Protests against AZ's immigration law turn violent.

[Harry Dresden]

Truth sure is quiet all the sudden.

Her argument gets destroyed and she putzes off to the corner to cry.

she probably is doing to herself what she told Sherry to do earlier......hey....what the hell....if i was a girl and i had a dildo i would probably be doing myself too....

 

[Samson]

Truth sure is quiet all the sudden.

Her argument gets destroyed and she putzes off to the corner to cry.

she probably is doing to herself what she told Sherry to do earlier......hey....what the hell....if i was a girl and i had a dildo i would probably be doing myself too....

As long as you're fantasizing, could you include an octopus in the picture?

 

[Vast LWC]

Well, no... The law makes it a crime to not arrest a person who is unable to establish their citizenship bona fides; any state ID would get it done... If they're not a citizen, they are required to have a green card other such documentation.

Where there is sufficient and reasonable evidence which provides for the reasonable belief that they are not in the US legally, then they damn well should be arrested...

Those trying to blame Arizona for a problem caused by illegal immigration and it's advocates, is an idiot; without regard to their skin color, heavy accent, dark hair, brown eyes or the lack there of...

But it is HYSTERICAL to watch the Progressives rant on and ON about the predictable results of their long standing regressive policy. They've been advocating for illegal immigration for DECADES; providing unlimited entitlements to illegals; and now want to feign hysterical OUTRAGE that the states who been saddled with the budget busting, culture killing tab for those tender feelings are FINALLY DETERMINED TO ENFORCE THE DAMN LAW!

Even MORE hilarious when it's a Progressive governor doing so, in a last ditch attempt to gain some political momentum, long since lost due to the inaction which has resulted in THOUSANDS of kidnappings, murders, assualts, rapes, thefts, home-invasions and other general thuggeries...

OK, tell me how that's NOT assuming people are guilty until proven innocent.

Here, let me illustrate my point in your own words:

The law makes it a crime to not arrest a person who is unable to establish their citizenship bona fides

or.... Guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Vast LWC]

I'm sorry, but that second to last paragraph is exactly what the Nazis used to say in their propaganda productions.

To be clear, I'm not calling you a Nazi, and I don't mean to imply that you are in any way a Nazi, but you just essentially said:

"If you're not guilty than you don't have anything to worry about. Only the guilty will be arrested."

I've seen a propaganda video from WWII Germany that said almost those exact same words, I'll see if I can find it.

Jeez, not another "the nazis said the same thing" defense.

I apologized for that two posts later.

 

[Meister]

So because they were "violent", does that mean the right is off the hook?

And do you know for a fact these people claim to be in any political party? It looks to me, that a certain ethnic group, NOT politcal party is protesting here.

That ethnic group voted primarily for Obama in the last election.
It kind of reminds me how the left has labeled the Tea Party, see the irony?

That same ethnic group voted for Dubya when he was running. So, is your point that they must be independents?

REALLY????? Another yarn by a liberal.

These 20 states account for 91 percent of the nation’s Hispanic population. Respondents, including 3,586 Hispanics, completed 35,891 short-form surveys. Within this 20-state set, George W. Bush won the votes of 41.28 percent of Hispanic respondents polled, compared to 57.47 for John Kerry. But the NEP sampled battleground states more heavily than non-battleground states. Rebalancing the Hispanic totals for Bush and Kerry state-by-state to reflect the Hispanic population in each relative to the total Hispanic population for the 20-state set, Bush won 38.07 percent of the Hispanic vote, compared to 59.67 for Kerry.Richard Nadler on Hispanic Vote & Election 2004 on National Review Online

Care to respond?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Liberal bloggers spreading misinformation about this new law in AZ. Who would have thunk that?

Just saw an interview with an AZ sheriff...he states "We MUST have lawful contact with a person BEFORE we can ask them for citizenship/legal residence status."
Obviously 99.9% of the anti-AZ immigration enforcement law clowns cannot read or chose NOT to read the law that was passed in AZ. It's easier to read Huffington, get all riled up, head to downtown Phoenix and throw rocks at the police.
Do any of you lawyers out there care to comment on this?

Funny...the liberals always laud the police, entrust them with the power to take lives when necessary and now, all of a sudden, they don't trust them to follow what is written into federal, state and local ordinances. Why is it liberals spread disinformation and promote the division of our country?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Truth sure is quiet all the sudden.

Her argument gets destroyed and she putzes off to the corner to cry.

she probably is doing to herself what she told Sherry to do earlier......hey....what the hell....if i was a girl and i had a dildo i would probably be doing myself too....

As long as you're fantasizing, could you include an octopus in the picture?

only if its good looking and has a couple of nice tetas...

 

[tigerbob]

she probably is doing to herself what she told Sherry to do earlier......hey....what the hell....if i was a girl and i had a dildo i would probably be doing myself too....

As long as you're fantasizing, could you include an octopus in the picture?

only if its good looking and has a couple of nice tetas...

 

[Samson]

she probably is doing to herself what she told Sherry to do earlier......hey....what the hell....if i was a girl and i had a dildo i would probably be doing myself too....

As long as you're fantasizing, could you include an octopus in the picture?

only if its good looking and has a couple of nice tetas...

"tetas?"

 

[Vast LWC]

Liberal bloggers spreading misinformation about this new law in AZ. Who would have thunk that?

Just saw an interview with an AZ sheriff...he states "We MUST have lawful contact with a person BEFORE we can ask them for citizenship/legal residence status."
Obviously 99.9% of the anti-AZ immigration enforcement law clowns cannot read or chose NOT to read the law that was passed in AZ. It's easier to read Huffington, get all riled up, head to downtown Phoenix and throw rocks at the police.
Do any of you lawyers out there care to comment on this?

Funny...the liberals always laud the police, entrust them with the power to take lives when necessary and now, all of a sudden, they don't trust them to follow what is written into federal, state and local ordinances. Why is it liberals spread disinformation and promote the division of our country?

Ahh, I think I see where the communication issue lies.

You are interpreting "Lawful Contact" to mean investigation of another crime.

But the law does not specifically state what such "Lawful Contact" encompasses.

In other words, the "lawful contact" could be any situation in which a police officer would normally talk to a person.

Since being an illegal immigrant is in fact a crime, the police officer could be making "Lawful Contact" because they suspect the person of being an illegal alien.

See how that works?

 

[tigerbob]

Liberal bloggers spreading misinformation about this new law in AZ. Who would have thunk that?

Just saw an interview with an AZ sheriff...he states "We MUST have lawful contact with a person BEFORE we can ask them for citizenship/legal residence status."
Obviously 99.9% of the anti-AZ immigration enforcement law clowns cannot read or chose NOT to read the law that was passed in AZ. It's easier to read Huffington, get all riled up, head to downtown Phoenix and throw rocks at the police.
Do any of you lawyers out there care to comment on this?

Funny...the liberals always laud the police, entrust them with the power to take lives when necessary and now, all of a sudden, they don't trust them to follow what is written into federal, state and local ordinances. Why is it liberals spread disinformation and promote the division of our country?

Ahh, I think I see where the communication issue lies.

You are interpreting "Lawful Contact" to mean investigation of another crime.

But the law does not specifically state what such "Lawful Contact" encompasses.

In other words, the "lawful contact" could be any situation in which a police officer would normally talk to a person.

Since being an illegal immigrant is in fact a crime, the police officer could be making "Lawful Contact" because they suspect the person of being an illegal alien.

See how that works?

With which your problem presumably is that the police might develop this suspicion based solely on racial profile, correct?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Liberal bloggers spreading misinformation about this new law in AZ. Who would have thunk that?

Just saw an interview with an AZ sheriff...he states "We MUST have lawful contact with a person BEFORE we can ask them for citizenship/legal residence status."
Obviously 99.9% of the anti-AZ immigration enforcement law clowns cannot read or chose NOT to read the law that was passed in AZ. It's easier to read Huffington, get all riled up, head to downtown Phoenix and throw rocks at the police.
Do any of you lawyers out there care to comment on this?

Funny...the liberals always laud the police, entrust them with the power to take lives when necessary and now, all of a sudden, they don't trust them to follow what is written into federal, state and local ordinances. Why is it liberals spread disinformation and promote the division of our country?

Ahh, I think I see where the communication issue lies.

You are interpreting "Lawful Contact" to mean investigation of another crime.

But the law does not specifically state what such "Lawful Contact" encompasses.

In other words, the "lawful contact" could be any situation in which a police officer would normally talk to a person.

Since being an illegal immigrant is in fact a crime, the police officer could be making "Lawful Contact" because they suspect the person of being an illegal alien.

See how that works?

You do NOT know the definition of "lawful contact".

See how that works?

I'll take the word of several top law enforcement officials before I'll take the word of someone who doesn't know the definition of lawful contact and has a political agenda.

 

[Truthmatters]

Walking down the street an officer sees you while you happen to be wearing your brown skin today (it just goes so well with my favorite shorts). The officer stops to ask you if you had seen a brown man running this way. He then notices the brown skin you happened to be wearing today and asks you if you have your papers for wearing brown skin in Arizona.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Walking down the street an officer sees you while you happen to be wearing your brown skin today (it just goes so well with my favorite shorts). The officer stops to ask you if you had seen a brown man running this way. He then notices the brown skin you happened to be wearing today and asks you if you have your papers for wearing brown skin in Arizona.

LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES.

You post them, you live them.

 

[Vast LWC]

With which your problem presumably is that the police might develop this suspicion based solely on racial profile, correct?

That is half the problem.

The other half is that NO citizen should be arrested just because they're not carrying ID. That is what this law entails.

Mexican, European, Zimbabwean, it doesn't matter, the point is that requiring people to carry "their papers" everywhere they go, and then arresting them if they do not, is a very scary, totalitarian prospect.

This sets a very dangerous legal precedent, that can easily be turned to use in other circumstances.

 

[Vast LWC]

You do NOT know the definition of "lawful contact".

See how that works?

I'll take the word of several top law enforcement officials before I'll take the word of someone who doesn't know the definition of lawful contact and has a political agenda.

Actually, you are partially correct.

I did not in fact know the definition of "Lawful Contact", until you all started pointing out that clause, and so I looked it up. I DID in fact know the definition of "Lawful Contact" when I wrote that post.

Up until I looked up the definition, honestly I assumed "lawful contact" just meant that they had to walk up and start talking to the person in question in a "lawful" way. That is not the case.

But just for the sake of argument, why don't you enlighten us.

What, in your opinion, is the definition of "Lawful Contact"?

 

[Samson]

With which your problem presumably is that the police might develop this suspicion based solely on racial profile, correct?

That is half the problem.

The other half is that NO citizen should be arrested just because they're not carrying ID. That is what this law entails.

Mexican, European, Zimbabwean, it doesn't matter, the point is that requiring people to carry "their papers" everywhere they go, and then arresting them if they do not, is a very scary, totalitarian prospect.

This sets a very dangerous legal precedent, that can easily be turned to use in other circumstances.

"Other circumstances," like what?

 

[Meister]

With which your problem presumably is that the police might develop this suspicion based solely on racial profile, correct?

That is half the problem.

The other half is that NO citizen should be arrested just because they're not carrying ID. That is what this law entails.

Mexican, European, Zimbabwean, it doesn't matter, the point is that requiring people to carry "their papers" everywhere they go, and then arresting them if they do not, is a very scary, totalitarian prospect.

This sets a very dangerous legal precedent, that can easily be turned to use in other circumstances.

From my understanding, no citizen is arrested for no ID, they are detained until their identification is determined. With your wish....all the felons wouldn't carry an ID, and just keep walking.

 

[tigerbob]

With which your problem presumably is that the police might develop this suspicion based solely on racial profile, correct?

That is half the problem.

The other half is that NO citizen should be arrested just because they're not carrying ID. That is what this law entails.

Mexican, European, Zimbabwean, it doesn't matter, the point is that requiring people to carry "their papers" everywhere they go, and then arresting them if they do not, is a very scary, totalitarian prospect.

This sets a very dangerous legal precedent, that can easily be turned to use in other circumstances.

I agree that no citizen should be arrested for not carrying ID. I, on the other hand, can be. It's something that as a non citizen I just have to deal with.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

You do NOT know the definition of "lawful contact".

See how that works?

I'll take the word of several top law enforcement officials before I'll take the word of someone who doesn't know the definition of lawful contact and has a political agenda.

Actually, you are partially correct.

I did not in fact know the definition of "Lawful Contact", until you all started pointing out that clause, and so I looked it up. I DID in fact know the definition of "Lawful Contact" when I wrote that post.

Up until I looked up the definition, honestly I assumed "lawful contact" just meant that they had to walk up and start talking to the person in question in a "lawful" way. That is not the case.

But just for the sake of argument, why don't you enlighten us.

What, in your opinion, is the definition of "Lawful Contact"?

Lawful contact, as stated in the Arizona immigration law, means a law enforcement official MUST have stopped a person for an infraction/crime OTHER THAN THE SUSPICION THAT THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS BEFORE they can challenge any documents presented by the perpetrator or challenge their legal residence status due to no ID.
This is what's written in the law.