It has begun. I would bet heavily that the reasons for ‘questioning’ or whatever were not absolutely within ‘legal guidelines’. The reports from the Officers are probably very inaccurate as to the details - just as that fucking sheriff says he will do/allow.
ALL Officers I have known personally do routinely misrepresent facts/actions when some excuse is needed to justify later actions, most of these cops are relatives of mine that I have zero respect for any longer. For several decades I sat dinner tables, played rugby with, and ‘hung out with’, cops in Austin/Travis-Williamson Counties, TX. Hearing the stories of what was reality -v- what became the story on the Official Report, and all their raucous laughter over it and hearing the so-called offenders called scumbags, dumbshits, or even ~“donors-to-the-cause-of-my-paycheck” made me never want to speak with those persons again. And I haven’t. (some being immediate family/relatives, unfortunately).
Dishonest police persons are very much in control of things outside of court rooms and legislative buildings (where Bricker speaks of, I believe). I speak of real-life and not splitting hairs on a Forum.
And now some headlines are saying that Oklahoma (and Texas, too, of course) is likely to try and pass the exact same law. I will be quick to do whatever it takes to make it as big of a headache/challenge that I can should such happen. Seems that everyone I see is an illegal immigrant and must be reported immediately (since I have no idea, factually, if they are actually legally here).
Mostly, I am just boggled at how you can acknowledge that similar laws already lead to innocent people being stopped by police with no probable cause, and still apparently be in favor of this one.
Myself, I’d rather do everything possible to avoid it happening in the first place. Do you think waiting for innocent people to be arrested and then challenging the arrests is the best way to go? I sure don’t.
Yes, I do. Because that’s the only way to be true to our notion of self-governance.
The people of Arizona, acting through their elected representatives, want this law. There’s over 70% support for it.
We can’t say we’re a representative democratic republic and then trash the law without being able to point to the specific instances of higher (i.e., constitutional) law that’s being violated by the statute at hand. Since the law is on its face constitutionally permissible, the ONLY WAY to scuttle it would be to prove that it’s being abused in action.
I’m not a quarter of the legal analyst you are, but if you’re interested, I’ll bet my sense of history and social change against yours that this law will not be on the books 3 years from today.
Well, for what it’s worth I deliberately read all your posts in this thread, skipping a lot of the others. I think I disagree with you politically 80-90% of the time, but on questions of legal fact I think you’re one of the best resources on the board – and refreshingly free of the whole “The law says this because that’s what I want it to say” thing that plagues many posters. (For instance, I recall you said the health care bill probably wouldn’t be overturned, even though you were opposed to it.) And I appreciate you citing the actual text of the law, not just “this is what wikipedia said about it.”
Don’t we need to redefine “properly seized” under the new law? The Arizona police say they can and do, ask people for proof of immigration status when they get them for committing offenses now. The difference is today, that they can decide you might be an illegal and stop you. It does not have to be in a car. If you are walking while Mexican, you could be approached. The offense is reasonable suspicion of being an illegal. Want to try and define “reasonable suspicion of being an illegal” without mentioning color or Mexican features?
Has it dawned on you that you described an officer effectively *manufacturing *“reasonable suspicion” based on his target’s ethnic appearance? If it has, do any equal protection concerns arise in your analysis of the situation?
