20
May
10

Me vs. SB1070

Periodically I get into debates that amuse me. In the last two days I have been debating on Facebook over SB1070. Despite my earlier post saying that I was “against it” (for reasons that are not immediate)… I am debating pro-SB1070. Below is the conversation.

Original Post: Link to “anti bill 1070 art instalation – am i illegal” and says “pro immigration and anti racial profiling art instalation – blood sweat.”

Vickie L. Murph: I think that the law fosters racial profiling.

Estee Arie: and your right vickiei it does. it just doesnt feel right – it feels wrong. thats why i chose to do an art installation about it – i had to do something.

Vickie L. Murph: My cousin lives in Goodyear. That is really scary almost like Hitler.

Estee Arie: its like a page right out of that unfortunate time. i was serious about getting my basement ready – thats scary.

Vickie L. Murph: It really is.

Kyle Huwer: I still don’t see where it fosters any sort of racial profiling.

All it does is allow the police, when they stop you for a primary offense, to confirm your eligibility to be here. If you provide the documentation, then you are legal and may leave.

How is that wrong? Show me in the bill where it promotes what you say it does. Until then, this is all your opinion.

Kyle Huwer: Every time you are stopped, you provide evidence of your legality. Correct?

Randall Richard: true that-she won’t find you proof-because it doesn’t say this-its a opinion – a guess you can say. I think alot people our on some kick right now-Its about a image there trying to represent.
Its not profiling when you need your Id for everything anyway-you can’t drive your car, go to the doctor, drink or anything with out it. Get off the band wagon -I say.

Randon Jenkins: Yeah a drivers license isn’t proof of citizenship, Kyle and Randall when was the last time you were stopped by the police while taking a run in your neighborhood. If you don’t think this immigration law is legal racial profiling, then I ask you to explain what give’s you reasonable suspicion of someone’s illegal citizenship status?

Randon Jenkins: Actually Kyle there is nothing in the law about a primary offense.

Estee Arie: i posted the bill on my page. ill be highlighting it inbetween work , and my cousins graduation – prob over the weekend or so. im not hindering your right to post your opinions – not sure why all the frustration – this is an open forum and im against racial profiling – not giving identification when it is needed – yes – we have to do that anyway and it is by law you have to have ID on you @ all times – that was never the problem??? i have a problem with someone asking for my ID because of how i look or carry myself – that is racial profiling and a violation of my civil rights and i feel i have had enough with my civil rights being stripped more and more every day. now – im going back to work. the bill is down more if you would like to read it.

Kyle Huwer: @Randon: To obtain a Arizona driver’s licence you have to have a SSN. Only a person authorized to be here can have a SSN. So, YES, if you have a Arizona driver’s licence, you have to be legal.

AGAIN I ask you where it says in the bill that we are to be stopped for nothing other than race. I’ll be looking for your highlighting.

Kyle Huwer: @Randon: ARS 11-1051(B), “FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL… A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON”

Seems to certainly suggest a primary offense to me!

Kyle Huwer: @Randon: ARS 11-1051(B), “A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.”

It seems that the bill specifically says that a Arizona DL is proof. And this is in agreement with what I said about the SSNs versus an Arizona DL.

Estee Arie: WHEN PRACTICABLE- thats @ there discretion – they decide. there is no boundaries there, it allows racial profiling if PRACTICABLE to that police officer. there are other points to but im swamped with work – this weekend ill be highlighting it – please keep throwing points out there :)

Estee Arie: identification as i said has never been the problem with the bill for me.

Kyle Huwer: So officers are allowed to operate as they always have… with discretion.

A presumption that individual officers will employ the law in a discriminatory manner is both speculative and irrelevant to the question of Constitutionality.

Kyle Huwer: Estee, have you or anyone you know ever been stopped by an officer… and were clearly breaking the law (i.e. speeding) and were let go… because of the discretion of the officer?

Estee Arie: Ive never been let out of a ticket- i already believe officers profile – i don’t wish to give them a licence to lawfully do so. your not guilty till proven innocent- further more i believe in protecting civil rights no matter how large or small- there ours.
Yesterday at 8:56pm

Randon Jenkins: Kyle you seem to be intelligent, I refuse to believe you are that naive. If you are, stay in that happy little paradise, because there is a world of shit out here that would blow your mind. Estee you were right, deaf ears, cloudy vision, see no evil, hear no evil. I usually don’t go here, but Kyle you need to read what the Jews said about the Nazi’s while they were being murdered, hell read what the World said.

Kyle Huwer: Estee: You only answered half my question. Do you know anyone else? (BTW: If you think that we live in a world where we are “innocent until proven guilty” then you have obviously never dealt with the IRS!)

Randon. Naive in what? Don’t lecture me with opinions… tell me facts. I’ve asked time and time again on this post as well as others – where does this bill specifically encourage or command racial profiling? Furthermore, don’t imply shit with me. If you have something to “school” me on, then say it. Provide me with quotes, language and expert opinions as a true debater would. Don’t set me up with this straw-man argument that I don’t know history. You have no idea what I know.

Estee Arie: i know we live in a world where we are guilty until proven innocent- thats why i want every right i can hold on to – as far as getting deep i have said i will be highlighting later this weekend im working – packing – and dealing with my oral surgery i had this week – so my plate – little full ahahahahaah i answered the part that i care most about – the rest will have to wait – hugyz kyle :)

Estee Arie: randon – we get eachother.

Randon Jenkins: Look dude given the push on the Mexican/US border it is highly likely that they are not looking for European Illegals, next The new bill lets cops go off reasonable suspicion of illegal status, no primary offense, now I ask again how you would determine illegal status, you never answered that? Secondly Kyle, people of color are always prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but you wouldn’t know that, given your naive view that police use discretion, but I guess being of your color I can see how you arrived at that conclusion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/weekinreview/07glater.html

http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_stateratesofincbyraceandethnicity.pdf

Now as far as the Jew comment Its well known that while they were being killed in the most inhumane way most were saying no The Nazi’s wouldn’t do that, I can’t believe it, i.e your position now.

Now Kyle again I ask how would you determine one’s Illegal status.

Also prove this police discretion with minorities?

Jeeze don’t have a token minority friend to explain these things to you.

By the way Kyle I’ve got enough cop family and friends to know they profile, how else would they do their job. Why do you think home grown terrorist fair so well, no one’s looking for them.

Randall Richard: @randon and Estee-you want to know about discrimination-Im a male massage therapist-who really like his job but, can’t seem to find a job because they only hire female-on top of that a black. I get looked at alot.
@randon -I have been pulled over for a lots of b.s. especially for racial profiling in Phx(4) Tempe(1) and Scottsdale(2). The time frame is between the 80’s and now. I also defend my rights when I knw there pulling me over for some b.s. I don’t let them treat me that way. Shoot I know people that our police officer’s. As far as that goes know your rights. If you know your shit they won’t mess with you. The police are simple -they always use the Jedi mind trick on people to make say shit. They always make you repeat words.
The reason blacks alway have a hard time -we always ran from the police. We look guilty all the time. I stand my ground, that the white side of me. So I know all about being profiled.
Kyle is right -you two only see the negative of this bill-your not telling the whole story behind the story. I believe in facts as well-and if you can’t provide me with the facts you shut your pie hole. Thats not my opinion its a fact.

Kyle Huwer: @Randon: So because you BELIEVE that it is “highly likely that they are not looking for European illegals,” this means that they are automatically looking for Mexicans… AND the law is written that way… AND that is how it will be enforced?

If I am reading you correctly, that is your OPINION. I still want to know where this law specifically says to profile!!!

RE: how would I determine illegal status? Well, this law seems to do that. If you get pulled over or stopped for something else, the “LAWFUL CONTACT” as I mentioned before, the PRIMARY OFFENSE as I call it… they have a right to stop you and identify you.

8 U.S.C. § 1304, specifically states for aliens, “Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section”

So guess what, if you wern’t born here (an alien as defined 8 U.S.C § 1101)… US FEDERAL LAW already says that you MUST carry something that identifies that you are here legally.

Furthermore Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) held that suspects had to identify themselves and that them identifying themselves did not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments!

I state again on the note of lawful contact… Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) the US SUPREME COURT decided that police are allowed to stop anyone if they have “SPECIFIC AND ARTICULATE FACTS.”

So what does this mean in regards to this law? If a cop stops a Mexican for the fun of it, and finds out that they are illegal and takes them in… what “specific and articulate facts” are they going to write down for the basis of their lawful stop? With this already being a hot topic, you know that lawyers are going to throw this out in defense like a hot soup to a homeless person! So… this means that if a cop pulls someone over, they better damn well have a primary cause… and legality is a secondary.

So simply, to answer your question, if you are stopped, carry your ID or papers. The cop under Hiibel and Terry have the right to know who you are. If you are never stopped, and are illegal, then we never will know. Period.

Kyle Huwer: First off, I don’t appreciate the ad hominem attacks by you. “I guess being of your color I can see how you arrived at that conclusion” is neither constructive or adult in this conversation. Do you care to debate facts or are you going to bring my skin color and/or sex into this debate to try to attack my person, like a racist would?

I am providing you with court cases and laws from the United States Code, as written. I expect the same from you, not just personal attacks on who I am.

Quit judging my beliefs on my skin color. Stop the adhominem attacks. I’ve already asked you twice now…

Kyle Huwer: RE: NY Times article… WHAT ABOUT IT? I hate it when people link articles and don’t tell me what supports them or what evidence they are using from that article to rebut me.

To illustrate my point, here is a website for you. http://www.yahoo.com.

Yeah, rebutt that. I’ll comment on those articles as soon as you give me something to rebut.

Randon Jenkins: What about the second one many references to lots of research on racial disparities in the Justice system. Just answer the question how are you going to pick the illegals from the legals? Answer that and I’ll shut the fuck up, and there is nothing in the law about a primary offense.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Randon Jenkins: Come on dude, I knew you’d pick the weakest article and leave the research alone, that shit scares you doesnt it.

Kyle Huwer: RE: The Germans knew about what was going on in the Holocaust. NO DOUBT. However, how is that in equation to what I believe? Hitler was writing this in the newspaper step by step of what he was doing. He and the Nazi’s were proud of what was going on.

In this case, we are dealing with people that are illegal, BECAUSE THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW. Additionally, this laws is written, and I’ve asked you multiple times where does it say to racially profile. You have provided NO such instances. So, I can only assume that you are talking about “A presumption that individual officers will employ the law in a discriminatory manner is both speculative and irrelevant to the question of Constitutionality.”

RE: “Also prove this police discretion with minorities?” Prove WHAT? That *some* police are more racist than others? That *some* judges are more racist than others?

RE: “Jeeze don’t have a token minority friend to explain these things to you.” LOL. You obviously have *never* hung out with me.

RE: “By the way Kyle I’ve got enough cop family and friends to know they profile, how else would they do their job. Why do you think home grown terrorist fair so well, no one’s looking for them.” You are right, they do profile. They have to some extent. “Breaker breaker, we have a white man, 5’9″ wearing a green shirt, and driving a red car just rob a store.”

Guess what… we are now profiling people in search of someone that meets that description. So the question is… are you against profiling all together or just in cases that suit your argument?

Kyle Huwer: @Randall: This is exactly right. Know your rights and you will be fine. This is a fine example of a citizen knowing their rights and doing their *job* to enforce them when stopped.

How can we complain about our rights being violated when we don’t even know what they are or know how to lawfully stand up for those rights???

Kyle Huwer: A perfect example of this in reagards to the subject matter would be as follows.

Mexican is riding his bike down the street. Cop pulls him over. Mexican asks what he is being pulled over. Cop says because he was riding down the wrong side of the street and asks him for his identification. Mexican does give his ID, as mandated by law and by court case. Cop sees that he is legal but proceeds to ask questions (jedi mind tricks as Randall said to get you to admit stuff).

At this point, you have already provided what is needed. So either the cop has to let you go or detain you. So, you ask him, “am I being detained?” If he says no, then you may leave. If he says yes, then you ask why OR remain silent. At this point the cop needs to formulate his “probable cause” as I mentioned above (1. you are about to commit a crime,
2. you are in the act of committing a crime, 3. or
you have committed a crime). He needs to do this right now or he is in violation of this stop. So, stick around as you are being detained… and wait for him to either ARREST or RELEASE you.

Simple as that. However, most people would keep talking because they think they have to.

Kyle Huwer: @Randon: “What about the second one many references to lots of research on racial disparities in the Justice system.”

Have you ever debated before? In the normal course of a debate if you have something to provide in support of your position then you say, “I believe this and please read this in support of it.” You specifically state what it is you believe and then how the article supports your position.

If you do not do this then how am I supposed to rebut YOUR position?

Kyle Huwer: @Randon: “Just answer the question how are you going to pick the illegals from the legals?”

I;ve already answered this. When they are stopped for a primary offense then the law has the RIGHT to ask who they are and get identification through a “TERRY STOP.” Period. SB1070 allows the person to be detained and/or arrested if they cannot provide that information to the detaining/arresting officer.

So if you are never stopped, then you will never be caught if you are illegal. However, if you are stopped, the police now have the ability to detain you if cannot provide them with documentation. Period.

We never will get ALL the illegals. If that is what you want, then you are asking for an impossibility.

Randon Jenkins: No actually Hitler covered up everything he was doing, he frequently had Statesmen from Many Countries come and visit his camps, on those days things were normal prisoners were just working. Its an equation to your blindness real life and every law is not only what written but also interpretation, and you still did not answer how you would pick the illegals from the legals. Dude there is a guy named Ian Horsley from the UK who has a banking algorithm that pick out UK terrorist with a 99% accuracy. Out of 100 terrorist he can pick out 99 of them and one innocent person gets put through hell. not a problem right as long as your not the one right, But the UK has 50 million adults, so thats 500,000 innocent people put through hell. How many Legal Arizona residents are you going to put through hell. And all black people dont run from the cops, But lets flip that and ask why so many black people run from the cops. Anybody remember car 13 from montgomery alabama.

Randon Jenkins: the law has nothing in it about a primary offense, so get your facts right.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “Come on dude, I knew you’d pick the weakest article and leave the research alone, that shit scares you doesnt it.”

As I recall…
(1) It is ME who is providing the text of SB1070,
(2) It is ME who is providing text of the U.S.C.,
(3) It is me who is providing text from court cases.

What are you providing besides editorials of which you cannot even tell me why you are linking them?

Is it you who is scared of providing some “la carne” to this discussion?

We are debating the legality/Constitutionality of the law, but you cannot hold a single lawful argument against me. so what is it… are we arguing your opinions or this specific law?

Kyle Huwer: RE: “No actually Hitler covered up everything he was doing”

You are wrong. Please read http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/feb/17/johnezard

“The mass of ordinary Germans did know about the evolving terror of Hitler’s Holocaust, according to a new research study. They knew concentration camps were full of Jewish people who were stigmatised as sub-human and race-defilers. They knew that these, like other groups and minorities, were being killed out of hand.

They knew that Adolf Hitler had repeatedly forecast the extermination of every Jew on German soil. They knew these details because they had read about them. They knew because the camps and the measures which led up to them had been prominently and proudly reported step by step in thousands of officially-inspired German media articles and posters according to the study, which is due to be published simultaneously in Britain and the US early next month and which was described as ground-breaking by Oxford University Press yesterday and already hailed by other historians.”

Randon Jenkins: the website to the Arizona state bill from the Arizona state government in PDF form now let me post it a third time, again its in PDF format.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Kyle Huwer: RE: ” the website to the Arizona state bill from the Arizona state government in PDF form now let me post it a third time, again its in PDF format.”

I’ve read it. What are you pointing to?

Randon Jenkins: Really because I’ve got a whole Holocaust museum full of recorded testimonial, microfiche, and video over a timespan of the whole war up until now they are still interviewing up til this day, I invite you to visit. No one knew what they were doing until liberation, ask any US soldier who was was part of the liberation, they will tell you they were shocked.
4 hours ago

Kyle Huwer: RE: “No one knew what they were doing until liberation”

So the Guardian article lies? As well as the Oxford University Press? And their display that was mentioned above?

Randon Jenkins: first hand recounts vs editorials, I thought you were the scholar.

Randon Jenkins: You ever sit down during a historical recording with a holocaust survivor.

Randon Jenkins: You ever read one book from a holocaust survivor?

Randon Jenkins: You ever months of research on Holocaust survivors?

Randon Jenkins: You ever wonder How Bayer originally discovered Aspirin, or the vaccine for typhoid fever, or ciprofloxacin?

Randon Jenkins: dude I’m not gonna spoon feed you you’ll never learn to do it yourself.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “first hand recounts vs editorials, I thought you were the scholar.”

So the articles that were published back in the 1940’s that will be published in Britain and the US… are irrelevant to you?

Just because people don’t recount what was going on doesn’t mean that the articles were not published for people to read, does it?!?!?!

Kyle Huwer: It really doesn’t matter, you are sidetracking the conversation about SB1070 with Nazi Holocause talk.

Back on topic? Or are we going to railroad some more?

Randon Jenkins: Fine show me the part about a Primary offense? If you can’t tell me how you are going to pick the illegals from the legals.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “Fine show me the part about a Primary offense?”

Please read my post from May 19, 6:18pm. I provided it there.

RE: ” If you can’t tell me how you are going to pick the illegals from the legals.”

Do you even know what you are asking? I’ve answered this like 5 times on this thread. Please re-read the post above, pasted below since you seem to have missed it.

“@Randon: “Just answer the question how are you going to pick the illegals from the legals?”

I;ve already answered this. When they are stopped for a primary offense then the law has the RIGHT to ask who they are and get identification through a “TERRY STOP.” Period. SB1070 allows the person to be detained and/or arrested if they cannot provide that information to the detaining/arresting officer.

So if you are never stopped, then you will never be caught if you are illegal. However, if you are stopped, the police now have the ability to detain you if cannot provide them with documentation. Period.

We never will get ALL the illegals. If that is what you want, then you are asking for an impossibility.”

Randon Jenkins: Sorry I’ll always take first hand information and research over an editorial, even if 20 people publish it, its still an editorial.

Randon Jenkins: what primary offense again primary offense is never mention in the bill.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “Sorry I’ll always take first hand information and research over an editorial, even if 20 people publish it, its still an editorial.”

Well, good to see that you discount something in print that will be displayed as being “untrue.” Maybe cut the ego and admit that there are things that are not in your collection/research?

RE: “what primary offense again primary offense is never mention in the bill.”

Please read my post from May 19, 6:18pm. I provided it there.

Randon Jenkins: there is no primary offense to stop them, in thew first place, the bill does not require a primary offense, if it did shit, that their problem, being that you can be stopped just to be asked for ID on suspicion of illegal status bothers me, seeing as how my wife and daughter are part mexican, So here’s the real senario, Jesus is walking to work, cops stop him and ask for ID, why are you asking me for ID Jesus says, cop responds I suspect your an illegal immigrant, Jesus responds well I don’t have ID I’m 16, Officer responds well your coming with me until we can prove your legal. Oh jesus just got fired for not showing up to work for three days.

Randon Jenkins: I cant we arent friends, meany:p

Kyle Huwer: RE: “the bill does not require a primary offense”

Yes it does. It says, “”FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL…” That is a primary stop. If it is NOT, then what does this sentence mean?

Randon Jenkins: Kyle there is more information out there than anyone could possibly know.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “being that you can be stopped just to be asked for ID on suspicion of illegal status bothers me”

And where does it say this in the bill? Please point me since you’ve linked me the bill text.

Randon Jenkins: Now you assume to much, does the bill define lawful contact?

Kyle Huwer: RE: “Jesus is walking to work, cops stop him and ask for ID, why are you asking me for ID Jesus says, cop responds I suspect your an illegal immigrant, Jesus responds well I don’t have ID I’m 16, Officer responds well your coming with me until we can prove your legal. Oh jesus just got fired for not showing up to work for three days.”

If Jesus came across the border, then he will have documentation. Or are we letting people under 18 over the border without documentation these days?

If Jesus was born here, then he will more than likely have a SSN or a birth certificate… If he is working as you have provided, he also has to have documentation, just like everyone else, so he will be verified then too.

Randon Jenkins: What type of bill wouldn’t define such an ambiguous term.
3 hours ago

Randon Jenkins: Every law enforcement officer, plus the media up until this point has told everyone not to carry an SS card or birth certificate for fear of identity theft after robbery, now you say they should be carrying those things on them, come on, hooey.
3 hours ago

Randon Jenkins: the problem isn’t the illegals its the legals, yes if you rounded up everyone you’d catch criminals, would it be lawful, no.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “Now you assume to much, does the bill define lawful contact?”

“Lawful contact” is the things laid forth in a Terry stop which I already posted. A Terry stop must have a “probable cause,” 1. you are about to commit a crime,
2. you are in the act of committing a crime,
3. or you have committed a crime

Kyle Huwer: RE: “What type of bill wouldn’t define such an ambiguous term.”

Since profiling is illegal, I think that a “lawful stop” is a Terry stop that meets one or more of the three points I have provided.

A law doesn’t need to define things outright if a court case has done so already.

Would it be better if it was explicitly defined? Sure.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “Every law enforcement officer, plus the media up until this point has told everyone not to carry an SS card or birth certificate for fear of identity theft after robbery, now you say they should be carrying those things on them, come on, hooey.”

*Sigh* Where did I say that he needs to carry his SSN or birth certificate?

Kyle Huwer: RE: “the problem isn’t the illegals its the legals, yes if you rounded up everyone you’d catch criminals, would it be lawful, no.”

What!?!

Randon Jenkins: Dude this bill shreds the Terry stop, what are you talking about.

The Ohio Court of Appeals allowed the search, but made it clear that such a search was limited to discovering dangerous weapons that could be used against the officer, as Chief Justice Warren noted:
“In this case, for example, the Ohio Court of Appeals stated that ‘we must be careful to distinguish that the “frisk” authorized herein includes only a “frisk” for a dangerous weapon. It by no means authorizes a search for contraband, evidentiary material, or anything else in the absence of reasonable grounds to arrest. Such a search is controlled by the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and probable cause is essential.’ ” (392 U.S. 1, at 16, Fn 12, quoting State v. Terry, 5 Ohio App. 2d 122, at 130)
Chief Justice Warren later made it clear that this was also the opinion of the Court:
“The sole justification of the search … is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.” (392 U.S. 1, at 29)

Kyle Huwer: RE: “Dude this bill shreds the Terry stop, what are you talking about.”

Terry is a Supreme Court case. So you assume that SB1070 superceeds a Supreme Court case? How so?

RE: “The Ohio Court of Appeals allowed the search, but made it clear that such a search was limited to discovering dangerous weapons that could be used against the officer”

Yes. A Terry stop specifically allows for a frisk. However, it also allows for identification via the “stop and identify” procedure established in Hiibel and codified in ARS 13-2412.

Randon Jenkins: search and reasonable stop are not the same.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “search and reasonable stop are not the same.”

And what are you saying since I’ve already provided the “stop and identify” clause in Arizona law, ARS 13-2412?

Randon Jenkins: the terry stop was about the illegal search not the stop, sorry I missed that earlier, someone pointed it out to me too, so “Lawful contact” still isn’t defined.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “the terry stop was about the illegal search not the stop, sorry I missed that earlier, someone pointed it out to me too, so “Lawful contact” still isn’t defined.”

Man… If there is a law in place (i.e. running a red light) and a cop stops you, would you consider that a “lawful contact” if a police officer stopped you?

Randon Jenkins: As you told me before, what I consider is just my opinion, not fact. “Lawful Contact” is not defined, that law takes the time to define everything else accept, Lawful Contact and Reasonable suspicion, now if the Arizona immigration law did define those terms, no one would be having this conversation. Your trying to define something the writer’s of the bill didn’t, good luck.

Randon Jenkins: Will you at least admit Arizona is obviously sick of their illegal immigrants and we aren’t talking about Canadians. Americans have a long history of discriminating against certain groups of ethnicities and while its happening saying it seemed right at the time, but later turns out to be really bad. Like Asian Americans being thrown into interment camps after Pearl Harbor, or what happened to the Irish at Ellis island, or Middle Easterners now, or black people like forever, or mexicans now, well the list is pretty long.

Kyle Huwer: LOL. Well… then it appears that we have no laws that can be enforced because we don’t have “lawful contact” or “lawful stop” defined explicitly.

In law everything has it’s standard “Webster” definitions, UNLESS it is specifically defined which at that point it loses ALL standard definition and gains only the specific definition the law provides.

Because we have no specific definition here we have to take the common definition. Below I will define things by Webster and then by a law dictionary.

“Lawful contact.”

Lawful (Webster): recognized by or established by law
Lawful (law dictionary): a statute, federal or state constitution, or established legal precedents

Contact (Webster): the state or fact of being in touch, communication, or association
Contact (law dictionary): none, so it holds the same as Webster.

So if we combine the two, a court would interpret “lawful contact” as such…

“The state of being in communication/contact with someone that is recognized by or established by a statute, a federal/state constitution, or by a legal precedent.”

There, it is defined by using the laws of the courts. Have the courts defined the term specifically? Nope. Has the ARS? Nope. Can the courts define and decide whether the initial police stop was “lawful,” ABSOLUTELY!

If you disagree, please rebut me where I’ve messed up in regards to the courtroom rules as well as the way laws are read.

Randon Jenkins: So your defining lawful contact as

“The state of being in communication/contact with someone that is recognized by or established by a statute, a federal/state constitution, or by a legal precedent.”

Thus any cop stopping you is legal?

What? lol

Kyle Huwer: No. Your reading comprehension is poor. If a cop stops you they have to have a reason that is RECOGNIZED BY OR ESTABLISHED BY A STATUTE, A CONSTITUTION, OR BY A LEGAL PRECEDENT.

In other words, they cannot stop you for something that is not established in law.

What is so hard about this my man?

Kyle Huwer: Also, on a separate note, I am still waiting on someone to tell me where in the bill it specifically promotes racism. And remember, “A presumption that individual officers will employ the law in a discriminatory manner is both speculative and irrelevant to the question of Constitutionality.”

Randon Jenkins: “The state of being in communication/contact with someone that is recognized by or established by a statute, a federal/state constitution, or by a legal precedent.”

So cops are not established by a legal statute, a federal/state constitution, or by legal precedent?

You know whats not established reasonable suspicion, or Lawful contact. Shit if all we need is webster why have lawyers, or judges, or supreme courts, no my friend you walked into a corner and your fighting your way out with insults. I’m an ass, I insult people for laughs and giggles, this is the first insult you’ve thrown, my comprehension is better than most of the country I’ve got several papers to back that up, a long with scholarships and my pick of professions, but I’ll bet you will say thats just because I’m black.

Randon Jenkins: lets not play coy, Do you think this law is aimed at illegal Canadians or Europeans? seriously, SERIOUSLY you think they are going to be stopping a British couple on holiday asking for papers, this bill was made for Mexicans crossing the border, and you can’t tell a Mexican from a Puerto Rican who is born a US citizen.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “So cops are not established by a legal statute, a federal/state constitution, or by legal precedent?”

What?

RE: “You know whats not established reasonable suspicion, or Lawful contact.”

You are clearly sidestepping. Reasonable suspicion is suspicion that you have violated a statute, a constitution, or a legal precedent.

RE: “Shit if all we need is webster why have lawyers, or judges, or supreme courts”

Maybe because the laws don’t need to define everything? Do you have any idea how big laws were each law defined everything? This is an inane notion.

RE: “no my friend you walked into a corner and your fighting your way out with insults.”

Again, I must remind you that it is ME who is providing text from SB1070, it is ME who is providing text from the USC, it is ME who is providing text from court cases, and it is now ME who is providing legal procedure.

What have you provided to me factually aside from your assumptions?

RE: “this is the first insult you’ve thrown”

If you think that was an insult, it wasn’t. It was a fact. You are trying to debate me by putting words in my mouth and if that is the case then yes, you do have poor reading comprehension because you did not comprehend what I said.

RE: “but I’ll bet you will say thats just because I’m black.”

I have no idea what color you are nor do I care. If I remember correctly, it was you who first brought skin color into this debate when you said, “I guess being of your color I can see how you arrived at that conclusion.” I had to call you out twice before you stopped. So really… who is the one playing the race card here?

I am debating you as an individual with facts and logic… not my opinion. Why can’t you do the same?

Kyle Huwer: RE: “lets not play coy, Do you think this law is aimed at illegal Canadians or Europeans? seriously, SERIOUSLY you think they are going to be stopping a British couple on holiday asking for papers, this bill was made for Mexicans crossing the border, and you can’t tell a Mexican from a Puerto Rican who is born a US citizen.”

You are saying that this bill is aimed at Hispanics… so prove it. I am asking you to prove this hypothesis. So do it.

Randon Jenkins: Yeah my profile pic doesn’t hide my black skin very well. No you are not debating, because when i bring up the racial tones of this law you want to ignore them, you cant ignore race you confront it, and I’m sorry but to be honest it make me think your full of shit, the loop holes make a law not whats written and the term Lawful contact and reasonable suspicion are huge loop holes, and if you cant see that, why are we talking. So keep playing debate but on the real this is peoples lives being fucked with, and if this was going to affect you, you’d be out protesting too. Race card what race card, this is reality and why i call you naive.

Randon Jenkins: John Mccain openly says this law targets Mexicans, but being that you yourself and most others cant tell a mexican from a puerto rican, yes I will make the jump to say this law target Latinos.

Randon Jenkins: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63T5G220100430

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/john-mccain-immigration-reversal-complete-danged-fence/story?id=10616090

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/protestors-arizona-immigration-bill-urge-boycott-state/story?id=10487582

Arizona Law enforcement disagrees with the law.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “No you are not debating, because when i bring up the racial tones of this law you want to ignore them”

What “racial tones” have you brought forth? I’ve asked this forum REPEATEDLY to provide me with the black and white text that promotes racism. I do not see where you have provided me with that text. Care to show me?

RE: “Race card what race card, this is reality and why i call you naive.”

You first said, “I guess being of your color I can see how you arrived at that conclusion.” So what you really said was “you are white, and you don’t understand. I said, teach me. Show me where the law is racist.

You provided me with nothing. So you have no position in my opinion. You cannot say that this bill is racist without providing me with the text that makes it racist any more than I can call Martha Stewart a child molester without providing evidence.

I am not naive at all. I keep asking you for specific and articulate facts and all you can tell me is that it is racist and that it has racial undertones. OK, so prove it! PROVE IT! Again, you cannot accuse someone or something of being something without pointing directly to the part that makes your statement true! That doesn’t make me naive, that makes me an effective debater that effectively shows that you are not arguing with fact, but rather emotion.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “John Mccain openly says this law targets Mexicans, but being that you yourself and most others cant tell a mexican from a puerto rican, yes I will make the jump to say this law target Latinos.”

Again, what part specifically targets Latinos?

Kyle Huwer: RE: Reuters… “Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris…” says “I don’t really believe that this law is going to do what the vast majority of Americans and Arizonans want, and that is to fix the immigration problem,” he said. “This law … adds new problems for local law enforcement.”

So he said that it will not be effective. Where does he say that it is racist?

RE: ABC news 1… “McCain” says “I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the g..damned fence if they want it.”

Where does McCain in this article say that he disagrees with SB1070 or says that it is racist?

RE: ABS news 2… “Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik” has “no intention of complying” but provides nothing about why he will not comply. It goes on to list other people’s opinions, but gives no cites to the bill and where it is specifically racist.

Randon Jenkins: Dude you cant even agree this law targets Mexicans, why are we still talking, when the Arizona government is in fact targeting the US mexican border.
10 minutes ago

Kyle Huwer: RE: “Dude you cant even agree this law targets Mexicans, why are we still talking, when the Arizona government is in fact targeting the US mexican border.”

Are you confused or what? When you accuse someone or something of something, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON ***YOU.***

If you cannot provide me where it targets Latinos as you purport, then you have lost the debate Randon!

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Me vs. SB1070”


  1. 1 crosssection
    21 May 2010 at 07:57

    I think we should adopt President Calderon’s policy on illegal immigration:

    http://crosssection.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/how-president-calderon-handles-illegal-immigrants-we-send-back-them/

  2. 2 Alan Scott
    26 May 2010 at 19:22

    crosssection,

    ” I think we should adopt President Calderon’s policy on illegal immigration: ”

    Are you saying that Mexican law is racist ?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories


%d bloggers like this: