Reported. Along with your previous flouting of tomndebb’s moderation.
Perhaps those interested in this aspect of Arpaio’s activities will respond in the other link you also posted the link in. The one about the actual subject and not your theory.
Yes, it would’ve been much clearer if you’d explained this earlier. But even if the theory in the article is true, the Birther discussion belongs in another thread. There are several of those in Elections. If you want to talk about this any more, post to one of those threads.
I have a comment:
You were told that you were perfectly free to open a new thread on the topic to which you linked, but that it was a hijack to this thread and that you were to refrain from pursuing this off-topic discussion, here.
This is a Warning to avoid hijacking threads and to avoid ignoring staff instructions.
= = =
If you see a violation, report it; do not use it to attack other posters.
Knock it off.
= = =
EVERYONE:
Any discussion of Arpaio’s Birther idiocy is to be taken up in a separate thread. Do not comment upon it further, here–not even as a reply to another post.
[ /Moderating ]
I would venture to say that limiting this discussion is just dick swinging. There’s no debating left to do; just move it to the pit and butt out.
From Huffington Post’s link to the Arizona Republic’s story:
So Arpaio (apparently) hasn’t broken any laws! Now, let’s see if AG Holder will be found innocent (“Fast and Furious”).
Even though widely believed, that’s no true. There’s no obligation to carry an ID in France. Police officers can’t stop you and request that you prove your identity except in some cases :
-You’re operating a motor vehicle
-They have objective reasons to believe you’ve been involved in a crime
-You’re present near a place where a crime has just been commited
-The local prosecutor ordered identity checks for a specific reason at a specific place and time (that’s the ID checks targeting brown people you see in subway stations *)
If, in these circumstances you’re unable to prove youre identity (either by providing an ID or by testimony), you can be detained up to 4 or 6 hours (can’t remember) while the police tries to establish it.
Maybe they do, but both actions are illegal. Especially the part about being detained without a cause.
No doubt, though, that certain skin shade and age combinations get you harassed.
(*)Which by the way, are very convenient to up arrest figures. For instance, they’ve have been multiplied during the two last years of Sarkozy’s mandate, with specific number of arrest objectives determined by “préfets”. Just have some police officers hang around a train station at peak time searching for illegal aliens or around a known drug selling place searching for drug consumers and voila, you’re 100% certain to have a number of criminals arrested by the end of the day, instead of wasting your time enquiring about burglaries or other complicated stuff.
Hmmm…Sorry, I followed a link to this thread, and didn’t realize it was an old one.
There’s the question, and there’s the link…without comment, it seems. Are you personally making a case here that Arpaio should not be sued, or that he has Done the Right Things, or at any rate things a sheriff should be allowed to do?
Or are you “just sayin’”?
I’m saying that the author of the piece made the case that criminal charges were not supportable by available evidence.
And do you agree with the author? Go ahead-give a personal opinion. It’s not going to kill you.
I promise.
There’s a forum for personal opinions. We’re not in it.
You can’t even say “I agree with the link I researched and provided.”?
Wow.
I can personally agree with having a forum called “Great Debates” being used for debates, in which participants defend and attack positions based on supporting factual citations, and another forum called “In My Humble Opinion,” in which the personal opinions of the posters are the coin of the realm, be they grounded in fact or completely untethered.
And I can personally agree that keeping those two missions separate is a good thing.
Boy, reading threads in this forum must be like fingernails on a chalkboard for you, huh?
Well, the gold standard in border control is probably Israel? The profiling that Arpaio uses is pretty standard there (I wasn’t aware the US has even spoken against this?). Probably because it works. So I would disagree with your comment that Arpaio’s methods aren’t necessary or helpful for border control. The problem is that they are not replicated elsewhere in the US to deter illegal immigration.
That’s an…interesting…comparison.
So… it’s okay because Israel does it? That’s your argument?
No, that would be North Korea.