masterrig 1 #126 May 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteIs there any method of identifying Illegals that you would find acceptable? Yes. If they're polite and well-behaved, and bathe with reasonable frequency, I'd find them to be acceptable. Even though they are breaking our laws by being here? Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #127 May 2, 2010 QuoteSighh. OK, for the fifteenth time now. The racial profiling is not where they're stopped for actually doing something wrong, it's where the real reason they're stopped is because they have a certain "look" (i.e., poor Hispanic), and the cops invent an after-the-fact pretext for having stopped them in order to keep it "legal". So how can it be be proved/disproved this is what is happening or will happen?Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #128 May 2, 2010 It was a play on words, Chuck. Just lightenin' the mood. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #129 May 2, 2010 This topic has gotten serious and that one breezed right on by. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #130 May 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteSighh. OK, for the fifteenth time now. The racial profiling is not where they're stopped for actually doing something wrong, it's where the real reason they're stopped is because they have a certain "look" (i.e., poor Hispanic), and the cops invent an after-the-fact pretext for having stopped them in order to keep it "legal". So how can it be be proved/disproved this is what is happening or will happen? As to individual challenges on a case-by-case basis, it will depend upon the particular circumstances and evidence of each case. From plenty of courtroom experience, I can tell you that, while not impossible, it's very, very hard to get a judge to reject, as a pretext, the seemingly-legal reason given by an officer as to why he initially stopped the suspect. It's generally easier to convince juries of citizens of this, depending upon the demographic makeup of the individual jury. As to challenges to future application of this law - such as that AZ police officer's lawsuit - if the case goes to trial (and I'd expect it would probably be a jury trial), there will be a "battle of experts" giving competing learned opinions as to past case studies, statistical analyses, criminology, psychology, human behavioral factors, etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #131 May 2, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Sighh. OK, for the fifteenth time now. The racial profiling is not where they're stopped for actually doing something wrong, it's where the real reason they're stopped is because they have a certain "look" (i.e., poor Hispanic), and the cops invent an after-the-fact pretext for having stopped them in order to keep it "legal". So how can it be be proved/disproved this is what is happening or will happen? As to individual challenges on a case-by-case basis, it will depend upon the particular circumstances and evidence of each case. From plenty of courtroom experience, I can tell you that, while not impossible, it's very, very hard to get a judge to reject, as a pretext, the seemingly-legal reason given by an officer as to why he initially stopped the suspect. It's generally easier to convince juries of citizens of this, depending upon the demographic makeup of the individual jury. As to challenges to future application of this law - such as that AZ police officer's lawsuit - if the case goes to trial (and I'd expect it would probably be a jury trial), there will be a "battle of experts" giving competing learned opinions as to past case studies, statistical analyses, criminology, psychology, human behavioral factors, etc. So you're saying it can't be proved/disproved. We agree on that. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #132 May 2, 2010 I have a question in regard to the 'experts' who would be called to testify. Aren't they paid for their testimony? Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #133 May 2, 2010 QuoteSo you're saying it can't be proved/disproved. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying it's proved or disproved essentially the same way that expert medical or egineering testimony is used in court to prove or disprove a medical malpractice or product liability case, combined with the same way that it's proved or disproved in court that, for example, a police officer has conducted an unlawful search and seizure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #134 May 2, 2010 QuoteI have a question in regard to the 'experts' who would be called to testify. Aren't they paid for their testimony? Always. And of course experts sometimes whore for their pay-masters (usually depending on how much of their living they make as "professional expert witnesses"). But if you challenge my experts as whores, I'll do the same thing to yours. So it goes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #135 May 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteI have a question in regard to the 'experts' who would be called to testify. Aren't they paid for their testimony? Always. And of course experts will whore for their masters. But if you challenge my experts as whores, I'll do the same thing to yours. So it goes. Thank you. I've often wondered about that. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #136 May 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteI have a question in regard to the 'experts' who would be called to testify. Aren't they paid for their testimony? Always. And of course experts will whore for their masters. But if you challenge my experts as whores, I'll do the same thing to yours. So it goes. I'm sure some do. Speaking only for myself, I have been an expert witness for the defense in several liability cases and told the defense lawyers in at least one instance that they had no case and should settle. I have yet to be challenged as a whore by a plaintiff's attorney. PS I am paid for my time as an expert, not for my testimony.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #137 May 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteSo you're saying it can't be proved/disproved. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying it's proved or disproved essentially the same way that expert medical or egineering testimony is used in court to prove or disprove a medical malpractice or product liability case, combined with the same way that it's proved or disproved in court that, for example, a police officer has conducted an unlawful search and seizure. As this is based solely on implied intent I'd say this is different than all those above case examples you gave.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #138 May 2, 2010 Quote Quote I have a question in regard to the 'experts' who would be called to testify. Aren't they paid for their testimony? Always. And of course experts sometimes whore for their pay-masters (usually depending on how much of their living they make as "professional expert witnesses"). But if you challenge my experts as whores, I'll do the same thing to yours. So it goes. So it's kind of an 'honor amongst thieves' thing?Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #139 May 2, 2010 QuoteThe law turns state and local police into immigration cops even though the Constitution explicitly spells out in Article 1 that Congress alone has the authority to set a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Right-wingers who pushed for this law talk a good game of wanting to “restore” respect for the Constitution when they have Barack Obama’s even darker skin in their sights. But they wouldn’t recognize hypocrisy if it bit them in the Arizona. There’s no telling what Arizona’s so-called “Safe Neighborhoods” act will lead to. Whatever it is, the demonization of an entire race in law can’t have good consequences. For the first time in the United States, cops in Arizona have the right to demand that anyone produce identification to prove legal residence. What has been a habit of several European nations and every authoritarian regime on the planet is now Arizona law. Again, conservatives who pretend to want government off their back have just surrendered to one of the most invasive forms of arbitrary state power. Profiling will replace the saguaro cactus blossom as the state flower. Legal residents and citizens will be caught in the same dragnet of overzealous cops scoring their anti-immigration jollies. And the Fourth Amendment protecting against unreasonable searches, the Fifth requiring due process and protecting against self-incrimination, the Sixth protecting the rights of the accused, the Eighth protecting against cruel and unusual punishment (if you’re in Joe Arpaio country) and the 14th providing equal protecting — they’re all history in Arizona’s Dirty Harry act over brown neighbors. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/02-2stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #140 May 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteI have a question in regard to the 'experts' who would be called to testify. Aren't they paid for their testimony? Always. And of course experts will whore for their masters. But if you challenge my experts as whores, I'll do the same thing to yours. So it goes. I'm sure some do. Speaking only for myself, I have been an expert witness for the defense in several liability cases and told the defense lawyers in at least one instance that they had no case and should settle. I have yet to be challenged as a whore by a plaintiff's attorney. PS I am paid for my time as an expert, not for my testimony. Before you replied, I'd already changed the post to read "experts sometimes whore for their pay-masters (usually depending on how much of their living they make as "professional expert witnesses"). I did that specifically so as not to indict all expert witnesses with a broad brush, for many experts are eminently honest and fair. I, too, have occasionally been told by prospective experts either that my case is weak, or that they simply could not and would not support the position or theory I was contemplating. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #141 May 2, 2010 QuoteIs there any method of identifying Illegals that you would find acceptable? James The liberal solution is "comprehensive immigration reform" That means amnesty for illegals. You see, that solves the problem, they would no longer be breaking the law.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #142 May 2, 2010 Any random butthole can cast stones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #143 May 2, 2010 QuoteAny random butthole can cast stones. You are wrong if you think the use of the word random prevents your words from being a personal attack. It certainly is fair to consider it casting stones, but the stones are facts, whether cast by a random or specific butthole. Much better than a random butthole spreading lies. You are quite sensitive to opposing positions in a discussion. I was not simply casting stones (as if you don't), I was telling the truth of the liberal viewpoint. They say the what is needed instead to address the concerns of the proponents of the Arizona law is comprehensive reform. That reform, if liberals have their way, includes amnesty. Just telling it like it really is. Conservatives in the past have proposed and enacted amnesty, but now it is just libs.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #144 May 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteAny random butthole can cast stones. You are wrong if you think the use of the word random prevents your words from being a personal attack. It certainly is fair to consider it casting stones, but the stones are facts, whether cast by a random or specific butthole. Much better than a random butthole spreading lies. You are quite sensitive to opposing positions in a discussion. I was not simply casting stones (as if you don't), I was telling the truth of the liberal viewpoint. They say the what is needed instead to address the concerns of the proponents of the Arizona law is comprehensive reform. That reform, if liberals have their way, includes amnesty. Just telling it like it really is. Conservatives in the past have proposed and enacted amnesty, but now it is just libs. By giving them amnesty, the politicians can look to all those votes they're going to get for getting the illegals a 'free ride' into this country. I look at that as a total feather-legged way out of a problem and a slap in the face to those people who chose to follow the legal path to citizenship status rather than stealing it or have it just given to them. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #145 May 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteAny random butthole can cast stones. You are wrong if you think the use of the word random prevents your words from being a personal attack. It certainly is fair to consider it casting stones, but the stones are facts, whether cast by a random or specific butthole. Much better than a random butthole spreading lies. You are quite sensitive to opposing positions in a discussion. I was not simply casting stones (as if you don't), I was telling the truth of the liberal viewpoint. They say the what is needed instead to address the concerns of the proponents of the Arizona law is comprehensive reform. That reform, if liberals have their way, includes amnesty. Just telling it like it really is. Conservatives in the past have proposed and enacted amnesty, but now it is just libs. By giving them amnesty, the politicians can look to all those votes they're going to get for getting the illegals a 'free ride' into this country. I look at that as a total feather-legged way out of a problem and a slap in the face to those people who chose to follow the legal path to citizenship status rather than stealing it or have it just given to them. Chuck The problem is that any plan to allow the illegals to stay legally is called "amnesty". Several of these plans included heavy fines, back taxes and being put to the back of the line for citizenship. But since those opposed to the plans called it "amnesty", the plans were scuttled. All the time the illegals were still here, often still working. While I don't approve of illegal immigrants claiming a "right" to stay here, the reality of the situation is that our economy needs them. They do jobs that others won't. Beef and poultry slaughterhouses are the easiest example. Finding a way to allow those here and working to stay legally, and finding a way to allow a certain number into the country legally is vital. It would allow us to truly secure our borders, and create a situation where seperating the sheep from the goats (or coyotes if you prefer) wouldn't be a problem because the only ones crossing illegaly would be the real criminals."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #146 May 2, 2010 Quote They do jobs that others won't. Beef and poultry slaughterhouses are the easiest example. Legal american citizens would be more willing to do them if we weren't handing out free money so much. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #147 May 3, 2010 Quote It's breathtaking simple: if a law gives a "wink and a nod" to not using racial profiling, but as a practical matter it is not capable of being enforced without racial profiling, then the net (and legal) effect, nonetheless, is that it requires racial profiling. This may be above middle school civics, but it's really not that complicated an analysis. right. so officers with questionable judgement could enforce this improperly. We agree on that.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
remibond 0 #148 May 3, 2010 The closest comparable law I can think of (with regards to stop and search) is Section 44 of the Terrorism Act in the UK. Since it was brought in in 2000, 'random' stop and searches of black and asian people have risen by more than four times compared to any other ethnicity. Coincidence? We all know that the police is an institutionally racist organisation. Either deal with it or do something about it, but either way bitching about something that's always been an open secret doesn't achieve anything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #149 May 3, 2010 QuoteCongress alone has the authority to set a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” And Congress says that these folks AREN'T citizens so Section 8 clause 4 is satisfied. The Constitution doesn't prohibit states from enforcing the federal guidelines. The writers on your source sites should try to read the material and then form an opinion instead of trying to force the material to fit their opinion. They'd look a lot less idiotic. Just curious though. Do you have some biological inability to form and original though?You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #150 May 3, 2010 QuoteWhile I don't approve of illegal immigrants claiming a "right" to stay here, the reality of the situation is that our economy needs them. They do jobs that others won't. Beef and poultry slaughterhouses are the easiest example. They do jobs that others won't because employers are enabled to take advantage of them due to their status - they aren't likely to turn them in for violating workplace regulations. If those workers weren't around to be taken advantage of by employers, then prices would certainly rise. To say that our economy "needs" them is to say that you are OK with a permanent underclass that has no legal recourse for the sake of lower prices. I don't think that is a good moral position, and it isn't a "need" of our economy.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
