Advocate uses texting to warn of AZ crime sweeps

Just how is this not illegal? This is actually worse than the sanctuary cities. Why can't this man be prosecuted? I guess political correctness strikes again, it's o.k. to break the law for certain people/groups, just don't mention it, or you may get labeled the "r" word. Pathetic.

News Article

Mod-Note: Link-Fixed

[edit on 4-1-2010 by Skyfloating]

I now live in Maricopa County and can tell you that Sherriff Joe is about as popular as Attilla the Hun here. And not just with the non-law abiding folks, I mean with everyone. Seems not a week goes by that the local news here is doing another 'Sherriff Joe is out of control' story... I've only been here a couple of months but I get the impression that the guy thinks he's above the law. Just an observation from someone who lives here...

The article answered your own questions as to why it is legal.

the messages are protected free speech because they are merely letting people know what Arpaio is doing, similar to publicizing DUI checkpoints and speed traps or flashing your headlights when police are nearby. "That is not unlawful," he said. "It's the conveyance of truthful information."

We live in a free country - that means you are free to speak the truth. If/when we allow the police to filter our speech then we are no longer free.

It's their burden to accomplish their job under our rules of freedom, it's not our job or their right to stifle our freedom in order to do their job.

If police don't like our rules than they can quit and go do something else.

I can't think of any reason that this should be illegal. As verylowfrequency, and the article pointed out, this sort of thing happens all the time. A radio station in my area lists known speed traps & check points every morning.

I am not an advocate of open borders, and I think we as a country need to do more to secure our borders, but the point is freedom of speech is just that. When it becomes limited to freedom of speech as long as it is what you want to hear then we have major problems.

Think about it this way. If it became illegal to inform people of the intentions of the police the wouldn't that have to cover all types of information? No more amber alerts to let you know that the police is looking for missing children. No more news reports to let you know that the police are searching or criminals on the loose etc...

reply to post by Majiq


I just want to add that the illegality of such an action can move into the area of false accusation for conviction or punishment, example:

Suspect is accused of informing individuals of a police raid about to occur, rendering the raid useless and cancelled. What if the raid was never intended to occur? Suddenly our suspected criminal is a criminal based on the word of the police and no evidence at all.

Andy Hessick, a constitutional law professor at Arizona State University, said sending warnings to people who might be subject to racial profiling would likely be considered free speech. But sending messages with the specific intent of warning illegal immigrants to help them avoid arrest could be akin to being an accomplice after a crime.

You don't think the last part is right? I'm sorry but to me these people should be in jail. I love the name of the organization..."Respect". How about they respect our laws?

Originally posted by adifferentbreed

Just how is this not illegal? This is actually worse than the sanctuary cities. Why can't this man be prosecuted? I guess political correctness strikes again, it's o.k. to break the law for certain people/groups, just don't mention it, or you may get labeled the "r" word. Pathetic.

News Article

Mod-Note: Link-Fixed

[edit on 4-1-2010 by Skyfloating]

the eagle is the symbol of empirical rule, is slavery to an ideology.
laws could be seen as a way to limit the spontaneous activities of the universe.
so what does "ill-eagle" mean???



*im not advocating doing anything against the law....... a black sheep is still a sheep

[edit on 4-1-2010 by IandEye]

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Andy Hessick, a constitutional law professor at Arizona State University, said sending warnings to people who might be subject to racial profiling would likely be considered free speech. But sending messages with the specific intent of warning illegal immigrants to help them avoid arrest could be akin to being an accomplice after a crime.

You don't think the last part is right? I'm sorry but to me these people should be in jail. I love the name of the organization..."Respect". How about they respect our laws?

So what about radio DJ's who report speed traps, should they be in jail for aiding reckless drivers? Or how about when a news anchor reports that an escaped convict is being searched for in a specific area, should they not be jailed for informing said criminal of where not to be?

Man, spin is a wonderful thing. Big differences in both. So, I guess border security really is a joke......

Originally posted by Majiq


So what about radio DJ's who report speed traps, should they be in jail for aiding reckless drivers?

All they do is get potential speeder listeners to watch their speed through an area which in the end makes everyone traveling in that area safer if slower is safer - without the burden of paying for a speeding ticket.

What bothers me more is why some people spend so much time thinking about the punishment of others so they can feel better about themselves for following the rules.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
I now live in Maricopa County and can tell you that Sherriff Joe is about as popular as Attilla the Hun here. And not just with the non-law abiding folks, I mean with everyone. Seems not a week goes by that the local news here is doing another 'Sherriff Joe is out of control' story... I've only been here a couple of months but I get the impression that the guy thinks he's above the law. Just an observation from someone who lives here...

en.wikipedia.org...

Arpaio continues to earn the support of Maricopa County voters who reelected him sheriff by double-digit margins in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008.

HMMMMM 5 term sherrif winning by double digits every time he ran? It seems like the media is more against him than the people....

[edit on 4-1-2010 by alien]

reply to post by Carseller4


Maybe you should pay more attention to what someone posts.

I clearly stated that I had just moved here and was only conveying what I had heard thus far.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by alien]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Carseller4

 

Maybe you should pay more attention to what someone posts. I clearly stated that I had just moved here and was only conveying what I had heard thus far.

And if you can find a source other than Wiki to support your facts, I will actually take it into consideration.

www.azcentral.com...

Arizona voters like Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's approach to his job and disagree with the federal government's immigration-related decisions with the sheriff, according to an Arizona State University and Channel 8 (KAET) poll released Tuesday night. The poll indicates a 61 percent job-approval rating for Arpaio, while 34 percent of voters disapproved, according to a telephone survey of 652 registered voters around the state.

For Arpaio, the poll indicated slightly more support than he enjoyed in the 2008 election, where Arpaio received 55 percent of the vote compared with 42 percent for his opponent, Dan Saban.

His methods are more popular now than when he was elected!





[edit on 4-1-2010 by alien]

reply to post by Majiq


Whether someone is criminally liable for texting information about police depends on the intent they have when they make a text. In order to guild of aiding and abetting a crime, you must have the specific intent to give aid to a particular person or a particular group of people going out to commit a crime.

For example, if you are acting as a lookout for an illegal alien smuggling ring and you text information about the positions of border guards, you are texting with the intent to help a particular smuggling ring. On the other hand, if you are just texting the positions of border guards without the intent to help any particular individual, you are not guilty of aiding and abetting a crime. You do not know if your texts are being used by criminals or innocent citizens who just want to avoid the hassle of brushing up against a zealous border guard.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Majiq

 

Whether someone is criminally liable for texting information about police depends on the intent they have when they make a text. In order to guild of aiding and abetting a crime, you must have the specific intent to give aid to a particular person or a particular group of people going out to commit a crime.

Right you are, which was my point. This lady is not specifically texting criminals with the sole intent of helping them avoid the police, therefore her actions should not be considered criminal. She admits in the article that some illegals do in fact use her texts to avoid being caught, but that does not make her an accessory to their crime anymore than it does the DJ disclosing the location of speed traps, and road checks in my example.