U.S. Says Sheriff Could Face Prosecution for Releasing Immigrant

[j-mac]

Refusal to cooperate with law enforcement request is not obstruction.

Refusal to comply with lawful orders is obstruction.

ICE detainers are not orders. They are requests.

There is a significant difference.

If there is a written warrant from a Judge to remove the individual, it absolutely then becomes a lawful order.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Refusal to cooperate with law enforcement request is not obstruction.

Yes it is.

By action or inaction.

If I stand in the way of an officer trying to apprehend a criminal, when I had control over the information or influence over the criminal, that's obstruction. Obstruction whereby refusing to offer information (inaction) or actively setting up barriers (action) to directly interfere with the enforcement of justice.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Try it fascist.

Careful what you wish for.

 

[Edgetho]

He should be stripped of his authority and sent to jail. These people are traitors.




“The Justice Department called for an investigation of a sheriff in Ithaca, N.Y., who had released an undocumented man who was later arrested by federal agents.”

U.S. Says Sheriff Could Face Prosecution for Releasing Immigrant

The Justice Department called for an investigation of a sheriff in Ithaca, N.Y., who had released an undocumented man who was later arrested by federal agents.

www.nytimes.com

Why should we spend our money to try to make a shithole (New Yawk) into something other than a shithole?

We could spend TRILLIONS on New Yawk and as soon as the money ran out, it would become a shithole again. Because -- It's the PEOPLE that are shit, the voters, NOT the politicians per se. dimocrap FILTH vote those scumbags into Office for the most part. Once they get in, they make sure they are never replaced but, initially they are voted into Office consciously by a STUPID electorate. So --

Fuck 'em. In the ass

If it turns out that one of their pieces of shit gets loose and commits a violent crime in a Free (Red) State, then we should go after scumbags like that elected Dudley Do-Right.

Until then -- Fuck 'em. In the ass.

They shit their own bed, let them sleep in it.

 

[Marener]

Yes it is.

By action or inaction.

If I stand in the way of an officer trying to apprehend a criminal, when I had control over the information or influence over the criminal, that's obstruction. Obstruction whereby refusing to offer information (inaction) or actively setting up barriers (action) to directly interfere with the enforcement of justice.

You are not required to offer information to an officer. They can ask. You are not obligated to tell. Standing in the way of a cop would be obstruction, but an ICE detainer is more akin to a cop asking you to tackle a fleeing criminal than standing in their way.

 

[Marener]

If there is a written warrant from a Judge to remove the individual, it absolutely then becomes a lawful order.

You expect us to believe your political hacks are telling the truth? Give me a break.

 

[j-mac]

We need to get Grassley, and the Republican's in the House on board with giving ICE Detainers the teeth of a warrant for arrest....

 

[TemplarKormac]

You are not required to offer information to an officer.

Yes, you are, if you have direct power over what the criminal does within your jurisdiction. Guess what? That means governors and mayors.

Or in my scenario, anyone with palpable influence over the offender.

 

[WEATHER53]

If there is a written warrant from a Judge to remove the individual, it absolutely then becomes a lawful order.

Moroner feels laws about removing illegals are optional to abide by

 

[j-mac]

You expect us to believe your political hacks are telling the truth? Give me a break.

So, let me get this straight, you're saying that if a judge has issued a removal warrant, and ICE is tasked with finding that individual and removing them, that the state law enforcement, or Govs, and Mayors still don't have to comply? IS that what you're saying?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, let me get this straight, you're saying that if a judge has issued a removal warrant, and ICE is tasked with finding that individual and removing them, that the state law enforcement, or Govs, and Mayors still don't have to comply? IS that what you're saying?

That is exactly what he's saying.

 

[WEATHER53]

You are not required to offer information to an officer. They can ask. You are not obligated to tell. Standing in the way of a cop would be obstruction, but an ICE detainer is more akin to a cop asking you to tackle a fleeing criminal than standing in their way.

If a cop asks did you did you just see that man With a gun just run by, you are lawfully obligated to respond.

 

[Marener]

So, let me get this straight, you're saying that if a judge has issued a removal warrant, and ICE is tasked with finding that individual and removing them, that the state law enforcement, or Govs, and Mayors still don't have to comply? IS that what you're saying?

Define what you mean by comply.

 

[Marener]

If a cop asks did you did you just see that man With a gun just run by, you are lawfully obligated to respond.

Where does the constitution say that?

 

[j-mac]

Define what you mean by comply.

Comply is what it means.....What don't you understand about Compliance?

 

[BackAgain]

He should be stripped of his authority and sent to jail. These people are traitors.




“The Justice Department called for an investigation of a sheriff in Ithaca, N.Y., who had released an undocumented man who was later arrested by federal agents.”

U.S. Says Sheriff Could Face Prosecution for Releasing Immigrant

The Justice Department called for an investigation of a sheriff in Ithaca, N.Y., who had released an undocumented man who was later arrested by federal agents.

www.nytimes.com

Bad time to make an example of yourself.

 

[Marener]

Comply is what it means.....What don't you understand about Compliance?

Comply doesn't tell me what you're expecting them to do. "Comply" is meaningless unless we know what you are demanding.

Tell me what ICE expected the sheriff to do in to "comply".

You guys really don't do great thinking for yourselves. Like, anything even remotely abstract just confuses you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Define what you mean by comply.

He doesn't need to.

Compliance in this case means that when a judge issues an order for removal, compels local and state law enforcement to carry it out, not just ICE itself.

 

[Marener]

Compliance in this case means that when a judge issues an order for removal, compels local and state law enforcement to carry it out, not just ICE itself.

Nope. Local and state law enforcement do not remove illegal immigrants. What are you expecting the sheriff to do? Charter a flight and fly them to Mexico?

ICE will carry out the removal. Obviously.

Want to try again?

 

[j-mac]

Comply doesn't tell me what you're expecting them to do. "Comply" is meaningless unless we know what you are demanding.

Well, shocking enough for me, I looked it up, and a Sherriff doesn't have to comply with a Federal Judges order. That's crazy.

I'd bet money you felt different during the whole Sherriff Arpiao fiasco....But anyway...

Tell me what ICE expected the sheriff to do in to "comply".

Hold that person so that ICE could do their job as tasked by the Federal Judge that ordered the man deported from the country.

You guys really don't do great thinking for yourselves. Like, anything even remotely abstract just confuses you.

Yeah, ok....That make you feel better?