Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 05-15-2012, 12:45 PM
dngnb8 dngnb8 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
This reminds me of the old joke that the definition of an environmentalist is someone who already has a house in the woods.
There was a planned community built north of phx in the middle of the desert. There were people who have acreage just north of that planned community that argued against it because

"It would ruin the natural environment"


They sure didnt care when they spoiled the natural environment when they built there.
  #152  
Old 05-15-2012, 12:53 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 18,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by dngnb8 View Post
I already linked the cite
You said:

"AZs budget is hugely impacted by the costs of illegal immigration."

I have not seen the numbers that support that.

Yes, you cited costs to hospitals.

No one is denying that illegal immigrants on one hand are a drain on state resources.

On the other hand they add to state resources.

The question is how it all balances out.

Some of that are in intangibles such as the cost increases everyone will pay if farmers cannot harvest their crops.

My cite (and other studies) show that illegal immigrants are a net benefit to the US economy as a whole. Some states however shoulder more of a burden (California in particular but willing to bet Arizona is in there too).

The question is how does it all pan out? Is AZ's budget "hugely impacted" or marginally impacted when all revenue and costs are accounted for?
  #153  
Old 05-15-2012, 12:56 PM
dngnb8 dngnb8 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 829
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Not really. Your link shows FAIR, (a group notably hostile to all immigration that uses illegal immigration as a red flag to call attention to themslves and occasionally wanders away from facts), claims 490,000, but the USCIS/DHS, (the government immigration folks), only estimate 280,000--a very large number, but much smaller than your claim.
And PEW Hispanic Center estimated 500k

Of the 3

500,000 PEW http://www.pewhispanic.org/
490,000 FAIR
290,000 USCIS/DHS

I used the 2 that were like figures, and the lower of the two.

Last edited by dngnb8; 05-15-2012 at 12:57 PM.
  #154  
Old 05-15-2012, 01:04 PM
dngnb8 dngnb8 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
You said:

"AZs budget is hugely impacted by the costs of illegal immigration."

I have not seen the numbers that support that.

Yes, you cited costs to hospitals.

No one is denying that illegal immigrants on one hand are a drain on state resources.

On the other hand they add to state resources.

The question is how it all balances out.

Some of that are in intangibles such as the cost increases everyone will pay if farmers cannot harvest their crops.

My cite (and other studies) show that illegal immigrants are a net benefit to the US economy as a whole. Some states however shoulder more of a burden (California in particular but willing to bet Arizona is in there too).

The question is how does it all pan out? Is AZ's budget "hugely impacted" or marginally impacted when all revenue and costs are accounted for?
I agree they hold jobs that most of us wont do

I agree they pay sales tax

They also pay SS tax (this is federal, state doesnt benefit)

We can never know who files tax returns and who doesnt. To presume they all do is obtuse, since that would allow the Government to track them and deport them, and many do everything they can to fly under that radar.

Some are trying to get citizenship, and they file accordingly. Others are paid under the table (migrant labor, Home Depot Campers), and we never see that money in the form of income tax. Sales tax yes, income tax no.

I guess I see numbers in the Millions (150 milliion annually) and I call that huge.

I agree, Huge is a perceptive analysis.

We havent even addressed the impact migratory ESL student cause via Bushs NCLB impacts
  #155  
Old 05-15-2012, 01:17 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 18,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by dngnb8 View Post
We can never know who files tax returns and who doesnt. To presume they all do is obtuse, since that would allow the Government to track them and deport them, and many do everything they can to fly under that radar.
Employers usually pay the taxes.

If an employer hires someone the employer would like to write-off the cost of paying that worker on their income taxes. If the employer pays under the table then they cannot write that expense off (cuz it didn't officially happen). Employers generally do automatic withholding and sends that money to the state. Of course the state cannot match the illegal immigrant with a real person but they still get the money.

Of course at some point it is cheaper to pay under the table than they would get back from a tax write-off. In this case they risk the wrath of the IRS.

Your wished for crack downs can have pernicious effects.

Quote:
According to Tom Rex, who studies Arizona economy for the Arizona State University's W.P. Carey School of Business,[31] said immigration crackdowns, notably the state's employer-sanctions law, have driven more undocumented workers from the aboveground economy into the underground cash economy. This in turn means less tax revenue for the state of Arizona since undocumented workers who work aboveground pay income taxes according to the Arizona Republic.[31] Illegal immigrants boost the local economy by purchasing goods and services. Clint Hickman Vice President of Sales and Marketing at Hickman Family Farms, the largest egg producer in Arizona has said sales to supermarkets that cater to Latinos has dropped 20 percent since the passage of SB1070.[31]

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal..._United_States

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 05-15-2012 at 01:18 PM.
  #156  
Old 05-15-2012, 01:33 PM
dngnb8 dngnb8 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Employers usually pay the taxes.
You can claim M-9 and have nothing withheld. That being said, many are paid cash and there are no withholdings. Lawn care companies here are notorious for hiring Home Depot Campers.

Quote:
If an employer hires someone the employer would like to write-off the cost of paying that worker on their income taxes. If the employer pays under the table then they cannot write that expense off (cuz it didn't officially happen). Employers generally do automatic withholding and sends that money to the state. Of course the state cannot match the illegal immigrant with a real person but they still get the money.
Actually, they can. It is called Fraud, but it happens. You can hire someone and if you pay them less then $400 annually, you dont have to report the pay, but you can take the write off. Home Depot here I come

Quote:
Of course at some point it is cheaper to pay under the table than they would get back from a tax write-off. In this case they risk the wrath of the IRS.

Your wished for crack downs can have pernicious effects.
Dont get me wrong, I understand what services they provide. I also think the impact of shipping them all out is one people dont truly understand.

JMHO

Our immigration system is the equivalent of a Pterodactyl and Granite Tablet, in a computer age

I think the fix is revamping the immigration system, not building walls people just tunnel under (not sure where I wished for crack downs)

Last edited by dngnb8; 05-15-2012 at 01:34 PM.
  #157  
Old 05-15-2012, 02:25 PM
E-Sabbath E-Sabbath is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Up The River
Posts: 13,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
I did not know any of this. Cites, please? (No snark, we need such cites in this thread.)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88738575/T...xander-opinion

Two hundred and thirty seven pages. It took me three days to read in my spare time.

Quote:
There are those who will doubtlessly point accusing fingers at the Office of the Maricopa County Sheriff with condemning tones of an unholy collaboration. The evidence against Respondents in this case speaks for itself. They never looked for evidence, because they always knew there was none. Ms. Aubuchon testified she would casually sit in “Dave Hendershott’s office some evenings” to discuss these
various events with the Sheriff and him. Aubuchon Testimony, Hr’g Tr.
180:2

10.The Sheriff is not subject to the Professional Rules of Conduct for attorneys.
However, the Maricopa County Attorneys’ Office is the legal adviser to the
Sheriff. If the Sheriff or his Chief Deputy acted improperly, the only response of their legal advisers was to stand mute. We note there was no hesitation by Mr.Thomas to f
orcefully remind MCBOS that his office was a “check and balance” on

21
them. When a legal counselor remains silent in the face of impropriety the result isoften predictable; it encourages those actions to continue.Nevertheless, it was Respondents who encouraged any untoward actions witha resolute refusal to act independently of the Sheriff. With either a wink and a nodor a collaborative voice they supported actions that became increasinglyquestionable, rather than independently following their seemingly never

assumed role as arbiters of justice. If the mighty forces of the offices of the Sheriff and theCounty Attorney in Maricopa County were adrift, they were intentionally loosedfrom their principled moorings by the guided hand of a Respondent with an intellectfueled with ferocity, an irrational ego and a concomitant endless ability to feed theiractions with rumors and speculations

Quote:
15

Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk personally informed Sheriff Arpaio and
Chief Deputy Hendershott that she had reviewed the investigation involving the
Stapley II case and that additional investigation was needed. Sheriff Arpaio,
through Chief Deputy Hendershott, closing their eyes to his Constitutional rights,
ordered Mr. Stapley arrested. They never filed any documents or charges but
instead surreptitiously videotaped his arrest, and held him in jail for hours. It was
testified that no one ever filed anything against Mr. Stapley regarding this event,
but took the time to call the press to inform them that he had been arrested.
Shocked, Ms. Polk demanded a meeting with Sheriff Arpaio, Mr. Hendershott,
Mr. Thomas and Ms. Aubuchon. On September 24, 2009, she confronted the
Sheriff in his own office. He exploded. Mr. Thomas and Ms. Aubuchon stood silent.
Polk Testimony, Hr’g Tr. 211:18–215:2. Regardless of some counts, Respondents
knew they had charged a person with dozens of crimes that he could not be
convicted of. When Ms. Polk discovered that Respondents ignored the Constitution
by intentionally hiding critical evidence from her, she publically criticized Mr.
Thomas and the Sheriff. The retort was to be expected. Lisa Aubuchon reported
the actions of Sheila Polk to the Grand Jury. Her witness? Chief Deputy
Hendershott. Ex. 185, TRIAL EXB. 02097. To its credit, the Grand Jury refused to
be baited.
The entirety of the Court Tower section is... well, many pages long.

Quote:
195. In the face of this advice, Mr. Hendershott emailed Andrew Thomas, Phil MacDonnell and Sally Wells that he and Sheriff Arpaio were “all good with the civil rico”.
320

196. Mr. MacDonnell reacted by sending an email to Mr. Thomas with a copy to Barnett Lotstein and Ms. Wells, stating: The idea of a civil RICO case based on current evidence is unfounded. Peter Spaw, our RICO expert, thinks it makes no sense. My understanding is that Eric Dowell told MCSO about a week ago that a civil RICO case makes no sense.

If MCSO brings a case against the BOS on a civil RICO theory, the subsequent damage to the statute from Legislative ‘reform’ could be
staggering.

It would be a misuse of the law, which should be reserved for clearly criminal conduct.

The bit about serving a judge? Bit long.
Quote:

THE CORE FACTS REGARDING THE FILING OF CHARGES AGAINST JUDGE
DONAHOE
312. Judge Donahoe had scheduled a hearing for the afternoon of December 9, 2009 regarding the Notice and Motion filed by Thomas Irvine and Edward Novak on behalf of the County.
467
The motion filed for MCBOS by Irvine and Novak sought an order prohibiting special deputy county attorneys from appearing before a grand jury.
313. On December 9, 2009, under Mr. Thomas’s authority and with his approval, Ms. Aubuchon through MCSO detectives filed a criminal case against Judge Donahoe.
468
Mr. Thomas made the decision to file a direct complaint against Judge Donahoe following a meeting with Ms. Aubuchon, Mr. Hendershott, and
Sheriff Arpaio.
469
Mr. Thomas and Ms. Aubuchon denied that they wanted to file the charges against Judge Donahoe to stop that hearing.
470
However, as discussed below, the Hearing Panel concludes that the evidence is clear and convincing that Mr. Thomas, Ms. Aubuchon, Sheriff Arpaio and then-Deputy Chief Hendershott decided to file the charges against Judge Donahoe so that he would not hold the December 9, 2009 hearing.
314. Ms. Aubuchon and Detective Gabe Almanza signed the direct complaint.
471

It charged the judge with hindering, obstruction and bribery.
472
There was no investigation in this matter prior to the filing of the direct complaint.
473
Only after the direct complaint was filed did MCSO create a report.
474

315. Ms. Aubuchon attempted to file the charges against Judge Donahoe a day earlier on December 8, 2009, after a meeting with Mr. Thomas, Sheriff Arpaio and Mr. Hendershott.
316. On the afternoon of December 8, 2009, Chief Deputy Hendershott of MCSO called Sgt. Rich Johnson about filing a case against Judge Donahoe.
475
Chief Deputy Hendershott told Sgt. Johnson that they needed it done “now.”
476
MCSO
Sgt. Brandon Luth, Sgt. Johnson and Deputy Chief Young called Ms. Aubuchon on the afternoon of December 8, 2009, to ask her what was going on and what they needed to charge.
477
Ms. Aubuchon stated they needed a Form 4, a DR (departmental report) and a probable cause statement.
478
Ms. Aubuchon told the MCSO officers she wanted to charge bribery and related charges.
479
Sgt. Luth did not know what to write.
480
Sgt. Luth’s orders were to put the case together and accompany Detective Cooning to “walk it through” that evening.
481

317. Later in the afternoon of December 8, 2009, Ms. Aubuchon, Chief Young, Sgt. Luth, Sgt. Johnson and Chief Hendershott met.
482
Chief Hendershott told them about the racketeering lawsuit, and that they thought Judge Donahoe was going to throw MCAO off all County investigations.
483
Chief Hendershott said that he had met with Mr. Thomas, Ms. Aubuchon, and Sheriff Arpaio, and that Sheriff Arpaio came up with the idea of charging the judge.
484
Chief Hendershott told Sgt. Luth to use as the material for the Form 4, or probable cause (“PC”) statement, a complaint that the Chief Deputy had submitted to the Commission on Judicial Conduct against Judge Donahoe.
485
Chief Hendershott printed off his complaint and wrote the charges on it.
486
At the hearing in this case, Mr. Hendershott was unable to describe any criminal conduct by Judge Donahoe.
487

318. Sgt. Luth drafted the PC statement using Chief Deputy Hendershott’s judicial complaint
488
at Ms. Aubuchon’s direction.
489

319. Sgt. Johnson called MCSO’s dispatch unit and obtained a Departmental Report number for the case.
490
At about 5:00 p.m., Sgt. Luth took the Donahoe charging documents to Ms. Aubuchon. She read them. She said that “it worked for her.”
491
Ms. Aubuchon signed the complaint as Deputy County Attorney.
320. Ms. Aubuchon attempted to have an investigator from MCAO file the direct complaint in Superior Court in the late afternoon or early evening of December 8, 2009. Ms. Aubuchon assigned the task of filing the direct complaint to MCAO investigator Lt. Richard Hargus.
492
Lt. Hargus then asked MCAO Detective Timothy Cooning to meet an MCAO clerk in front of the court at 5:30 p.m.
493

Det. Cooning did so, and the clerk handed him the Donahoe file. Det. Cooning read the file, returned to his office, and informed Lt. Hargus that he felt uncomfortable swearing to the truthfulness of the complaint against Judge Donahoe because he had not investigated the case.
494
Det. Cooning also was uncomfortable signing the probable cause statement because it was unclear what crimes had been committed and who had investigated them.
495
321. Lt. Hargus told his superior, Commander Stribling, that Lt. Hargus and Detective Cooning did not want to file the complaint because there was no probable cause to support it.
496
Commander Stribling agreed that none of his detectives should be put in the position of walking through a complaint on a sitting Superior Court judge when he knew nothing about the investigation that led up to the filing of the complaint.
497
The commissioner assigned to the evening court might ask the detective questions, and the detective would not know what to say.
322. Commander Stribling called Mr. Thomas. Commander Stribling informed Mr. Thomas that Ms. Aubuchon was asking Lt. Hargus and Det. Cooning to get the Donahoe complaint filed.
498
Commander Stribling told Mr. Thomas that based on what Lt. Hargus and Det. Cooning had told him, there was no probable cause to support the complaint.
499
Commander Stribling told Mr. Thomas that he refused to have his detective walk through a complaint about which the detective had no knowledge.
500
Mr. Thomas agreed, but insisted that the complaint be filed no later than the next morning.
501
323. Commander Stribling then called Ms. Aubuchon to explain his decision. The conversation was heated.
502
Commander Stribling suggested that MCSO Sgt. Brandon Luth file the complaint, since he was with the MACE Unit. Eventually, Ms. Aubuchon acquiesced.
503

324. Because Commander Stribling had refused to have MCAO investigators “walk it through,” Ms. Aubuchon turned to the sheriff’s office to assist her in filing the Donahoe complaint.
504
At Hargus’s instruction, at 6:00 that evening Det. Cooning met Sgt. Luth in front of Det. Cooning’s office and gave Sgt. Luth the direct complaint. Det. Cooning told Sgt. Luth he refused to swear to the complaint.
505
Sgt. Luth called Ms. Aubuchon and handed the phone to Det. Cooning. Ms. Aubuchon told Det. Cooning she “can’t believe this” and “this is
outrageous” and hung up on Det. Cooning.
506
Det. Cooning then agreed to meet Sgt. Luth at the IA court a few minutes later, where Sgt. Luth was to file the complaint. Once there, however, Sgt. Luth refused to file the complaint.
507

325. Sgt. Luth did not want to file the complaint against Judge Donahoe because he did not want to answer questions by the court about the case when it was filed.
508
He arranged for Det. Almanza and Det. Tennyson to meet with him the next morning.
509

326. On the morning of December 9, 2009, Sgt. Luth, Det. Almanza and Det. Tennyson met with Ms. Aubuchon.
510
Ms. Aubuchon handed Sgt. Luth the complaint against Judge Donahoe, which she had drafted, with the probable cause statement attached.
511
Sgt. Luth asked Ms. Aubuchon whether she had enough evidence to charge Judge Donahoe.
512
Ms. Aubuchon referred to past court filings and decisions and outlined for Sgt. Luth why she believed Judge Donahoe should be charged with crimes.
513
This struck Det. Almanza as bizarre because Ms. Aubuchon was telling Sgt. Luth what the evidence was, rather than the usual procedure, in which the investigator informs the prosecutor of the evidence.
514

327. Sgt. Luth and the detectives left the meeting. Sgt. Luth took the complaint he had received from Ms. Aubuchon, along with documents Ms. Aubuchon had
printed off of her computer.
515

328. The complaint was filed the same morning of December 9, 2009.
516

Detective Gabriel Almanza signed it under oath.
517
Sgt. Luth told Det. Almanza to sign it.
518
Det. Almanza was not comfortable doing so, because he had not been involved in drafting the complaint and he had no knowledge as to the truth or falsity of it.
519
Det. Almanza had never filed a complaint before.
520
Sgt. Luth assured Det. Almanza that Ms. Aubuchon believed she had enough evidence to charge the judge.
521
Det. Almanza signed it based on his reliance on Ms. Aubuchon’s good faith.
522

329. MCSO Detectives Almanza and Tennyson served the direct complaint on Judge Donahoe.
523
They secretly recorded the service.
524
After Judge Donahoe was served, Sgt. Luth was ordered to take a copy of the direct complaint to Ms. Aubuchon and Chief Deputy Hendershott.
525
When Sgt. Luth gave the copy of
the complaint to Ms. Aubuchon, she said she already received an email notifying her that Judge Donahoe had vacated the hearing that had been set for later that afternoon.
526
She appeared pleased and happy.
527
Sgt. Luth then gave the complaint to Chief Deputy Hendershott, explaining that the complaint had been served and that he had just met with Ms. Aubuchon.
528
Chief Deputy Hendershott said, “checkmate.”
529
To repeat,
Quote:
Chief Hendershott said that he had met with Mr. Thomas, Ms. Aubuchon, and Sheriff Arpaio, and that Sheriff Arpaio came up with the idea of charging the judge.
Hm. Trying to find the exact bit where Judge Donahoe was threatened in the judgment.

Quote:
b. The process server used in the RICO case filed the prior week.

375. When coupled with the use by Mr. Thomas and Ms. Aubuchon of John Cox as their process server for the RICO racketeering federal complaint which they
filed the prior week on December 1, 2008 and served on Judge Donahoe as a defendant, such release of personal information is found to be conclusively hostile with ill intent.
376. Jack Cox was a litigant who was prosecuted by the MCAO for threatening Judge Donahoe. The sons of Mr. Cox had inherited from their grandmother approximately $330,000. While serving in the Probate division Judge Donahoe
619. Ex. 164, TRIAL EXB 01915.
ordered those funds be put in a restricted account for the benefit of those children. Mr. Cox began to squander the funds and Judge Donahoe ordered their seizure. Mr. Cox left voice mails on the office voice mail of Judge Donahoe threatening to kill him. Mr. Cox told a reporter that there were going to be bodies over this. As a result the presiding judge consulted with the police who determined that Mr. Cox’s actions constituted a credible threat. Judge Donahoe was guarded at his home and going back and forth to work by the Phoenix Police until they determined he was no longer at risk. It was Jack Cox who served Judge Donahoe with the racketeering complaint.
620
Trust me. Read this whole thing. It's not about Sheriff Joe. But it's tied to him, he's specifically mentioned repeatedly as having caused about half of it. And it's all a legal judgment.

Last edited by E-Sabbath; 05-15-2012 at 02:27 PM.
  #158  
Old 05-15-2012, 02:43 PM
Lust4Life Lust4Life is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: perfidious albion
Posts: 6,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Cite for it being UK police regulations that they "have to ensure that the same number of ethnicities are questioned as well to ensure no racial bias"?

Cite for "the police had to waste valuable time and money questioning Asians, West Indians etc. to make sure that the quotas were similar in number" regarding IRA violence in London?
Sigh......................

I'll nip in and ask a copper next opportunity I get in the next few days, don't know if I can find it trawling through the internet while still young enough to have my own mobility.

Its well known over here, this really is a silly request for a cite.
  #159  
Old 05-15-2012, 03:10 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 18,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lust4Life View Post
Sigh......................

I'll nip in and ask a copper next opportunity I get in the next few days, don't know if I can find it trawling through the internet while still young enough to have my own mobility.

Its well known over here, this really is a silly request for a cite.
Maybe it used to be true but does not seem so now:

Quote:
Black people are 30 times more likely than white people to be stopped and searched by police in England and Wales, according to new analysis which reveals that "racial profiling" has increased over the past year.

<snip>

The figures refer to the use of section 60, the contentious police power that allows officers to stop and search people without reasonable suspicion and which was cited as an aggravating factor behind the August riots. Analysis by the London School of Economics (LSE) and the Open Society Justice Initiative shows during the past 12 months a black person was 29.7 times more likely to be stopped and searched than a white person. That figure was 26.6 the previous year.

In 2009, black people were 10.7 times more likely to be stopped than whites under the controversial "exceptional" power. Mounting disquiet over the policy's damaging effect on black communities prompted Scotland Yard last week to announce a scaling back of its use of section 60, which has become a central element of the Yard's anti-knife crime strategy.

A separate analysis, based on Home Office data, reveals that less than 0.5% of section 60 searches led to an arrest for possession of a dangerous weapon, five times fewer than a decade ago.

SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/j...ofiling-police
  #160  
Old 05-15-2012, 03:11 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lust4Life View Post
Its well known over here, this really is a silly request for a cite.
Actually, given the large number of things that are "well known" that have zero factual basis, it would probably be a good thing for you to be able to find evidence of this.
There is a persistent story, "well known" in the States, that if you ask an undercover cop whether he is a policeman he has to tell you the truth. Not true.

You are claiming that there is actually a law in Britain that requires policemen to keep track of the ethnicity of everyone they stop or question so that either they ask an equal, (or proportional?), number of all the various ethnic groups about any crime they are investigating or keep similar tabs on all the people they stop randomly on the street in regards to specific ethnic violence. Just the logistics of such a claim makes it rather unbelievable, without even getting into the issues of how they determine which ethnic group they are approaching before a stop.

And asking the local copper is not actually providing evidence. Cops are as liable to buy into urban legends as anyone else. Let's see some actual evidence for your claim.
  #161  
Old 05-15-2012, 03:40 PM
Lust4Life Lust4Life is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: perfidious albion
Posts: 6,422
No not a law, a police regulation/guideline, it doesn't include people who are later successfully prosecuted I believe.

When police stop someone they have to fill out paperwork everytime.

Though maybe sometimes they don't, I wouldn't know on that score.
  #162  
Old 05-15-2012, 03:42 PM
Lust4Life Lust4Life is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: perfidious albion
Posts: 6,422
But as I said I'll try and get it from the horses mouth, rather then from the internet.
  #163  
Old 05-15-2012, 03:45 PM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Sabbath View Post
Trust me. Read this whole thing. It's not about Sheriff Joe. But it's tied to him, he's specifically mentioned repeatedly as having caused about half of it. And it's all a legal judgment.
No, it's not. It's bar counsel's allegations.
  #164  
Old 05-15-2012, 04:15 PM
E-Sabbath E-Sabbath is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Up The River
Posts: 13,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
No, it's not. It's bar counsel's allegations.
Bricker, uhm. You're pretty wrong here.
This is the Opinion and Order Imposing Sanctions. It was written by a panel of three judges, headed by William O'Neill, the presiding disciplinary judge of the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona. Now, I'm not sure how you managed to misread the first inch of the document, but that's fine. These are findings of a judge. Actually three judges. I _believe_ this makes them matters of settled fact. Yes?

Seriously. My question here is, given this finding, by judges, in this case, what does this give to the FBI? I'm assuming that the findings of one case is admissible as evidence in another?

(From the Pit thread, as it's more suitable to be answered here.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
OK, I looked at the citations in the GD thread.

So this is not a finding of the disciplinary board, but rather a statement of charges, against which the respondents will presumably have the chance to offer rebuttal evidence?
Wrong. This is the finding of the disciplinary board. The rebuttal evidence has been offered. This is the result.

Quote:
And those respondants don't include Arpaio himself, as he's not a lawyer and not subject to the disciplinary process?
Correct. However, there are multiple statements in this finding that he directed or otherwise caused the actions to happen.
Quote:
There are numerous problems with treating these as evidence of criminal violations. For example, you say he caused a judge to be arrested on completely baseless charges of bribery.

But was there a warrant for the arrest? Yes. Was the arrest legal? Yes.

There seems to be unanimity that the charges could not be proved in court.

However, this does not create a crime. As long as there was probable cause to arrest, the arrest is legal.

What specific crime are you alleging here, and where is the evidence for it?

Ahem. If you bothered to read even the quoted part, there was no probable cause for arrest. And further, the finding is that it was directly ordered by Sheriff Joe.

I am not sure what specific crime I am alleging here. I am asking you, Friend Bricker, lawyer extraordinaire, to examine this finding, and tell us what, assuming a reasonably fit and capable prosecutor, could result from it.

To requote:
Quote:
Sheriff Arpaio, through Chief Deputy Hendershott, closing their eyes to his Constitutional rights,
ordered Mr. Stapley arrested. They never filed any documents or charges but
instead surreptitiously videotaped his arrest, and held him in jail for hours. It was
testified that no one ever filed anything against Mr. Stapley regarding this event,
but took the time to call the press to inform them that he had been arrested.
Quote:
Chief Hendershott said that he had met with Mr. Thomas, Ms. Aubuchon, and Sheriff Arpaio, and that Sheriff Arpaio came up with the idea of charging the judge.
484
Chief Hendershott told Sgt. Luth to use as the material for the Form 4, or probable cause (“PC”) statement, a complaint that the Chief Deputy had submitted to the Commission on Judicial Conduct against Judge Donahoe.
485
Chief Hendershott printed off his complaint and wrote the charges on it.
486
At the hearing in this case, Mr. Hendershott was unable to describe any criminal conduct by Judge Donahoe.

Extra bonus quote!
Quote:
482. Were this a criminal case, we are confident that the evidence would
establish this conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, while Mr.
Thomas and Ms. Aubuchon did violate ER 8.4(b) by violating 18 U.S.C. § 241,
sanctions will not issue from this particular violation, nor will it be considered in
aggravation. While a criminal charge or conviction is not necessary to a finding
that Respondents violated ER 8.4(b), this Court is fully aware that it is not a
criminal court. In criminal court, a finding that Respondents violated 18 U.S.C.
§ 241 would involve additional pre-trial and trial criminal procedures and
standards not applicable to this Court. As such, no sanctions will issue from this
finding, nor will Respondents’ violation of 8.4(b) in this Claim be considered in
aggravation.

Last edited by E-Sabbath; 05-15-2012 at 04:16 PM.
  #165  
Old 05-15-2012, 04:34 PM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Sabbath View Post
Bricker, uhm. You're pretty wrong here.
This is the Opinion and Order Imposing Sanctions. It was written by a panel of three judges, headed by William O'Neill, the presiding disciplinary judge of the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona. Now, I'm not sure how you managed to misread the first inch of the document, but that's fine. These are findings of a judge. Actually three judges. I _believe_ this makes them matters of settled fact. Yes?
OK, my mistake. The language here was more... prosecutorial than I'm used to seeing in a judicial opinion. My bad.

It's true that these are now findings of fact -- but only as to the respondants. In other words, these findings of fact are the result of a hearing of allegations from the independent bar counsel against Mssrs. Thomas, Alexander, and Aubuchon.

And -- it's not a criminal trial. It's a civil proceeding, in which facts must be proved only by preponderance of the evidence.

Quote:
Seriously. My question here is, given this finding, by judges, in this case, what does this give to the FBI? I'm assuming that the findings of one case is admissible as evidence in another?
So, no -- for two reasons: one is that Sheriff Arpaio was not a party to the proceeding, had no opportunity to deny the charges or cross-examine the witnesses. And even if he had that opportunity, the standard of proof was violation of attorney ethical standards, to be shown by preponderance of the evidence, not criminal charges that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Quote:
I am not sure what specific crime I am alleging here. I am asking you, Friend Bricker, lawyer extraordinaire, to examine this finding, and tell us what, assuming a reasonably fit and capable prosecutor, could result from it.
I don't know. Give me a day to read a bit more of this thing.
  #166  
Old 05-15-2012, 04:44 PM
E-Sabbath E-Sabbath is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Up The River
Posts: 13,944
That's more like what I was hoping for. I think we can assume that various statements were testified to under oath. Eg, the bit where Hendershott said Sheriff Joe came up with the idea to charge the judge. What value do those have in a future trial? I'm gonna assume that at the very least they can be introduced into evidence, Hendershott can be called on to re-testify, and face contempt charges if he changes his testimony?

On the prosecutorial tone: Yeah, I got the feeling the judges got _really pissed_ at Thomas et al in this. Face it, dummying up charges against a judge on really no cause at all? I can't think of anything more likely to piss a judge off.

I should point out that there are criminal charges likely to come out of the Thomas thing, and I believe that Sheriff Joe is _currently_ facing civil charges, with a second shot of criminal charges down the pipeline. So you may want to look at this both ways. In my non-lawyer, but reasonably-good-at-law-talking experience, I believe that most of the counts in this case can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The iffy bits are where 'Sheriff Joe ordered', and for that, you simply have one or multiple people testifying that he did so.

It's meaty as hell, is what it is.

Last edited by E-Sabbath; 05-15-2012 at 04:47 PM.
  #167  
Old 05-15-2012, 04:53 PM
E-Sabbath E-Sabbath is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Up The River
Posts: 13,944
Here, this is also relevant.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93122473/Complaint

This is the complaint about Sheriff Joe. I believe this section here is directly linked to the Thomas hearings. Though I think that it's only relevant up to and not including 146.

Remember, this is a Civil Complaint.

Quote:
III.
138. Since at least 2006 and continuing to the present, in violation of the First
Amendment, MCSO and Arpaio have retaliated against critics of MCSO practices,
and particularly MCSO’s immigration practices, in an effort to punish these persons
for their criticism and to prevent future criticism.
MCSO H as Retaliated against Perceived Critics of Its Practices in Violation
of the First Amendment
139. As recounted below, the filing of unsubstantiated complaints and lawsuits
demonstrates the pattern or practice of retaliation for protected speech activity.
140. The former Chief Deputy, acting on behalf of MCSO and Arpaio, filed five
separate complaints with the Arizona State Bar targeting attorneys who spoke out
publicly against MCSO and Arpaio. Each of these complaints was dismissed for lack
of facts or evidence sufficient to support even the initiation of an investigation.
141. The former Chief Deputy, acting on behalf of MCSO and Arpaio, filed four
complaints with the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct targeting judg es who
had either made public statements critical of MCSO or had issued decisions that
Arpaio or MCSO command staff disliked. Each of these complaints was dismissed
for lack of facts or evidence to support opening an investigation.
142. Acting in concert with the former Chief Deputy, Arpaio, and MCSO, a
former Maricopa County Attorney filed a lawsuit accusing people who had publicly
criticized MCSO of conspiracy in a criminal enterprise. Arpaio participated as a
named plaintiff in the lawsuit and substantially contributed to its filing. This case was
soon abandoned as unjustified and the responsible attorneys, including former
Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and two of his assistant attorneys, were
subsequently charged by the Arizona State Bar for havin g violated the Arizona Rules
of Professional Conduct by bringing the lawsuit.
143. On April 10, 2012, former Maricopa County Attorney Thomas and his two
assistant attorneys were found guilty of the ethics charges. Thomas announced that he
was not appealing h is disbarment.
144. MCSO and Arpaio also have used arrests as a means to intimidate and
retaliate against persons who have spoken out against their immigration practices.
The Opinion and Order in the Thomas ethics matter found, for example: “Sheriff
Arpaio, through Chief Deputy Hendershott, closing their eyes to his Constitutional
rights, ordered Mr. Stapley [an Arpaio critic] arrested. They never filed any
documents or charges but instead surreptitiously videotaped his arrest, and held him
in jail for hour s. Testimony at the disbarment hearing revealed that no one ever filed
anything against Mr. Stapley regarding this event, but the press was called and
informed that Mr. Stapley had been arrested.”
145. The Thomas ethics Opinion and Order also described the treatment of
Arpaio critics by Arpaio, Thomas and others as “a concerted effort … to wrestle
power from [Maricopa County Board of Supervisors], County officials, and Superior
Court judges, and to instill fear in the hearts of those who would resist.” The Opi nion
and Order concluded that this effort culminated in a “ conspiracy” to indict a judge
without cause: “Thomas and [assistant county attorney] Aubuchon quietly met with
Arpaio and [former Chief Deputy] Hendershott behind closed doors. This shameful
gathering had but one motive. The foursome met to conspire about how to muzzle
their next most-feared nemesis. After much late-night intrigue by Thomas and
Aubuchon, the conclave’s results were revealed the following morning. On
December 9th, Thomas and Aubuchon filed criminal charges against Presiding
Criminal Judge Gary Donahoe without a shred of evidence that Donahoe had
committed any crime.” Judge Donahoe had done nothing more than issue a ruling
adverse to MCSO and was perceived to be a critic of Arpaio.
146. Retaliation was not reserved for officials and judges in Maricopa County,
but also extended to individuals perceived as critical of Arpaio and MCSO .
147. MCSO arrested a peaceful protestor for obstructing a thoroughfare during
an act of civ il disobedience. The protestor – who has a long history of publicly
criticiz ing MCSO immigration operations – was released.
148. The protestor then went to observe the continuing protests. Although this
critic of MCSO policies was observing the protest without participating , MCSO
unlawfully arrested him when Arpaio , who is very familiar with this protestor,
publicly suggested that he be arrested a second time . At the arraignment, the
prosecuting attorney admitted that there had been no probable cause for the second
arrest. The interim County Attorney later dismissed the charges stemming from the
second arrest for lack of probable cause .
149. On repeated occasions, MCSO officers arrested persons who had expressed
their disagreement with MCSO immigration policies during the course of County
Board meetings by applauding. These arrests were unjustified, as the arrestees did not
disrupt the meeting in any meaningful way. Indeed, the judge presiding over the trial
of the arrestees found that the arresting MCSO deputy “believes it is his role to make
uncomfortable anyone who express[es] views that disagree with the Sheriff” and that
Arpaio’s officers had “trampl[ed] on the First Amendment.” The court acquitted the
arrestees on its own motion at the close of the State’s case.
150. Another critic of Arpaio was arrested for engaging in protected speech, and
was subsequently acquitted. Despite the acquittal, Arpaio explicitly stated that “[i]n
the same circumstance, he would be arrested again,” making clear that retaliation,
rather than legit imate law enforcement, motivates Arpaio’s treatment of his critics.
151. These actions, taken by MCSO and Arpaio, have deterred and are likely to
deter persons from engaging in protected speech.

Last edited by E-Sabbath; 05-15-2012 at 04:57 PM.
  #168  
Old 05-15-2012, 07:39 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by dngnb8 View Post
So you know the ratio of legal to illegal here?

Cite please.
I'm not talking about immigrants at all, and I've already posted my cite.
  #169  
Old 05-15-2012, 07:43 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
(And that is not even including the 286,000 Indians who are not recorded as Hispanic in the census, but are probably treated as Hispanic by the typical white guy witha badge.)
Do Arizonan Indians physically resemble Mexican Indians/Mestizos (who have shorter legs than most Indian nations north of the Rio Grande -- it is not because of malnutrition that Mexicans are so short)? Serious question.
  #170  
Old 05-15-2012, 07:55 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by dngnb8 View Post
Many of our illegals dont pay income taxes.
Well, of course not, if the laws are such that the only work they can find is in the underground cash economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dngnb8 View Post
They do pay into SS, but many of those SS are through Identity Theft. Give you a guess who is among the leaders the nation in ID Theft.
I daresay they only do that so they can work. It doesn't mean they'll ever draw Social Security. So, they're paying in to the system for nothing, just for the chance to pick your beans at minimum wage or less. And you begrudge them even that?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by dngnb8 View Post
Frankly, the lazy American wont work in the fields because the work is far too difficult physically.
Then, we need more Mexicans, don't we?
  #171  
Old 05-15-2012, 10:10 PM
florez florez is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 840
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Do Arizonan Indians physically resemble Mexican Indians/Mestizos (who have shorter legs than most Indian nations north of the Rio Grande -- it is not because of malnutrition that Mexicans are so short)? Serious question.
In my experience white people generally have a problem distinguishing native American people from typical Mexican people, until we open our mouths to speak. Arizona tribes have very diverse looks, but so do many Mexican people, and IMO not every region in Mexico produces short body types. I have met Mexicans I thought were white people, until they opened their mouths to speak.
Some of my Native Alaskan friends get a kick out of passing as Mexicans in Mexico, but also some very American Indian looking Mexicans I know, resent being called Indians, even though they generally could not be distinguished from many indigenous people.
  #172  
Old 05-15-2012, 10:32 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 18,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by florez View Post
I have met Mexicans I thought were white people, until they opened their mouths to speak.
Here's a person most people are familiar with who is Mexican.

For those not aware they probably wouldn't believe it. I certainly wouldn't have guessed it.

Well, he is:

Quote:
C.K., whose stage name is derived from an approximate English pronunciation of his Hungarian surname "Szekely", was born in Washington D.C.[2][8] to Mary Louise and Luis Szekely. His mother is of Irish-American ancestry and his father, an economist and native of Mexico, is of Mexican Catholic and Hungarian-Jewish descent.[9] Though born in Washington, he lived in Mexico City until the age of seven. Because of this, his first language is Spanish, and he still retains his Mexican citizenship.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_C...ife_and_career
  #173  
Old 05-15-2012, 11:45 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by florez View Post
Arizona tribes have very diverse looks, but so do many Mexican people, and IMO not every region in Mexico produces short body types.
I suppose not. Anectdotal impression; I once spent a year living in southern Miami-Dade County, and it was the first time in my life I ever felt tall (at 5'8").
  #174  
Old 05-16-2012, 12:26 AM
florez florez is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 840
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
I suppose not. Anectdotal impression; I once spent a year living in southern Miami-Dade County, and it was the first time in my life I ever felt tall (at 5'8").
5'8", Hell yeah you are tall, but we are typical short Mexicans; my brother 5'5" and Dad is 5'6", Mom was not quite 5 feet, and I am 5" 1". More wiry and proportional perhaps, but typical and brown enough to be fearful in Sheriff Joe's neck of the woods.
  #175  
Old 05-16-2012, 01:16 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by florez View Post
5'8", Hell yeah you are tall, but we are typical short Mexicans; my brother 5'5" and Dad is 5'6", Mom was not quite 5 feet, and I am 5" 1". More wiry and proportional perhaps, but typical and brown enough to be fearful in Sheriff Joe's neck of the woods.
Just out of curiosity, in Mexico, is there any clear social/cultural distinction between Indians and Mestizos? Does either group despise the other?
  #176  
Old 05-16-2012, 02:04 AM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 20,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lust4Life View Post
Sigh......................

I'll nip in and ask a copper next opportunity I get in the next few days, don't know if I can find it trawling through the internet while still young enough to have my own mobility.

Its well known over here, this really is a silly request for a cite.
No, it really isn't silly. You claimed things as facts, and I don't believe that your statements accurately describe reality. If you want anyone to take what you said seriously, you should be able to back them up with cites. That's how it's done in GD.
  #177  
Old 05-16-2012, 03:02 AM
florez florez is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 840
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Just out of curiosity, in Mexico, is there any clear social/cultural distinction between Indians and Mestizos? Does either group despise the other?

I do not have sociological overview enough to answer these questions very well, except to be honest, in Southern Mexico I noticed racist comments made toward people in traditional clothing, who were speaking their own language. However the Mestizos who were using negative terms to describe the indigenous people appeared to be indigenous themselves.
  #178  
Old 05-16-2012, 04:08 AM
Odesio Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Just out of curiosity, in Mexico, is there any clear social/cultural distinction between Indians and Mestizos? Does either group despise the other?
I always laugh when people are flabbergasted out how "silly" the race is defined in the United States. Mexico, and the rest of Latin America, has put us to shame over the years with their classification system. In the state of Chiapas, a native group has declared war against the Mexican government and there's been conflict there since the 1990s at least.

http://www.zonalatina.com/Zldata55.htm
  #179  
Old 05-16-2012, 08:08 AM
What the .... ?!?! What the .... ?!?! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 4,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
It is certainly acceptable for a Doper to so argue here. Do so if you can.



But it would have to be more of an "argument" and more relevant than that. Certainly the law against murder is more important than that against border-crossing, which the actual law reflects in classifying the former as a felony and the latter as a misdemeanor.
What's to argue?
  #180  
Old 05-16-2012, 09:28 AM
Lust4Life Lust4Life is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: perfidious albion
Posts: 6,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
No, it really isn't silly. You claimed things as facts, and I don't believe that your statements accurately describe reality. If you want anyone to take what you said seriously, you should be able to back them up with cites. That's how it's done in GD.
Yes it is a silly cite request, its what we call a spoiler ie. you don't really want an answer, but you do wish to harrass the poster against whom you don't have any valid argument to counter them with.

In fact I wouldn't be stunned with amazement if that was the purpose of your post this time.

The race card is always a simple and easy, not to mention cowardly tactic to use aswell.
Disagree with me and you're a racist, defend that poster or agree with him and you're a racist.

The ironic thing about the cowards who actually use this tactic from the safety of cyberspace, are the same people who IRL are too scared to put their heads above the parapet.

The same people who apparently walk around with a chip on their shoulder everday looking for reasons to feel discriminated against, or for reasons that they are lifes failures, not because of their own shortcomings, but because of institutionalised racism.
Except they never open their mouths about it at the time, and only complain about it after the event and when they're safely anonymus on a m.b.

Personally I don't cave in to bullying, or attempts to gag me, even if its a pile on.

I believe in free speech and democracy, which many on these boards pay lip service to but only if the speech agrees with what they said, and the democratic vote is for what they pretend to believe in.

I find it particulary cowardly and offensive when dyed in the wool racists of an ethnicity other then White, hypocritically throw out accusations of racism themselves working on the theory that of course they're not racists (At least in public) because not being White they CAN'T be racist.

Well I'm sorry matey , you can be and you are.

And are no less obnoxious then any member of the K.K.K. with whom they seem to share many characteristics, and the same ethos.

Keep your bully boy tactics to yourself, and that goes for your terrorist admiring friend, (He knows who he is and has admitted several times on these boards to his admiration of them ), they won't work on me, not now not ever.

Sorry if I've spoiled your day, perhaps you can find someone else who's a bit more amenable to your attempted bullying.

Thats how real life works.
  #181  
Old 05-16-2012, 09:32 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 20,135
For all the time you spent typing that, you could have actually found and posted a cite.
  #182  
Old 05-16-2012, 09:34 AM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Sabbath View Post
That's more like what I was hoping for. I think we can assume that various statements were testified to under oath. Eg, the bit where Hendershott said Sheriff Joe came up with the idea to charge the judge. What value do those have in a future trial? I'm gonna assume that at the very least they can be introduced into evidence, Hendershott can be called on to re-testify, and face contempt charges if he changes his testimony?
Close. Hendershott's testimony can't be introduced into evidence in a criminal trial of someone else -- it's hearsay.

But certainly Hendershott can be called to testify in that trial. And if he testifies differently, then his prior testimony can be used to impeach his current testimony; this is one exception to the hearsay rule.
Quote:
It's meaty as hell, is what it is.
Agreed. There's more than enough there to justify an indictment, and more than enough there to justify a conviction (if believed by a jury and if there's no defense counter).
  #183  
Old 05-16-2012, 09:45 AM
Ibn Warraq Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
I suppose not. Anectdotal impression; I once spent a year living in southern Miami-Dade County, and it was the first time in my life I ever felt tall (at 5'8").
Most Latinos in the Miami-Dade County area aren't Mexican.

They're far more likely to be Cuban, Puerto Rican, Columbian or something else.
  #184  
Old 05-16-2012, 10:59 AM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 27,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
In general, the practices alleged either don't rise to the level of criminal activity, or would be difficult to impute criminal liability directly to Arapio. In other words, not only would you have to provbe that a deputy lied to support a probable cause determination, but that Arapio ordered him to tell that lie.
So why is that cause for a civil suit? "He's not done anything provably criminal. We can't prosecute him; so we'll sue him." just seems wrong.
  #185  
Old 05-16-2012, 11:01 AM
Lust4Life Lust4Life is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: perfidious albion
Posts: 6,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
For all the time you spent typing that, you could have actually found and posted a cite.
I'm going to have a word with someone, if thats alright with you ?
  #186  
Old 05-16-2012, 11:08 AM
Zeriel Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lust4Life View Post
I'm going to have a word with someone, if thats alright with you ?
Anecdotes are not generally speaking useful cites, as we would have not one scrap of evidence that you actually talked to a person before coming back.

As demonstrated here: "No, I called up my buddy who's a London cop, and he told me that they racially profile all the time, there's no policy against it whatsoever."

The above is a blatant falsehood. Note how it is indistinguishable from actual true testimony in the absence of an authoritative link.
  #187  
Old 05-16-2012, 11:10 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 20,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lust4Life View Post
I'm going to have a word with someone, if thats alright with you ?
I don't mind if you have a word with someone. Using that conversation as a cite is another matter, however.
  #188  
Old 05-16-2012, 11:12 AM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
So why is that cause for a civil suit? "He's not done anything provably criminal. We can't prosecute him; so we'll sue him." just seems wrong.
Because civil liability extends farther than criminal liability does. There are plenty of acts that are tortious -- you fail in a duty of care that you owe me -- but not criminal.
  #189  
Old 05-16-2012, 11:26 AM
Lust4Life Lust4Life is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: perfidious albion
Posts: 6,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
I don't mind if you have a word with someone. Using that conversation as a cite is another matter, however.
I remember a thread where we discussing migrant workers in the U.K. and you making the comment that "they "were necessary because they did the jobs that "We", as in yourself and all the other Brits, wouldn't do.

Unfortunately you revealed yourself as an immigrant to the U.K. quite a while afterwards.

Liars need good memories Gyrate , pity that you haven't got one eh ?

So don't give me lectures on what I should or shouldn't be doing.

Your not just a coward, but a liar as well.
  #190  
Old 05-16-2012, 11:27 AM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Then, we need more Mexicans, don't we?
Or how about we raise wages to a point where Americans find them attractive? Being a garbage man is a not fun job, but we don't think "OMG, no one will do that job for minimum wage so we should bring in people from another country."

Now, if we raise the wages to what the job actually deserves and we are still short workers, let's allow people from Mexico to come do them—via a guest worker program. Seems to work for Canada.
  #191  
Old 05-16-2012, 11:32 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 20,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lust4Life View Post
I remember a thread where we discussing migrant workers in the U.K. and you making the comment that "they "were necessary because they did the jobs that "We", as in yourself and all the other Brits, wouldn't do.

Unfortunately you revealed yourself as an immigrant to the U.K. quite a while afterwards.
Yeah, that was a helluva swim. The Rio Grande is nothing, I tell you. Nothing!

I do tend to switch the country I identify with depending on context (long-term current residence versus upbringing and citizenship) but I've never intended to portray myself as a native Brit. If I confused you at some point, I apologize (or should I say "apologise"? I also switch spelling.).
Quote:
Liars need good memories Gyrate , pity that you haven't got one eh ?

So don't give me lectures on what I should or shouldn't be doing.

Your not just a coward, but a liar as well.
Ouch. I am wounded. Clearly this makes your argument much more compelling.

Incidentally my mother was an immigrant to the US from Hungary. And her mother was an immigrant from Romania to Hungary (although ethnically Hungarian). You just can't trust us peripatetic types.
  #192  
Old 05-16-2012, 11:33 AM
Zeriel Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
Or how about we raise wages to a point where Americans find them attractive? ... Now, if we raise the wages to what the job actually deserves...
It should be obvious, but there are many jobs out there that are priced as high as people are willing to pay for the associated service, but still priced sufficiently low that the labor pool for those jobs is very small.

Quote:
...and we are still short workers, let's allow people from Mexico to come do them—via a guest worker program. Seems to work for Canada.
The jobs are priced at what the labor market will currently bear. Why waste time and expense with a guest worker program when we could simply increase legal immigration quotas to match job availability?
  #193  
Old 05-16-2012, 11:34 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lust4Life View Post
Your not just a coward, but a liar as well.
You are not allowed to call another poster a liar in this forum. Save it for the Pit and do not do it again in Great Debates.
  #194  
Old 05-16-2012, 11:48 AM
Lust4Life Lust4Life is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: perfidious albion
Posts: 6,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
Anecdotes are not generally speaking useful cites, as we would have not one scrap of evidence that you actually talked to a person before coming back.

As demonstrated here: "No, I called up my buddy who's a London cop, and he told me that they racially profile all the time, there's no policy against it whatsoever."

The above is a blatant falsehood. Note how it is indistinguishable from actual true testimony in the absence of an authoritative link.
But they are useful if I ask him about it and then ask him the relevant regulation or procedural number designation etc.

If you're a non copper you could spend years wading through reams of directions etc applicable to serving police officers.

I thought that it would be more genuine then much of the disinformation put into cyberspace by individuals, interest groups or the media.

Is that alright with you then ?

If you like I'll drop everything, and insist my contact stops doing whatever he's doing so that we can sort this very important issue out.

Or were you hoping that I'd go boo hoo, everyones picking on me, I'm going to stop posting my opinions ?

In your dreams.

Can the next coward step up to the mark please.
  #195  
Old 05-16-2012, 12:00 PM
Lust4Life Lust4Life is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: perfidious albion
Posts: 6,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Yeah, that was a helluva swim. The Rio Grande is nothing, I tell you. Nothing!

I do tend to switch the country I identify with depending on context (long-term current residence versus upbringing and citizenship) but I've never intended to portray myself as a native Brit. If I confused you at some point, I apologize (or should I say "apologise"? I also switch spelling.). Ouch. I am wounded. Clearly this makes your argument much more compelling.

Incidentally my mother was an immigrant to the US from Hungary. And her mother was an immigrant from Romania to Hungary (although ethnically Hungarian). You just can't trust us peripatetic types.
Oh sorry ! I didn't realise that you were only "identifying " with Brits, well thats alright then .

Personally I identify with Shamanistic Buddhists, did I tell you about my chat with the Dalai Lama ?

I didn't really have a chat with him, I was just identifying with someone who had.
  #196  
Old 05-16-2012, 12:03 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Warning

Enough already, Lust4Life. Your last couple of posts have been flaming, and that's OK in the Pit but not here. When you're in GD, stick to making actual arguments and don't attack other posters.
  #197  
Old 05-16-2012, 12:08 PM
Zeriel Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lust4Life View Post
But they are useful if I ask him about it and then ask him the relevant regulation or procedural number designation etc.
It seems to me that, instead of protesting angrily, you could have left it at that at the beginning of this side discussion. As you (up to this point) had not given any indication you intended to produce an authoritative cite, it's not really on us to assume you were planning to.
  #198  
Old 05-16-2012, 12:18 PM
Stanislaus Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,705
Oh, for crying out loud.

From the Home Office:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Home Office, 2010:
"CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE EXERCISE BY:
POLICE OFFICERS OF STATUTORY POWERS OF STOP AND SEARCH
POLICE OFFICERS AND POLICE STAFF OF REQUIREMENTS TO RECORD PUBLIC ENCOUNTERS"
So this is the guidelines issued to police in regard to how they carry out stop and search, with reference to their duty to record ethnicity among other things.

Here are the relevant paragraphs:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Home Office, 2010
4.12 There is no national requirement for an officer who requests a person in a public place to account for themselves, i.e. their actions, behaviour, presence in an area or possession of anything, to make any record of the encounter or to give the person a receipt


5 Monitoring and supervising the use of stop and search powers
5.1 Supervising officers must monitor the use of stop and search powers and should consider in particular whether there is any evidence that they are being exercised on the basis of stereotyped images or inappropriate generalisations. Supervising officers should satisfy themselves that the practice of officers under their supervision in stopping, searching and recording is fully in accordance with this Code. Supervisors must also examine whether the records reveal any trends or patterns which give cause for concern, and if so take appropriate action to address this.
5.2 Senior officers with area or force-wide responsibilities must also monitor the broader use of stop and search powers and, where necessary, take action at the relevant level.
5.3 Supervision and monitoring must be supported by the compilation of comprehensive statistical records of stops and searches at force, area and local level. Any apparently disproportionate use of the powers by particular officers or groups of officers or in relation to specific sections of the community should be identified and investigated.
5.4 In order to promote public confidence in the use of the powers, forces in consultation with police authorities must make arrangements for the records to be scrutinised by representatives of the community, and to explain the use of the powers at a local level
Bolding is mine.

Lust4Life's original claim was:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lust4Life
In the U.K. the police are regulated so as to record everyone that they pull over in the street for randoming questioning, and they have to ensure that the same number of ethnicities are questioned as well to ensure no racial bias.
Para 4.12 above shows that the first part of this is false: police do not have to record everyone they speak to in the street. They do have to record everyone they search.

Para 5.1 and 5.3 above show that the second part of Lust4Life's claim is also false: the police have to monitor their stats so that they - and we - can be sure that where people of any ethnicity are being disproportionately subjected to Stop and Search then this has been done with good reason - but there is absolutely no requirement to keep the numbers even across all ethnicities.

At any rate, L4L can now refer to the appropriate regulations when asking his mate. Or, we could drop this hijack.

Last edited by Stanislaus; 05-16-2012 at 12:19 PM. Reason: No rite good
  #199  
Old 05-16-2012, 12:47 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
Or how about we raise wages to a point where Americans find them attractive?
How un-American!
  #200  
Old 05-16-2012, 12:49 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
Most Latinos in the Miami-Dade County area aren't Mexican.

They're far more likely to be Cuban, Puerto Rican, Columbian or something else.
I know. But, the ones in the southern part of the county, where a lot of farming happens, are mostly Mexican, IME. (In Miami-Dade County, BTW, all county government publications are printed in English, Spanish, and Haitian Creole -- there's a lot of Haitians there, too.)

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 05-16-2012 at 12:50 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017