Arizona bill 1070 - Page 31 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-12-2010, 03:29 PM   #451
Refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,593
Local Time: 01:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Yep, too bad a warning shot wasn't policy, someone would still be alive today.
well bullets kinda travel fast and far, so firing warning shots in the air, especially in an urban setting, might not be the best idea. even in the desert the bullets could travel far and hit who knows what.

again, write your congressman
__________________

__________________
bigjohn2441 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2010, 12:36 AM   #452
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 12:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn2441 View Post
well bullets kinda travel fast and far, so firing warning shots in the air, especially in an urban setting, might not be the best idea. even in the desert the bullets could travel far and hit who knows what.

again, write your congressman
Right.

Urban area=shitload of people=bad idea.

Desert=travel far with nothing to obstruct it but the next innocent bystander=bad idea.

1070 I am so sick of the entire debate by this point.

It really does not change existing policy in any significant way- it neither allows mass round ups of people who look illegal nor gives the police/other LE agencies any new power or tools.

The claims of both sides are BS being thrown into the air to distract and get votes in an election year. Not solve the problem, thats for damn sure.

BVS, do you know when to drop anything? I usually agree with you, but come on! You're not out there getting rocks thrown at you, why nitpick the guy who is actually experiencing it?

Certainly no need to equate it to torture defenses, its apples and oranges. No one who tortured people during the Bush years was confronting a live, active threat, they were abusing for the sake of abuse or under the false assumptions that it would provide valuable information.

The Border Patrol are not out there to kill as many people as possible, and you can be damn sure they regret ever having to fire their guns, much less kill someone. BigJohn strikes me as the kind of guy who wants to do his job and get the minimal amount of people hurt or placed in any danger whatsoever as possible.

If you can't see how rocks flying at you could possibly be deadly and certainly justify a response, then I just don't understand that line of reasoning at all.

Are they supposed to start hurling the rocks back like its school recess for reform school kids? (Its not a fight, the BP is there to END the situation)

Are they supposed to run?

The kids have to be pretty stupid to not back off when guys with guns who are trained to use them start reaching for them while simultaneously pleading with them to stop.

As for the Holder investigation, the Glenn Becks of the world will no doubt spin it as "Obama now going after the Border Patrol for doing their jobs, worst President ever, treason, etc."

The reality? There would be an investigation after any law enforcement shooting that resulted in an injury or death. That goes for local, state and federal agencies.
__________________

__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2010, 08:02 AM   #453
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post

BVS, do you know when to drop anything? I usually agree with you, but come on! You're not out there getting rocks thrown at you, why nitpick the guy who is actually experiencing it?
A 15 year old boy lost his life due to a rock, if you want to call it nitpicking then go right ahead.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2010, 08:37 AM   #454
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 11:04 PM
Arizona: GOP Bill May Target Illegal Immigrants' Kids - TIME
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2010, 04:23 PM   #455
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:04 PM
Quote:
Anchor babies isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots — the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. — for their next move.


they should quit while they are ahead




why does being born here grant automatic citizenship,
perhaps we should all have to earn it, or periodically qualify for citizenship
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2010, 06:34 PM   #456
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 12:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
A 15 year old boy lost his life due to a rock, if you want to call it nitpicking then go right ahead.
Lack of context.

Multiple rocks, thrown by multiple people, there was a threat, so they acted to stop it.

Nowhere has anyone suggested that the loss of life was anything but tragic.

Perhaps the kid should not have been throwing rocks, he had that power in his hands to avoid the entire situation.

Again, regret for the loss of life is present all around, but how stupid must the kid be to start throwing rocks at guys with guns???

The nitpicking, I was referring to all of the assumptions you were making about how the BP's job should be done, what challenges they face, how they should have responded, etc.

All I know is if I was getting rocks hurled at me, I would view it as a major threat. One to the temple, and you could be killed instantly. You say "dead because of a rock" like the kid was playfully throwing a bean bag or some sand.

The BP responded, as well they should have.

It should have been clear that I was not calling the death of a 15 year old nitpicking.

Again, I am pretty sure the last thing BP wanted to do was kill the kid.
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2010, 07:01 PM   #457
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post

The nitpicking, I was referring to all of the assumptions you were making about how the BP's job should be done, what challenges they face, how they should have responded, etc.

All I know is if I was getting rocks hurled at me, I would view it as a major threat. One to the temple, and you could be killed instantly. You say "dead because of a rock" like the kid was playfully throwing a bean bag or some sand.
We don't know the size of or how these rocks were beging thrown. So let's not pretend one of has all the details and one doesn't. Of course they shouldn't have been throwing them, but my whole point is that the policy should be revisited if this is something common, a kill shot does not not seem like a reasonable response for someone throwing a rock. I have family in law enforcement, it's a hard job, and restraint is part of the job.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2010, 07:44 PM   #458
Refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,593
Local Time: 01:04 AM
Right, like they're gonna have the time to go "well gee, that rock was just a pebble, let's wait and see the size of the next one. Oh shit! That one was a little bigger, i wonder had that hit me in the head would it have killed me? DUCK!!!!! Oh, that one was only the size of a golfball......"
__________________
bigjohn2441 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2010, 07:47 PM   #459
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
perhaps we should all have to earn it, or periodically qualify for citizenship

Be careful what you wish for.
__________________
martha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2010, 07:50 PM   #460
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 09:04 PM
Quote:
the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it.
How far back are they going to go?
__________________
martha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2010, 07:58 PM   #461
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Be careful what you wish for.
we could have a merit system, something like ??

party affiliation
church attendance
musical collection
reading materials

just some reasonable metrics
to provide for true and worthy American Citizenship
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2010, 08:07 PM   #462
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:04 PM
well, this could have some people upset

activist judges, coming to aid of illegals again


Quote:
Court blocks deportation over minor drug convictions

3:06 PM PDT, June 14, 2010


WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court blocked the government Monday from routinely deporting legal immigrants for minor drug possession convictions, a decision that immigrant-rights lawyers said will spare tens of thousands of otherwise law-abiding residents from being sent out of this country.

In a 9-0 decision, the justices said a Texas man who had pled guilty at different times to having a marijuana cigarette and a single Xanax pill, an anti-anxiety drug, had been wrongfully deported.

Jose Carachuri-Rosendo was taken into federal custody after he pled no contest to having the Xanax pill without a prescription. Both an immigration judge and the U.S. court of appeals in New Orleans ruled he must be deported because his second drug possession conviction qualified as an "aggravated felony."

His case illustrated the potentially harsh impact of a 1996 federal law that was intended to rid the nation of immigrants who were criminals and violent offenders. Previously immigrants could ask for leniency if they had a job, a family or other ties in this country.

The new law, by contrast, required the deportation of any non-citizen convicted of an "aggravated felony."

But Congress did not carefully define this term. Since then, immigration judges have been deciding which crimes fit the definition.

Monday's ruling marks the third time in six years that the Supreme Court has intervened and ruled that these judges have gone too far.

Justice John Paul Stevens said the government's view defies common sense. "We do not usually think of a 10-day sentence for the unauthorized possession of a trivial amount of a prescription drug as an 'aggravated felony'," he wrote.

Because of its strict wording, the 1996 law had required deportation even for legal residents who have lived in the United States for decades and served in the U.S. military. And despite the high court's ruling, immigrants convicted of drug charges still could be deported.

They will, however, have a chance to seek leniency before an immigration judge.

"Today's ruling will affect tens of thousands of immigrants, but it is hard to get a specific number," said Benita Jain, co-director of the Immigrant Defense Project in New York.

In 2009, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported 139,188 so-called "criminal aliens," but this number included both lawful residents and illegal immigrants, officials said.

The U.S. appeals court in New Orleans and Chicago were among those that said a second drug possession conviction triggered the automatic-deportation rule. Had the Supreme Court agreed with that view, it would have allowed the government to move forward with thousands of deportations, immigration experts said.

Peter Spiro, a Temple University Law Professor and former clerk at the high court, said the justices acted after waiting in vain for Congress to fix the 1996 law.

"This is another in a long line of cases in which the Court is pushing back," he said. "They are giving very clear cues they want this law defined more narrowly."

Six years ago, the court rejected the Bush administration's view that a drunk driving conviction amounted to an aggravated felony. Four years ago, the court in an 8-1 decision rejected deportation for a South Dakota man who pled guilty to cocaine possession -- a felony under state law, but a misdemeanor under federal law.

In its decision, the high court said a second drug possession conviction was not an aggravated felony even if it was a repeat offense. Stevens said the common-sense use of the words "aggravated" and "felony" refer to a serious or violent crime that would be punished by more than a year in prison.

"Congress, like 'Humpty Dumpty', has the power to give words unorthodox meanings," he said, but there is no evidence that Congress meant to make minor drug offenses into aggravated felonies. He noted that drug trafficking does qualify as a felony requiring deportation.

Carachuri-Rosendo, 32, was born in Mexico and came to Texas with his parents when he was five. He became a lawful permanent resident, worked as a carpet installer, and has a wife and four children.

He served 20 days in jail for a misdemeanor marijuana charge. He spent 10 days in county jail for the Xanax pill before he was taken into federal custody and deported to Mexico.

Under Monday's ruling, he can seek to return.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2010, 11:48 PM   #463
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 12:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
We don't know the size of or how these rocks were beging thrown. So let's not pretend one of has all the details and one doesn't. Of course they shouldn't have been throwing them, but my whole point is that the policy should be revisited if this is something common, a kill shot does not not seem like a reasonable response for someone throwing a rock.
I highly doubt they would have shot if it had been a few pebbles. So far, I'll give the BP the benefit of the doubt as I know law enforcement aren't generally amped up to fire their weapons for no good reason. No one enjoys killing people, unless they are seriously disturbed.

I never claimed to know, however.

You are right, neither of us has all the details, the difference is you had, in spite of that, concluded your own long distance investigation.

I have jumped to no conclusions, just giving the BP the benefit of the doubt pending a professional investigation to determine the facts, justification, etc. I fully support such an investigation, and will personally apologize to you if they shooting is found to be unjustified.

I don't think this is something very common, if it were, it wouldn't be such a big deal.

Quote:
I have family in law enforcement, it's a hard job, and restraint is part of the job.
Agree 100%.

Restraint and proper temperament are vital for a good law enforcement officer. "Super Cop" attitudes will quickly get the Police into situations that they could have avoided in the first place and put them in great danger. That is why the academies go to great length to weed out super cop who is roided up and ready to go with everyone.

I just don't see how you can jump to the conclusion that this officer showed lack of restraint given:

1.)The situation had already become physically hostile, a hostility he did not initiate. Restraint is probably most effective in preventing these kind of conflicts in the 1st place. Once they start, responding is tough to judge as lacking in restraint, unless there is something blatantly excessive given the task at hand.

2.)We don't know the level to which there was a threat presented by the rocks yet, that will be determined during the investigation.
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2010, 04:17 PM   #464
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 12:04 AM
aol news

(June 26) -- Comments by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer that most illegal immigrants enter the United States to smuggle drugs rather than seek work have prompted a wave of criticism.

But Brewer is standing by her comments.

Speaking Friday, Brewer said that "the majority of illegal trespassers" entering Arizona "are bringing drugs in," Fox News reported.

Now, representatives of the National Border Patrol, Mexican politicians and human rights groups are attacking her claim and calling on her to provide hard evidence to back it up.

"That governor is racist," Francisco Loureiro, who runs an immigrant shelter in the Mexican city of Nogales, told Fox. "She has to look for a way to harm the image of migrants before American society."

T.J. Bonner, president of the union that represents Border Patrol agents, told CNN that Brewer's comments, don't "comport with reality -- that's the nicest way to put it."

In April, Brewer enacted a controversial law that grants the local police greater authority to check the legal status of people they stop. Brewer has seen her popularity soar since the bill and has traveled to the White House to discuss the law with President Barack Obama.

The White House plans to mount a legal challenge to the law, which Obama described as "misguided."

Late on Friday, Brewer issued a statement defending her comments. The statement cited a report by the Los Angeles Times that highlighted the increasing roles of Mexican drug cartels in the business of smuggling people into the United States. Brewer added that "many federal government reports have drawn the same conclusions."

The statement did not quell the criticism.

Jaime Farrant of the Tucson-based Border Action Network told Fox News that he has "no evidence" that most people are entering to smuggle drugs, while Mexican Senator Jesus Ramon Valdes, who represents the Mexican border state of Coahuila, said the comments were racist and ignorant.

"Traditionally, migrants have always been needy, humble people who in good faith go looking for a way to better the lives of their families," Ramon Valdes told Fox News.

Still, some are in agreement with Brewer's comments. On the Governor's Facebook page, commenters described her as "gutsy", and one called for her to run for president in 2012.

Jimmy Cuneo left a comment describing Brewer as "the only politician in the USA doing their job!"

Larry Birns, Director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs in Washington, D.C., called Brewer's comments "an exaggeration, but not by much," as Mexican drug cartels become more and more influential in illegal immigration."

The people-smuggling industry "has gone from a sort of do-it-yourself, small guy operation, to big business," Birns said. "There's going to be a lot more violence on the border."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2010, 04:25 PM   #465
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,882
Local Time: 12:04 AM
No wonder she's so anti-immigrant, with views like that.
__________________

__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com