Yeah, I’m gonna have to take at a pass at trusting you on this, since you have no objective evidence for me to see, only the word of people on one side of the law enforcement aisle, who have a vested career interest that could cause them to say things to make the case for rather than against. Your cites for anecdotal evidence are far from neutral, after all.
Ah, my bad. In all your vigorous defense of the law, I somehow must have thought you approved of it this way.
If it isn’t the best use, would you say it’s a good use?
A great use?
What superlative would you use in your assessment of the tactic of self-incrimination to be used in enforcing this law?
What assessment would you give to other tactics to be used in enforcing this law??
You mean my citing the ACLU, another defense attorney, and my own experience are rejected because all those cites come from the defense side of the table?
If youy saw similar language coming from a prosecuor or police officer, then, you’d be more inclined to accept it?
In terms of “How good a use of police resources is this law?” you want my personal opinion?
Mmmm… middlin’ fair to poor. If I were grading it from A to F, I’d give it a C- or D+.
Not sure why my opinion on this point is of value, though.
Where did I reject any of the anecdotal cites you brought up? Please show me that quote.
I would accept their anecdotes the same way that I’ve accepted yours, and the others you related: it confirms only that this situation occurs more than “never”. You cannot come up with any actual facts about numbers, so why should I give your stories any more credence than any other story that I cannot factually debunk?
Again, at best, all you’ve shown is that such a situation occurs more than “never”.
Now if you have some facts indicating what a great success, and how large the numbers of convictions are, I’ll be happy to pay attention. But until that time, all your claims about large numbers of arrests, how it happens “all the time”, etc. all due to self-incrimination are utterly useless to us as any kind of evidence for any decision-making regarding the process of self-incrimination as you describe it’s use in enforcing this law.
Just curious, really, what you thought because I was curious how it would line up with your efforts to defend this law in this thread.
I mean, you’ve been making the effort for over 8 pages of this thread now, and for what? A law that even you think is slightly below average, at best. Why would you make that much effort supporting something that even you don’t think is all that great an idea?
Because what I have been doing is correcting blatant mistruths about the law.
I don’t think this law is particularly wise. But my arguments against it are simply that: it’s not particularly wise. I don’t claim that it requires immigrants to carry papers, that citizens can be arrested for not having papers, that federal law does not make it a crime not to carry a green card.
OK, let’s say that we have no data at all apart from it happens more than “never.”
What of it? Does that make this Arizona law invalid in some way?
Ah, ok. Why don’t you think this law is particularly wise?
No, that doesn’t invalidate the Arizona law AFAICT. It does stall your argument, tho, because you can’t provide any documented numbers to back up your assertions. You’ve made claims you can only support tangentially, through anecdotes and stories. You repeat them and ask that we accept them as tangible facts, even though you’ve put qualifiers (all the time, a lot, many, a great number, etc.) around them that you cannot support in any objective way. Why should I accept that?
And we don’t have to say that we have no data at all apart from it happens more than “never”. It’s not a hypothetical that we have no data. It’s a fact. All we have are anecdotes.
Interesting. What that sounds like you’re saying is that when people are informed, they are less likely to give consent for a search. Almost as if to suggest that if illegal immigrants were informed of police procedure, they might be less likely to answer questions in an incriminating manner.
I haven’t had many correct conclusions in their thread, so I guess I’ll leave it to the reader to decide how that might impact the effectiveness of this law.
When people are informed by police, at the scene, they are less likely to incriminate themselves.
I agree that if this law were modified to include the requirement, similar to Austin’s law, that police get written consent to answer questions before asking them, this Arizona law would lose almost all it’s effectiveness.
But what this example also shows is attempts to inform people ahead of time, through public education about your rights, is not effective.
So now because Az officers plan to overload ICE with queries, you expect they’ll have to overall their system?
With what money? With what resources? With what man power? As I said a few times, it would have been great if this bill included an increase to the state sales/income/property tax to help pay for this.
And what happens to this law if ICE puts the requests made by AZ officers at the bottom of the queue? It’s important to remember here that of the few illegals they catch, there will be *many, many *legals that get searched.