LJ wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Yes it is. "He looked suspicious" or "he seemed like he was about to commit a crime" those things have been accepted in courts before so I imagine that would carry over to this case.

Which seems absurd to me that they can seize and search you because they think you're going to do something in the future.

cop observes a guy wearing a ski mask standing against the wall infront of a bank.....its 90 degrees outside. something doesnt fit and thats what is meant by about to commit a crime.

Cop observes a group of menwalking down the street who are dirty and speaking Spanish.

Cop observes a group of men speaking Spanish and obtaining work outside of a home depot.

i am not a lawyer, but i dont think the first one fits reasonable suspicion. unless maybe the street they were on was leading out of mexico. second one might if there had been previous incidents of illegal aliens being there before.

I Wear Pants wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Yes it is. "He looked suspicious" or "he seemed like he was about to commit a crime" those things have been accepted in courts before so I imagine that would carry over to this case.

Which seems absurd to me that they can seize and search you because they think you're going to do something in the future.

cop observes a guy wearing a ski mask standing against the wall infront of a bank.....its 90 degrees outside. something doesnt fit and thats what is meant by about to commit a crime.

Follow the fucker into the bank. When he tries to rob it, arrest him.

after he shoots the guard?

Glory Days wrote:

LJ wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Yes it is. "He looked suspicious" or "he seemed like he was about to commit a crime" those things have been accepted in courts before so I imagine that would carry over to this case.

Which seems absurd to me that they can seize and search you because they think you're going to do something in the future.

cop observes a guy wearing a ski mask standing against the wall infront of a bank.....its 90 degrees outside. something doesnt fit and thats what is meant by about to commit a crime.

Cop observes a group of menwalking down the street who are dirty and speaking Spanish.

Cop observes a group of men speaking Spanish and obtaining work outside of a home depot.

i am not a lawyer, but i dont think the first one fits reasonable suspicion. unless maybe the street they were on was leading out of mexico. second one might if there had been previous incidents of illegal aliens being there before.

Speaking Spanish and having dirt on you is reasonable suspicion?

Hopefully all the Spanish teachers in Arizona don't like to do any gardening.

I Wear Pants wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

LJ wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Yes it is. "He looked suspicious" or "he seemed like he was about to commit a crime" those things have been accepted in courts before so I imagine that would carry over to this case.

Which seems absurd to me that they can seize and search you because they think you're going to do something in the future.

cop observes a guy wearing a ski mask standing against the wall infront of a bank.....its 90 degrees outside. something doesnt fit and thats what is meant by about to commit a crime.

Cop observes a group of menwalking down the street who are dirty and speaking Spanish.

Cop observes a group of men speaking Spanish and obtaining work outside of a home depot.

i am not a lawyer, but i dont think the first one fits reasonable suspicion. unless maybe the street they were on was leading out of mexico. second one might if there had been previous incidents of illegal aliens being there before.

Speaking Spanish and having dirt on you is reasonable suspicion?

Hopefully all the Spanish teachers in Arizona don't like to do any gardening.

I think that's ok, as long as they don't need anything from home depot

LJ wrote: This law really needed to go to the Supreme Court before it takes affect. If it now makes it a crime to be here illegally in the state of Ari, what becomes reasonable suspicion for a Terry Stop at that point?

So many problems with this law where it tramples all over our rights as citizens yet people are like "yay, get rid of them damn illegals!"

So it wasn't a crime to be here illegally before the Ariz law?

I'm no legal expert, but how does this law go beyond existing federal law, besides the enforcement aspect? And how is a state/nation supposed to enforce illegal immigration violations without ID checks?

jhay78 wrote:

LJ wrote: This law really needed to go to the Supreme Court before it takes affect. If it now makes it a crime to be here illegally in the state of Ari, what becomes reasonable suspicion for a Terry Stop at that point?

So many problems with this law where it tramples all over our rights as citizens yet people are like "yay, get rid of them damn illegals!"

So it wasn't a crime to be here illegally before the Ariz law?

I'm no legal expert, but how does this law go beyond existing federal law, besides the enforcement aspect? And how is a state/nation supposed to enforce illegal immigration violations without ID checks?

Well, if you are willing to give up that right then more power to you, but I don't want to hear you complaining about other rights of yours being taken away.

I Wear Pants wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

LJ wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Yes it is. "He looked suspicious" or "he seemed like he was about to commit a crime" those things have been accepted in courts before so I imagine that would carry over to this case.

Which seems absurd to me that they can seize and search you because they think you're going to do something in the future.

cop observes a guy wearing a ski mask standing against the wall infront of a bank.....its 90 degrees outside. something doesnt fit and thats what is meant by about to commit a crime.

Cop observes a group of menwalking down the street who are dirty and speaking Spanish.

Cop observes a group of men speaking Spanish and obtaining work outside of a home depot.

i am not a lawyer, but i dont think the first one fits reasonable suspicion. unless maybe the street they were on was leading out of mexico. second one might if there had been previous incidents of illegal aliens being there before.

Speaking Spanish and having dirt on you is reasonable suspicion?

Hopefully all the Spanish teachers in Arizona don't like to do any gardening.

you are missing a key part of reasonable suspicion. totality of the circumstances.

its not just having dirt on you. its your location, where you seem to be headed and where you were coming from. do they look dehydrated like that had been in the desert for a few weeks etc.

the spanish teacher trying to garden wouldnt have a problem, he/she isnt trying to get work outside the front doors of home depot. do the people slink away when the cops drive by? have there been known illegals getting work there before?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/news/story?id=5162380&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

Interesting....

Hmm, like has been mentioned plenty of times before, if the federal government would enforce existing immigration laws, Arizona and other states wouldn't have this problem.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/news/story?id=5162380&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

Interesting....

i think i saw something to about the MLB doing something, not sure what though.

Glory Days wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/news/story?id=5162380&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

Interesting....

i think i saw something to about the MLB doing something, not sure what though.

The 2011 All-Star game is in Arizona. There was some talk of moving it or players not playing in it. July 2011 is a long way off though.

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

LJ wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Yes it is. "He looked suspicious" or "he seemed like he was about to commit a crime" those things have been accepted in courts before so I imagine that would carry over to this case.

Which seems absurd to me that they can seize and search you because they think you're going to do something in the future.

cop observes a guy wearing a ski mask standing against the wall infront of a bank.....its 90 degrees outside. something doesnt fit and thats what is meant by about to commit a crime.

Cop observes a group of menwalking down the street who are dirty and speaking Spanish.

Cop observes a group of men speaking Spanish and obtaining work outside of a home depot.

i am not a lawyer, but i dont think the first one fits reasonable suspicion. unless maybe the street they were on was leading out of mexico. second one might if there had been previous incidents of illegal aliens being there before.

Speaking Spanish and having dirt on you is reasonable suspicion?

Hopefully all the Spanish teachers in Arizona don't like to do any gardening.

you are missing a key part of reasonable suspicion. totality of the circumstances.

its not just having dirt on you. its your location, where you seem to be headed and where you were coming from. do they look dehydrated like that had been in the desert for a few weeks etc.

the spanish teacher trying to garden wouldnt have a problem, he/she isnt trying to get work outside the front doors of home depot. do the people slink away when the cops drive by? have there been known illegals getting work there before?

And police would never use "reasonable" suspicion illegitimately for all the wrong reasons.

And police would never use "reasonable" suspicion illegitimately for all the wrong reasons.

How is this law any different than what happens now? Just because this is about illegal immigration, it's suddenly bad? You honestly think cops can't and don't currently do the same things everyone is whining about for this bill? Where is all the outrage before this? It's a bunch of hypocritical political bullshit. Plain and simple. Cops, if they want to, can find a reason to pull over and question anyone right now. The outrage over this bill, that is purely so Arizona police can enforce current federal laws, is completely outrageous. If the federal government or anyone else has a problem with states passing laws like this, than the people need to force our government to secure the borders, otherwise the states will do it themselves. I don't understand the outrage from citizens in this country legally. It will be absolutely NO different than what currently goes on everyday in this country.

I Wear Pants wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

LJ wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Yes it is. "He looked suspicious" or "he seemed like he was about to commit a crime" those things have been accepted in courts before so I imagine that would carry over to this case.

Which seems absurd to me that they can seize and search you because they think you're going to do something in the future.

cop observes a guy wearing a ski mask standing against the wall infront of a bank.....its 90 degrees outside. something doesnt fit and thats what is meant by about to commit a crime.

Cop observes a group of menwalking down the street who are dirty and speaking Spanish.

Cop observes a group of men speaking Spanish and obtaining work outside of a home depot.

i am not a lawyer, but i dont think the first one fits reasonable suspicion. unless maybe the street they were on was leading out of mexico. second one might if there had been previous incidents of illegal aliens being there before.

Speaking Spanish and having dirt on you is reasonable suspicion?

Hopefully all the Spanish teachers in Arizona don't like to do any gardening.

you are missing a key part of reasonable suspicion. totality of the circumstances.

its not just having dirt on you. its your location, where you seem to be headed and where you were coming from. do they look dehydrated like that had been in the desert for a few weeks etc.

the spanish teacher trying to garden wouldnt have a problem, he/she isnt trying to get work outside the front doors of home depot. do the people slink away when the cops drive by? have there been known illegals getting work there before?

And police would never use "reasonable" suspicion illegitimately for all the wrong reasons.

checks and balances, it would get thrown out in court if they did.

tk421 wrote:How is this law any different than what happens now?

Currently you do not have to prove your citizenship.

tk421 wrote:Just because this is about illegal immigration, it's suddenly bad? You honestly think cops can't and don't currently do the same things everyone is whining about for this bill? Where is all the outrage before this?

Why would anyone have been outraged before?

tk421 wrote:It's a bunch of hypocritical political bullshit. Plain and simple. Cops, if they want to, can find a reason to pull over and question anyone right now.

You do have to have a drivers license to drive. Now they can make you prove your a citizen when you're walking down the street.

tk421 wrote:The outrage over this bill, that is purely so Arizona police can enforce current federal laws, is completely outrageous. If the federal government or anyone else has a problem with states passing laws like this, than the people need to force our government to secure the borders, otherwise the states will do it themselves.

This law does nothing to secure the border. It will only try to catch them after they're already in Arizona.

tk421 wrote:I don't understand the outrage from citizens in this country legally. It will be absolutely NO different than what currently goes on everyday in this country.

Currently as a US citizen I have a presumption of innocence. This law makes me have to prove that I am here legally. I shouldn't have to do that.

FatHobbit wrote: Currently as a US citizen I have a presumption of innocence. This law makes me have to prove that I am here legally. I shouldn't have to do that.

You live in Arizona?

majorspark wrote:

FatHobbit wrote: Currently as a US citizen I have a presumption of innocence. This law makes me have to prove that I am here legally. I shouldn't have to do that.

You live in Arizona?

No, but I may travel there from time to time.

FatHobbit wrote:

majorspark wrote:

FatHobbit wrote: Currently as a US citizen I have a presumption of innocence. This law makes me have to prove that I am here legally. I shouldn't have to do that.

You live in Arizona?

No, but I may travel there from time to time.

Just don't make eye contact with the man. Wear an "I am a gringo" t-shirt. Or if you are really worried you can purchase a gringo mask. I hear they are selling like tacos.

http://gringomask.com/

FatHobbit wrote: You do have to have a drivers license to drive. Now they can make you prove your a citizen when you're walking down the street.

thats false. they still need a reason to stop you and ask about your citizenship.

Glory Days wrote:

FatHobbit wrote: You do have to have a drivers license to drive. Now they can make you prove your a citizen when you're walking down the street.

thats false. they still need a reason to stop you and ask about your citizenship.

That's why I don't understand the fuss. It's not like cops can't and don't already come up with lame excuses to stop/interact with someone if they think they're doing something shady. It will be no different in Arizona. Cops aren't just going to go up to every person on the street and say "Papers, please". It's really a non issue. If you are in the country legally, why would you be against the state enforcing federal law?

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/news/story?id=5162380&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

Interesting....

That's lame. Those guys have a right to their opinion, but did any of those legal experts stop to think that the Ariz law is not:

A) anti-Hispanic
B) anti-Mexican
C) anti-Latino
D) anti-foreigner
E) anti-different-color-skin-than-white
F) anti-immigration
G) anti-civil liberties

but rather that it's anti-illegal immigration and pro-law
enforcement?
My favorite quote from the article (and I've read this so many places I want to throw up):

The measure makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally

Imagine that- it's now a "crime" to do something "illegally"! So let me get this straight, before the Ariz law, it was legal to be here illegally, but now it's illegal to be here illegally. Makes sense:huh:

Another great ESPN article:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5152397

Did any of the ESPN reporters bother to ask those legal experts with the MLB Players Union what should be done about illegal immigration? No way, just continue to feed the propaganda machine and the racial uproar.
And LOL at Ozzie Guillen, pal of Hugo Chavez, lecturing us on civil liberties and freedom from unnecessary government intrusion.

tk421 wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

FatHobbit wrote: You do have to have a drivers license to drive. Now they can make you prove your a citizen when you're walking down the street.

thats false. they still need a reason to stop you and ask about your citizenship.

That's why I don't understand the fuss. It's not like cops can't and don't already come up with lame excuses to stop/interact with someone if they think they're doing something shady. It will be no different in Arizona. Cops aren't just going to go up to every person on the street and say "Papers, please". It's really a non issue. If you are in the country legally, why would you be against the state enforcing federal law?

Because they shouldn't be able to ask me to prove I'm a citizen. You could use the same logic to argue against the 4th amendment. If you're not breaking the law, why do you care if they look through your house? Because they shouldn't be able to.

FatHobbit wrote:

tk421 wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

FatHobbit wrote: You do have to have a drivers license to drive. Now they can make you prove your a citizen when you're walking down the street.

thats false. they still need a reason to stop you and ask about your citizenship.

That's why I don't understand the fuss. It's not like cops can't and don't already come up with lame excuses to stop/interact with someone if they think they're doing something shady. It will be no different in Arizona. Cops aren't just going to go up to every person on the street and say "Papers, please". It's really a non issue. If you are in the country legally, why would you be against the state enforcing federal law?

Because they shouldn't be able to ask me to prove I'm a citizen. You could use the same logic to argue against the 4th amendment. If you're not breaking the law, why do you care if they look through your house? Because they shouldn't be able to.

Neither can be done without a reason for doing it

Said Cleveland Indians coach Sandy Alomar Jr., whose team trains in Goodyear, Ariz.: "Certainly I am against profiling any race and having sterotypes, but at the same time my feeling is what does baseball have to do with politics? Let the politicians stay in politics and the baseball players play baseball."

best part of the article.

Guillen, from Venezuela, became an American citizen in 2006.

second best part.

Al Bundy wrote:

FatHobbit wrote:

tk421 wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

FatHobbit wrote: You do have to have a drivers license to drive. Now they can make you prove your a citizen when you're walking down the street.

thats false. they still need a reason to stop you and ask about your citizenship.

That's why I don't understand the fuss. It's not like cops can't and don't already come up with lame excuses to stop/interact with someone if they think they're doing something shady. It will be no different in Arizona. Cops aren't just going to go up to every person on the street and say "Papers, please". It's really a non issue. If you are in the country legally, why would you be against the state enforcing federal law?

Because they shouldn't be able to ask me to prove I'm a citizen. You could use the same logic to argue against the 4th amendment. If you're not breaking the law, why do you care if they look through your house? Because they shouldn't be able to.

Neither can be done without a reason for doing it

i'll repeat this since not everyone seems to get it.

[size=xx-large]Neither can be done without a reason for doing it[/size]