got your papers?

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Actually, you're wrong....go and read the law, of which this excerpt comes from:

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

It's up to the personal discretion of the cop to determine "reasonable suspicion" and how many forms of ID would be necessary for the suspect to present.
Click to expand...

USFREEDOM911 said:
This is where your strawman falls apart, every time.
There is no way to "logically or factually" disprove one of your stupid analogies.
You had nothing, you have nothing, and you will never have anything that comes even close to being fact or logic.
All you do is try and find anything that you hope means something and then you continue to shake it like a starving dog with a bone.

Tell you what I'll do, sissie. (either USfreedumb can't spell, is telling us he's pissed his pants, or is addressing his little sister in the room)
You find case study and peer reviews that support your asinine opinion and we'll study them; but they have to be fact and logical, or else they're just going to be dismissed as lunacy again.
You're dismissed, class over. :good4u:
Click to expand...



He gives more bluff and bluster coupled with generalized and vague references, and yet this joker STILL has not logically or factually proven what I stated above wrong. Like I said before, intellectually bankrupt neocons go on a personal attack tirade when faced with information that contradicts their socio-political beliefs.

Oh, and here's something the poor fool needs to know in conjunction with the current controversy:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P7fpxA3yUs[/ame]
 
Taichiliberal said:
He gives more bluff and bluster coupled with generalized and vague references, and yet this joker STILL has not logically or factually proven what I stated above wrong. Like I said before, intellectually bankrupt neocons go on a personal attack tirade when faced with information that contradicts their socio-political beliefs.

Oh, and here's something the poor fool needs to know in conjunction with the current controversy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P7fpxA3yUs
Click to expand...

Which still holds no water, in your accusation that this will occur in AZ.
By the way, it's been proven that you're an ass. :good4u:
 
Taichiliberal said:
Ahhh, but you're not reading comprehensively! See it's the cop who determines what's "reasonable", and the criteria he's now given are SEVERAL forms of identity that the cop can choose from to address his "reasonable" suspicion.

Back to square one: the cop is now given the power to demand from a person he "suspects" is an illegal alien to produce either a VISA, non-drivers ID, drivers license, birth certificate, tribal card......either one and/or more of the forementioned. People who don't meet the criteria as determined at the point of question can get a trip to the local police station to be held. That doesn't bode well for the Native American who's bopping down to the store for something or stops to shoot the breeze with similar friends and gets pulled over or stopped.......for "looking Mexican".
Click to expand...

No, you are the one with the reading comprehension problem, BEFORE the cop can ask for ID, he has to have what is called "PROBABLE CAUSE" ....it's stated very clearly in the law. As you say, the devil is in the details.

Now... IF the cop has probable cause (and cops ALWAYS make that determination in ALL instances), THEN he can ask for ID... and IF the person in question doesn't have any ID, or can't provide proper ID, he can proceed according to the law, by bringing him in for further questioning and investigation. This is already the case in every state, regarding every suspect, in every kind of suspicion of a crime, with all law enforcement in America. Nothing new, nothing different.
 
Dixie said:
No, you are the one with the reading comprehension problem, BEFORE the cop can ask for ID, he has to have what is called "PROBABLE CAUSE" ....it's stated very clearly in the law. As you say, the devil is in the details.

Now... IF the cop has probable cause (and cops ALWAYS make that determination in ALL instances), THEN he can ask for ID... and IF the person in question doesn't have any ID, or can't provide proper ID, he can proceed according to the law, by bringing him in for further questioning and investigation. This is already the case in every state, regarding every suspect, in every kind of suspicion of a crime, with all law enforcement in America. Nothing new, nothing different.
Click to expand...


It does appear that sissie now believes that all the Officer has to do, is have a SUSPICION that a person is illegal and that's enough to for a Probable Cause.
Sissie is an idiot.

Oh, I almost forgot; he's also an ass. :good4u:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
It does appear that sissie now believes that all the Officer has to do, is have a SUSPICION that a person is illegal and that's enough to for a Probable Cause.
Sissie is an idiot.

Oh, I almost forgot; he's also an ass. :good4u:
Click to expand...


Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are two different concepts, the former much more stringent than the latter. An officer must have probable cause to make an arrest, but, under this law, can ask a person to prove that they are here legally under the lesser standard of reasonable suspicion.

In short, the person you are calling "an ass" is correct and you do not really have an understanding of what you are talking about.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
80% of the people polled in Arizona are behind the governor, so we'll see if the will of the people means anything.
Click to expand...


Wait for the shitstorm of litigation that comes up and we'll see if they sing a different tune.

Basically, in order to not enforce the law in a blatantly discriminatory manner, cops will have to harass the shit out of everyone which will inevitably lead to civil rights litigation. And if the cops decide that the above strategy (asking everyone for their paper) won't work and decide that the law is too much of a pain in the ass (and pocketbook), the Minutemen and like-minded folks are specifically authorized by law to sue law enforcement for not aggressively enforcing the law. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Should be fun for everyone.


Edit: And why say 80% when the real number is 70%. 70% is already high. No need to lie.
 
I think it is actually 74% in the last poll I saw but who's counting. I'll take a back seat and see how this all plays out.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Wait for the shitstorm of litigation that comes up and we'll see if they sing a different tune.

Basically, in order to not enforce the law in a blatantly discriminatory manner, cops will have to harass the shit out of everyone which will inevitably lead to civil rights litigation. And if the cops decide that the above strategy (asking everyone for their paper) won't work and decide that the law is too much of a pain in the ass (and pocketbook), the Minutemen and like-minded folks are specifically authorized by law to sue law enforcement for not aggressively enforcing the law. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Should be fun for everyone.


Edit: And why say 80% when the real number is 70%. 70% is already high. No need to lie.
Click to expand...

Smart ass. 80% was what was reported yesterday.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are two different concepts, the former much more stringent than the latter. An officer must have probable cause to make an arrest, but, under this law, can ask a person to prove that they are here legally under the lesser standard of reasonable suspicion.

In short, the person you are calling "an ass" is correct and you do not really have an understanding of what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

BS.
If you are stopped and there is no reason to connect you to having committed a crime, then it is an illegal stop and will not hold up in court.

Just because you subscribe to what appears to be a growing board paranoia, doesn't make it real.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Wait for the shitstorm of litigation that comes up and we'll see if they sing a different tune.

Basically, in order to not enforce the law in a blatantly discriminatory manner, cops will have to harass the shit out of everyone which will inevitably lead to civil rights litigation. And if the cops decide that the above strategy (asking everyone for their paper) won't work and decide that the law is too much of a pain in the ass (and pocketbook), the Minutemen and like-minded folks are specifically authorized by law to sue law enforcement for not aggressively enforcing the law. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Should be fun for everyone.


Edit: And why say 80% when the real number is 70%. 70% is already high. No need to lie.
Click to expand...

Tell me how they are going to "harrass the shit out of everyone"??

Just lay out the sceanario that you've allready formulated in you cranium.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
BS.
If you are stopped and there is no reason to connect you to having committed a crime, then it is an illegal stop and will not hold up in court.

Just because you subscribe to what appears to be a growing board paranoia, doesn't make it real.
Click to expand...


I was simply pointing out that you were conflating two different and distinct standards: (1) probable cause and (2) reasonable suspicion.
 
Last edited:
NigelTufnel said:
Just because you subscribe to what appears to be a growing board paranoia, doesn't make it real.
Click to expand...


I was simply pointing out that you were conflating two different and distinct standards: (1) probable cause and (2) reasonable suspicion.[/QUOTE]

And everyone else seems to be trying to offer that if the Officer has a "resonable suspicion" to think that someone is an illegal, read brown, that that then gives him "probable cause".
This is bullshit.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And everyone else seems to be trying to offer that if the Officer has a "resonable suspicion" to think that someone is an illegal, read brown, that that then gives him "probable cause".
This is bullshit.
Click to expand...


If an officer has "reasonable suspicion" they can demand proof of citizenship.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
OK, enouigh bullshit.

REASONABLE SUSPICION of .....................................what??

Spell it out and be precise, if you can.
Click to expand...


Reasonable suspicion of being an alien unlawfully present in the United States.


I think we're starting a new Abbott and Costello routine with this one. I have no idea what you are getting at and you seemingly have no idea what I'm saying.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Reasonable suspicion of being an alien unlawfully present in the United States.


I think we're starting a new Abbott and Costello routine with this one. I have no idea what you are getting at and you seemingly have no idea what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

Your scenario is bullshit and has allready been proven to be an illegal reason.
Cases have been thrown out of court, for this.

From the way a couple of you act, on this board, I bet the Police in your area(s) have some funny ass stories about you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top