminate because i'm white. I would be absolutely livid no matter who was kidnapped.

[archibaldcrane]

As for Jonny your comment with the (Your precious white children) was indeed a racist comment, just because having a white wife does not mean you have a pass to discriminate because i'm white. I would be absolutely livid no matter who was kidnapped.

The point is more that it's not Americans being kidnapped, it's mexican nationals.

[Xno Kappa]

Should just brand all Mexicans with the Star of Taco in Arizona for the greater good!

[hey]

Also again i will reiterate that its not just to keep people out but to protect these immigrants from users and abusers that will take advantage of these people, we can't let things get so bad that the entire economy would fail because its is being supported off of extremely cheap labor, which is the case with farmers going out of business because they rely on the cheap use of illegal immigrants to pick there crops and that is just one small example.

99% sure they don't mind being taken advantage of, if it feeds them and their families. I'm pretty sure that is the entire reason they come here, even.

And i'm confused, you don't want the economy to fail because of cheap labor, so instead you want to take away that cheap labor and kill it now?

[Rhinox]

As for Jonny your comment with the (Your precious white children) was indeed a racist comment, just because having a white wife does not mean you have a pass to discriminate because i'm white. I would be absolutely livid no matter who was kidnapped.

just curious what does a mexican look like?


p.s. you're about as white as obama.

[archibaldcrane]

Vis-a-vis nothing, my girlfriend's good friend is a DEA agent in Las Vegas.


He said that roughly 90% of the people he arrests are Mexicans.

Not ethnic Mexicans, but Mexican citizens. In Nevada. Which doesn't even share a border with Mexico.