Ohio man, son killed after Ark. cops fatally shot

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:

"Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
Click to expand...

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-books.htm

Do you have a problem with that quote? What is it exactly?
 
spike said:
Line 20.
...
"Stop, detention, or arrest" still doesn't require you commit any offense though as you can be stopped for just about anything.
Click to expand...

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 :p)
 
catocom said:
Here though, some time back, the law was changed so that they don't have
to have a 'reason' to pull you.
Click to expand...

That sounds messed up.

I do think they probably should insert the word 'traffic' stop, or 'vehicular',
but if you are stopped driving, you should have a license.
Click to expand...

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.

If we had that law here, and we might soon, I don't have a problem with carrying my papers.
Click to expand...

You may not have a problem giving up freedom but many people do.

It was just a touch subject,
that plays on a larger relationship.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're saying here.
 
spike said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
catocom said:
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.
Click to expand...

What was the problem based on what principle?

2.) if the person is here legally, they should have no problem getting an ID.
Click to expand...

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.

3.) Freedom? I think your idea of freedom, and mine a 2 different concepts.
Are you saying there should be No laws?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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. :rolleyes:

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.
 
spike said:
What was the problem based on what principle?
Click to expand...
Just concern that it might be abused.
Same as giving more power to Any gov. entity.


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cerise said:
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. :rolleyes:

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.
Click to expand...

Discerning people would have noticed that we were discussing the revised and amended version of the bill. :rolleyes:

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.
 
catocom said:
Just concern that it might be abused.
Click to expand...

What would be abused?

Same as giving more power to Any gov. entity.
Click to expand...

Like this new AZ immigration law?


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.
Click to expand...

The law gives up freedom plain and simple and so has been accused of giving up freedom.
 
spike said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cerise said:
And that's why you were going on about "lawful contact?"
Click to expand...

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.
 
So was there confirmation regarding the father/son who allegedly shot the 2 cops? Or are they still investigating?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top