Sarah Palin claims minorities are 2nd class citizens

The only people stopped by lawful contact are those the cops have a reasonable suspicion are committing crimes. What qualifies as reasonable suspicion is defined in Arizona law in depth. And their is no call for your hate speech.

 

just an outright mess, through and through.

 

Why don't you just answer the question?

I'm going to repeat the exchange for you again so that you can answer it, or you can try to explain yourself better.

You seem to be saying here that the only people ever stopped by the police for walking down the street are those that are committing a crime, accordingly, they are the only ones who need fear arrest for not having ID on their person, 24 hours a day.

Is this true? Answer the question. It's pretty simple.

You asked me what my position was with respect to the law, I gave you a clear answer. Can you do the same for me?

 

You're being completely evasive. You keep saying reasonable suspicion without even defining what that is or the context around it. You then say Arizona law, but since you're the one defending the law and repeatedly citing reasonable suspicion, you should probably define it.

Also, prove to me that if a cop illegally asks someone to prove their immigration status, will the courts throw out the case because as I've said twice courts dont enforce the exclusionary rule at all anymore. (assuming they only stop people under reasonable suspicion, which isnt true but we'll go along)

 

I think it's closer to four times, maybe five. This was tallanvor's response:

Huh? He isn't saying anything of the sort:

I don't necessarily agree with tallanvor on this, but you guys aren't focusing on where the real issue is. Just stipulate that the law itself as written is acceptable if it was enforced as intended. Once you do that, then you can explain your thinking that the law will not be enforced exactly as written and will lead to unintended consequences, and that's why it's so bad.

 

FYI... not everybody agrees that those numbers are an accurate representation of Arizona likely voters (not citizens). Here's one commentary on the poll, and also note that according to that same site the Rasmussen polls have had a significant house effect that leans conservative in the current polling cycle (that wasn't really there in the 2008 election cycle). That doesn't mean they're wrong, but I wouldn't claim those numbers with quite so much certainty.

 

Then you give me your interpretation of exactly what he's saying, since he is unwilling to do so.

My contention is that people on the street should not have to carry ID or be subject to arrest, which, effectively, they are now.

His contention is that people on the street should not have to worry about this, unless they "plan on committing a crime" - they don't need to have ID.

I find this laughable, since "planning on committing a crime" is not a prerequisite to being stopped by police.

Again, if you want to be his proxy on this, you're more than welcome to. Mind you, you're going to have to explain to me what this means.

 

What's with the snarkiness? I'm just trying to identify why your and his (or her) arguments are missing each other.

To answer your question, my interpretation of his point is that the law as written does not allow for being stopped on the street for no reason. He's talking about the law as written. Do you agree or disagree that the law as written allows for someone to be detained for not carrying ID without some other intervening circumstance that leads to lawful contact by a police officer?

Now, once you get past that part about what the law actually says, then you can talk about reality, how it will be enforced, and how it will affect people. Tallanvor seems to think that the cases of abuse will be somewhat minimal and should be handled by the court system (and that the court system should be fixed if it doesn't handle them). That is where your argument is, it seems. You seem to think that the cases of abuse will be significant and geeimsobored thinks that the court system won't handle them properly so the law shouldn't be enacted in the first place.

If I'm wrong, clarify for me.

 

Then why did you create the impression that only those who "plan on committing a crime" need worry about being stopped by police? Poor choice of words on your part. You should retract it.

Let's say a citizen complains about drug trafficking on a streetcorner in their neighborhood. Further, let's say that you're simply walking that way to school in the morning. Let's say that in response, the police do a random "sweep" of the area and check ID's for everybody on that corner.

This is a "lawful contact", for any poor soul who happens to be in the area at the time. Don't have an ID on you? Have an accent & a dark complexion? Not only can you be cuffed and taken to jail, but your local police department can be sued for not takng you to jail. What a great law.

 

Somewhat loaded question: Is this law forcing cops to be racist?

I mean, damn. It sure seems that way.

 

Cute. As I already stated, tallanvor was talking about the letter of the law. He is the one who knows what "lawful contact" means, so you'll have to take that up with him.

 

I think those who weren't before will still try to do the things the right way. Its the guys who already didn't like the brown man, that seem to get a green light to go nuts. Thats the troublesome part.

Tallanvor- Are you 17?

 

It's hard to say what the police officers in Arizona would do, but I don't think it will necessarily force them to be racist. One possibility is that some officers would go out of their way to avoid using race as the sole reason to ask for ID. Maybe that's a pipe dream, but if they were already reluctant as a group to enforce existing laws before, it's feasible that they would still be. I honestly don't think the threat of lawsuit will have a huge effect on how robust their enforcement of the law is.

I think the greater danger if it is enforced often is the people who are here legally who end up getting detained or otherwise significantly inconvenienced when they forget their wallet or lose their ID.

I think Wakko67 basically hit it on the thread. It will provide an easier avenue for abuse from the already racist. It was said already in the thread, but I would really like to know what "reasonable suspicion" entails.

 

except they can be sued now if people don't feel they are enforcing this law.

 

Right - that's the problem. Now you are beholden to take a bigoted stance.

 

Right, but I don't think that part of the provision will make that much difference. Sure there will probably be a few lawsuits from mostly racist folks upset that someone they're mad it and think is an illegal alien wasn't detained. But I'd imagine the police departments could use reasonable suspicion as a defense as well. If they don't have any reason to believe someone is there illegally other than race or nationality, then they can use that as a defense against the lawsuits.

I guess it all boils down to what "reasonable suspicion" is supposed to be if not race/nationality/language. I'm inclined to guess (and it's just a guess, or maybe a hope) that reasonable suspicion in most cases will require something pretty obvious, like someone shouting "La Migra! La Migra!" and people running in all directions.

 

Most definitely. Its all very loosely termed and open to interpretation.

 

Or a kid walking down the street at 3AM in the morning

 

What does "lawful contact" mean? You're more likely to answer than him. I didn't take Crim Pro but I don't think there was a chapter on that.

 

Arizona has no clue about the wrath they have unleashed on their state. You can say goodbye to any kind of tourism or national sporting event coming to the state.