Ohio man, son killed after Ark. cops fatally shot
- Thread starter spike
- Start date
spike
New Member
Line 20.
It used to say "For any lawful contact" but after legal challenges was changed to "FOR ANY LAWFUL STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST" which is a bit of an improvement but still does not require that you have committed any offense.
"Lawful contact" could have been anything like asking directions or being a victim of/witness to a crime. "Stop, detention, or arrest" still doesn't require you commit any offense though as you can be stopped for just about anything. DUI or drug stops like the Ohio man in the original story of this thread...or you could be walking and an officer could just say "he smelled like weed" or "fit the description". You don't even have to commit an offense to be arrested, only suspected.
I've been stopped, handcuffed, and put in the back of a squad car for just walking out of my friends apartment on the way to my car. There was a break in at the apartment complex and I just happened to be walking in the wrong area. Luckily the victim saw the thief and could verify that it wasn't me some time later.
So anyway, as far as the AZ immigration law goes you absolutely do not need to have committed any offense.
Also the Audacity of Hope quote in your sig is misquoted and out of context. Here's the full correct quote:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-books.htm
Do you have a problem with that quote? What is it exactly?
It used to say "For any lawful contact" but after legal challenges was changed to "FOR ANY LAWFUL STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST" which is a bit of an improvement but still does not require that you have committed any offense.
"Lawful contact" could have been anything like asking directions or being a victim of/witness to a crime. "Stop, detention, or arrest" still doesn't require you commit any offense though as you can be stopped for just about anything. DUI or drug stops like the Ohio man in the original story of this thread...or you could be walking and an officer could just say "he smelled like weed" or "fit the description". You don't even have to commit an offense to be arrested, only suspected.
I've been stopped, handcuffed, and put in the back of a squad car for just walking out of my friends apartment on the way to my car. There was a break in at the apartment complex and I just happened to be walking in the wrong area. Luckily the victim saw the thief and could verify that it wasn't me some time later.
So anyway, as far as the AZ immigration law goes you absolutely do not need to have committed any offense.
Also the Audacity of Hope quote in your sig is misquoted and out of context. Here's the full correct quote:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-books.htm
Do you have a problem with that quote? What is it exactly?
catocom
Well-Known Member
yeah, ok I see where you are coming from now.
There is a lot of discretion still left there to the officer.
The only time I've seen a stop for a non-offense here is when the pull license checks.
Haven't seen one in about a year now though.
Here though, some time back, the law was changed so that they don't have
to have a 'reason' to pull you.
I do think they probably should insert the word 'traffic' stop, or 'vehicular',
but if you are stopped driving, you should have a license.
If we had that law here, and we might soon, I don't have a problem with carrying my papers.
If the feds would just do their job, the locals wouldn't need this thing.
..
on the sig..
I've been ready to change it for a day or 2 anyway. It was just a touch subject,
that plays on a larger relationship.
(point Spike, but no match yet
)
spike
New Member
That sounds messed up.
Sure, if you're driving you should have a license on you. You could be walking though, you could be a passenger, and an out of state license doesn't prove your legal status.
You may not have a problem giving up freedom but many people do.
I don't know what you're saying here.
catocom
Well-Known Member
1.) I had a real problem with it on a basis of principle, but there hasn't
been a manifested Real problem with the implementation.
2.) if the person is here legally, they should have no problem getting an ID.
3.) Freedom? I think your idea of freedom, and mine a 2 different concepts.
Are you saying there should be No laws?
spike
New Member
What was the problem based on what principle?
Sure, you need an ID for certain things. You shouldn't face hours of detainment if you happen to leave your house without it and have done nothing wrong. That is a serious infringement on freedom.
What about teenagers who typically have no reason to carry ID? An out of state person driving through AZ with their driver's license normally would have everything they need. Now they could possibly be detained until they can get someone to break into their house and mail them their birth certificate. My mom keeps her birth certificate in a safety deposit box. She'd just be out of luck.
No, a lot of laws are good. Not so much ones that could have people detained who have done nothing wrong until they can produce their papers. That reeks of fascism.
Cerise
Well-Known Member
It used to say "lawful contact" but it has been changed to adjust for the level of histrionics coming from the left over those two words. 
So when discussing the content of the bill discerning people turn to the revised and amended version, not to the one that no longer exists.
So when discussing the content of the bill discerning people turn to the revised and amended version, not to the one that no longer exists.
catocom
Well-Known Member
Just concern that it might be abused.
Same as giving more power to Any gov. entity.
Like with what I was just telling about on that other law.....
We should voice our concerns, but lets not accuse, before it's even been implemented,
much less actually abused.
spike
New Member
It used to say "lawful contact" but it has been changed to adjust for the level of histrionics coming from the left over those two words.
So when discussing the content of the bill discerning people turn to the revised and amended version, not to the one that no longer exists.
Discerning people would have noticed that we were discussing the revised and amended version of the bill.
Freedom loving people would notice that in the revised version you still don't need to commit any offense to be forced to produce your papers.
spike
New Member
What would be abused?
Like this new AZ immigration law?
The law gives up freedom plain and simple and so has been accused of giving up freedom.
catocom
Well-Known Member
1.) power (we're not going to keep chasing tale on this are we?)
2.) yep, to a degree (like here, we'll just have to see what happens)
3.) I guess it does to a degree there too, at that, in that state.
spike
New Member
By "going on about lawful contact" you mean saying this? -> "It used to say "For any lawful contact" but after legal challenges was changed to "FOR ANY LAWFUL STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST".
I did discuss "lawful contact" in previous threads because that was the law at the time.
