Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Migrants sell up and flee Arizona ahead of crackdown

page: 9
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


but dont u understand if cops are gonna be corrupt a law isnt gonna stop or incourage them if they want to screw u over they can and its on US to defend our selves in court and if there reasoning isnt vaild then they get in trouble u act as if this law gives cops magical powers or something

ill put it bluntly weather we like it or not cops can pretty much do what ever the hell they want and unless we catch them or can prove them wrong they can get away with it they have for years and will probably always be bad apples as cops just like there are bad apple people this law changes nothing but it dosent hurt if you know your rights




posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Sadly, instead of being sent packing to the country of origin, she'll move to another state.

I love it when immigration laws are enforced!



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Tyr Sog
 


well put i didnt hear about any albanians getting booted but yeah there about as white as they come good to see some one else gathering evidence of whites getting deported



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


People are so far off on this contact by Law Enforcement its not even funny. I cannot stop an adult, spark up a conversation then ask him for his immigration status. As far as speaking to a minor, please learn the law. As it stands now, Law Enforcement cannot speak to a minor without a parent / gaurdian present (contrary to what you see on tv). Hell as a Law Enforcement Officer, I cannot even arrest a minor. Only Juvenile Officers can. On the rare occurences we have to speak to minors, we have a seperate Miranda form we have to read to the minor in front of the parents, and the parents have to agree to it, otherwise we have to stop all questioning.

If I did this, it would be thrown out of court because of the following:

No legitimate need to ask this type of question for a voluntary contact.
You cannot "detain" someone then ask guilt seaking questions without reading Miranda to them.

Any evidence gleaned from this voluntary contact without Miranda would be fruit of the poisonous tree, and inadmissible as evidence in court.

Arizona is not creating a seperate immigration system as some have claimed. They are allowing their officers to investigate whether someone is here legally or illegally based off of legitimate encounters (traffic stop, crime, etc).

Arizona is not placing officers on the border, nor are they trying illegals in state courts. Once local officers have someone in custody for immigration violations, they go to the nearest jail that is contracted by the Federal Government to house ICE detentions.

The suggestion Arizona is making a seperate immigration system is incorrect.
The suggestion they are taking away the 4th amendment is incorrect, and is nothing more than fear mongering.

If people are going to argue about the Law, please understand how they work, who they apply to, and how they are enforced.


[edit on 26-7-2010 by Xcathdra]


I really hope you are not a law enforcement officer because you don't have a clue what Miranda requires. In the landmark decision Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), the U.S. Supreme Court set standards for law enforcement officers to follow when attempting to interrogate suspects they hold in custody. Miranda was an outgrowth of the rights announced in Gideon v. Wainright and Escobedo v. IllinoisMiranda only applies to a "custodial interrogation." That means an arrest or such coercive circumstances as would cause a reasonable person to believe he is not free to go. If you stop a car and ask if the person has been drinking, Miranda is not in play. If he says "Yesh, I shore have." and you place him under arrest, then Miranda is required before any more questions. Look up "Terry stop" from the case of Terry v. Ohio. It is not an arrest and reasonable inquiries can be made without the Miranda recital
As for questioning juveniles, see, Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167, 170 (1986); State v. Clappes, 136 Wis. 2d 222, 239, 401 N.W.2d 759 (1987). Again, the restrictions apply to custodial interrogations. A parent or someone acting in loco parentisdoes need to be there then. Courts usually hold that a juvenile can waive his rights, but the voluntariness of the waiver will be strictly scrutinized.
So, do you read the Miranda warning and get a signed waiver every time you stop someone for a busted taillight? I didn't think so.
BTW, the full text of the case can be had at supreme.justia.com...



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


I am a Law Enforcement Officer, and while your above post shows how Miranda came about, the use has changed through court cases. Anytime you have someone in "custody" and you are asking guilt seeking questions, you must mirandize. Failure to mirandize can result in evidence gathered being throw out (Fruit of the poisonous tree).

The standard courts have set for this stuff is "what would a reasonable person assume". If I identify myself as law enforcement and tell someone to stop, would that person assume they are allowed to leave?

Even when we detain someone we have to be carefulo about placing handcuffs on them because, even though in our mindset the person is being detained, and is in handcuffs for safety, the person who is in handcuffs are going to assume they are not free to leave.

Having an Officer walk up to someone and demand identification for no reason at all is not going to fly, and if this is how the law is used it will be struck down.

Essentially this is how it worked before all this hoopla:

I am on patrol and observe a vehicle swerving over the center line and the right fog line multiple times, coupled with irratic speed (speed limit, over speed limt, way under spped limit, way over), failure to use turn signal when making the right hand turn. As they make the right hand turn they cut it wide and cross over the center line before coming back in line.

I initiate a traffic stop, identify myself and the reason for the stop. During my investigation I learn the person is using a fradualent ID that shows he is a US citizen (Thank you Florida for having such crappy ID laws). I arrest the person on my local charges and notify the local ICE office that he is in this jail on these charges and appears to be here illegally. ICE will get a copy of my report and look into the Federal immigration issue.


This is how it works after the Hoopla:

I am on patrol and observe a vehicle swerving over the center line and the right fog line multiple times, coupled with irratic speed (speed limit, over speed limt, way under spped limit, way over), failure to use turn signal when making the right hand turn. As they make the right hand turn they cut it wide and cross over the center line before coming back in line.

I initiate a traffic stop, identify myself and the reason for the stop. During my investigation I learn the person is using a fradualent ID that shows he is a US citizen (Thank you Florida for having such crappy ID laws). I arrest the person on my local charges and notify the local ICE office that he is in this jail on these charges and appears to be here illegally. ICE will get a copy of my report and look into the Federal immigration issue.

To those of you who think this is going to be a roundup.. You really need to understand how the law works, how it is applied, and what recourse people have. The notion that we always make up stuff to cover our activities is a BS argument.

Absolutely nothing prevents me from stopping and talking with people who are walking down the street. Due to the fact its not anything offical, nothing is stopping the people from ignoring me and walking away. The fear that some of you incite that we will jsut make up a reason for the stop, I am just going to assume you had a bad childhood growing up and didnt always get what you wanted, and now are jsut taking it out on people in a position of authority under the argument you dont agree with a law.


Law Enforcement did not create this law, the Federal Government and the Governement of Arizona did. We are left to enforce this law as demanded by our Oath, whether we agree with it or not.

You dont like it, then change it.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by Xcathdra]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Uhm, I dont have to mirandize someone for a busted tailight since I directly observed that violation myself. My citation is me telling the perosn I wrote the ticket to that I am charging them with this violation. I get subpoenaed to court to testify as to what I saw.

1 of 2 things will happen. The judge will hear the person side of the story and either sustain the ticket or dimiss it. In my state if we write a citation for anything on a vehicle that is rear facing, the driver has to have knowledge that is was broke IE: a burned out tail light. Most people have a reasonable expectation their equipment is functional on their vehicles, and as such, dont inspect there cars 360 degrees before they go out. If the person did not realize they had an equipment failure, then we do not write a ticket becuase they had no ill will / intent on intentionally breaking a law. (If you are going to give an example, please pick a misdameanor or Felony issue. Most traffic violations are infractions, with a result of a fine and nothing more).

I can respond to a shots fired call, find a dead guy, and find a guy with a gun in the area. I could technically arrest him, take him to jail, he can go through a trial, be found guilty, and sentenced to life in prison without me every reading him his miranda rights, since I never asked guilt seeking questions.

Custody + Guilt seeking questions = Miranda



[edit on 26-7-2010 by Xcathdra]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Darkrunner
Correction.

I think the author of the article meant to say "illegal alien', not 'undocumented migrant'.


Calling an Illegal alien and undocumented migrant is like calling a drug dealer an undocumented pharmacist.

As someone else brought the question up... When we travel abroad we have to carry papers with us, producable upon demand by officals of whatever country we are in, because that is the Law of their country.

How come it is accpeted as norm that people can come to this country illegally and get what they want? Deporting people who are illegal is not racist in any sense of the word.

Arizona cannot set up check points to catch illegals, just as my department cant set up a checkpoint to check people for warrants. I have to have a justified reason to make contact with the individual unless I can say in court I am 100% sure the person I stopped was the person with the warrant.

Can someone explain to me why enforcing our immigration laws is racist? Once you do that, can you explain to me why Mexicos immigration Laws towards their southern neighbors arent racist?

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Xcathdra]


and I am still waiting for an answer to this question from those of you who think the Law is racist.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna
These are people. You folks are awful and should be ashamed of your behavior. Seriously. How can you actually look at yourselves in the mirror? And I'm assuming a bunch of you "consider yourself" to be christians. Perhaps you should read a little of what your guy Jesus taught.

You are disgusting people.


So what you're saying is that we should not punish criminals. You do know the bible asks that criminals be punished, right? Even working on a sunday requires a stoning !



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 





Law Enforcement did not create this law, the Federal Government and the Governement of Arizona did. We are left to enforce this law as demanded by our Oath, whether we agree with it or not.

You dont like it, then change it.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by Xcathdra]


Good advice. And legislation is not the only way to change it. We are funding and implementing Operation Bastantes. There is a team setting up shop in Scottsdale staffed by attorneys, paralegals and support staff. And a few young hispanic american born men who look like the sterotypical "illegals", complete with garishly painted beaters and chicas to accompany them. They will cruise Phoenix with a video equipped follow car. So when some bigot pig stops them for breathing while brown in Arizona, all will be on film. The lawsuit will follow. Normally the employing jurisdiction's insurance company would provide a defense. But these suits will allege grounds for recovery of punitive damages, which insurance doesn't cover. So the cop will have to hire and pay for a defense, which will be really expensive. When word spreads in the LEO community about fellow officers losing their homes and their kids going hungry because of legal fees from anti-profiling suits, enforcement will stop. It will be good to see cops afraid for a change.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


That is assuming the cops will break the law.

For me, I am all for what you state here. That is why I always carry a camera, voice recorder and a vid cam with me in my car.

Never know when that nature picture, supposed burnt out license plate light, UFO goes flying overhead(joke here, do not visit those threads very often), or other types of situations occur.

I actually encourage MORE people to do exactly what you say here.

The police have no reasonable expectation that they are not videotaped or recorded in any encounter with the public.

I will supply reference to this if asked. Because a citizen is not afforded reasonable expectation of privacy in any encounter with a LEO, the same is said of the LEO. Now, you do NOT even have to let them know they are being recorded and this WOULD still be permitted as evidence in a court of law.

So LEO's remember that, you are on candid camera when pulling me over.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


More power to you guys. I have no issues with the people keeping an eye on Law Enforcement. Just be smart about it.

The one thing the law does that I dont agree with is it puts the officer into a loose loose situation. They can be in trouble for enforcing the law.. If they decide not to enforce it, and there are citizens there to see it, then they can file a complaint the law was not enforced.

In the end, we would never be in this situation if the FEderal Government did their job, IE the people participated in the process and held their elected officals accountible.

What I do find amusing from most of the comments that people make against the law is you guys argue that they are violating the 4th amendment, going on to state that we assume these people are guilty until proven innocent.

You do realize that as officer, and citizens of this country, we get the same gaurantee that we are innocent until proven guilty. Remeber this the next time you throw out that you are going to sue the pigs. They are innocent until proven guilty as well.

And to protect ourselves from people who do not understand how the law works, we have whats called civil immunity. If we are within state law and departmental poliucy and procedure, we are protected from individual law suits that arise from performing our duties.

I will say it again.. If you dont like the law, then change it. Yelling at and threatening Law Enforcement makes as much sense as yelling at the gas station clerk because gas prices are to high.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


That is assuming the cops will break the law.

For me, I am all for what you state here. That is why I always carry a camera, voice recorder and a vid cam with me in my car.

Never know when that nature picture, supposed burnt out license plate light, UFO goes flying overhead(joke here, do not visit those threads very often), or other types of situations occur.

I actually encourage MORE people to do exactly what you say here.

The police have no reasonable expectation that they are not videotaped or recorded in any encounter with the public.

I will supply reference to this if asked. Because a citizen is not afforded reasonable expectation of privacy in any encounter with a LEO, the same is said of the LEO. Now, you do NOT even have to let them know they are being recorded and this WOULD still be permitted as evidence in a court of law.

So LEO's remember that, you are on candid camera when pulling me over.



For the most part we are ok with this. Keep in mind though that if your actions interfere with our duties it can cause an issue. During a traffic stop you are technically being detained, so I would avoid the urge to get out of the car to take video footage. Also, I would suggest you let the officer know what you are doing so your actions are not construed as a threat.

The reason I say this is the Supreme Court ruling for use of force by Officers. Hindisght cannot be used to look at a situation. The standard is, what did the officer percieve at the exat moment force was used.

If you go to point a compact video camera at an officer, and its dark out, and you get shot because the officer thought you had a weapon.... you get the idea.

For the most part LEOs dont have any issue with people recording what we do. We have body mics and cameras as well, and that footage, in addition to being used for our cases, can be used to go back and verify a citizen complaint.

You are correct that people have no expectation of privacy in public. I urge people to be careful when you try to do this, especially if you are the focus of the officer. Forcing an officer to break his concentration on the task at hand to deal with somethin unrealted can be a criminal offense in most states.

In the end, it doesnt matter how right you are, you can still end up in jail. Failure to obey a lawful command is one. You can argue all you want you are within your rights to record something. Keep in mind though that argument needs to be with the judge, and not the officer.

As far as the comment about not having to disclose that you are recording both audio or video. That depends on the state you live in. In my state, only 1 party has to be aware. Other states its prohibited unless both parties consent to the recording. Check your individual state laws before doing this.

There is a reason why departments have internal affairs departments.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by Xcathdra]

[edit on 26-7-2010 by Xcathdra]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


better check your local wire tapping laws as filming the police in some areas can get you in trouble i dont think az has a law like this but better safe then sorry but im all for police oversight i just dont want people geting arrested trying to get that ya know?



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnkiCarbone
Also, In any other country, you are asked by police constantly where you're from and if you're in that country legally. You're often asked for your papers / passports. Are we supposed to be special now?


I thought we were always supposed to be special.

A little hard to be the greatest country on Earth without being a little special isn't it?



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Completely agree with your evaluation.

Definitely comply with all LAWFUL orders of a LEO.

As for stepping out of the car, absolutely do not do that, look at that video of the LEO pulling over another LEO and see what happened there.
That was an eye opening situation there. The LEO being pulled over thought he was above the LAW.

No one is above the LAW, especially LEO's and other government officials. Actually, they in swearing a oath should be HELD to a higher standard.

No, my video cam is a tiny one that I can just set anywhere. Oh yeah people, keep your hands on the 10 and 2 and do everything the lawful LEO states. Even the unlawful ones, do not want to get shot for scaring the LEO's.

As for lawsuits, they have their place. If you are actually wronged do not just go after their department, go after the individual LEO.

I really love the latest video I posted about where ALL the officers responding to a call conspired to commit heinous dereliction of procedure, infringement of Constitutional rights, theft, false imprisonment, filing false police reports, impersonating peace officers, etc. Quite eye opening. Look at my latest thread at my home page.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Night Star
 



There are signs everywhere in Spanish, not because of Africans, Not because of Asians or anyone else.


Not because of Hispanics either.

Businesses would advertise to devil and in any language as long as they can make a quick buck.



In the cheap housing communities around here there are more Hispanics than any other culture.


Do you live in a predominantly Hispanic city? sounds like it.


No Jam, I do not live in a predominanlty Hispanic city.

Yes I understand about the businesses wanting tomake a quick buck, but they don't have signs for the Asians or Africans etc. Why cater to only the Hispanic people? our Asians and Africans etc. learn the language of our Country, why can't the Hispanics? That is one of many reasons why the Hispanic population is singled out and people resent them. Not all, but too many of them do not respect the laws or language of our Country.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 




I



And to protect ourselves from people who do not understand how the law works, we have whats called civil immunity. If we are within state law and departmental poliucy and procedure, we are protected from individual law suits that arise from performing our duties.



That may work for state courts and state court actions but a state cannot immunize for a federal claim. Look at Bivens supreme.justia.com...
Two police officers from AZ have filed suit seeking to have the law be found unconstitutional,realizing that the law jeopardizes them and their families. articles.latimes.com...
And Arizona is a "one-party" state which means audio and video are legal if only one party to the recorded transaction assents.
And, "innocent until proven guilty" is entirely a creature of criminal law and has no import in a civil case. It is a presumption in a criminal case that affects both the "burden of going forward" and the risk of non-persuasion" which has as the bar to clear, "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil case, the standard in "preponderance of the evidence."
Arizona has not done its law enforcement community any favors. It will be a bleak Christmas for any officer caught in the Bastantes web.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
My question is this. Police are only gonna card you if your doing something wrong.

So if your not breaking the law, why flee?

Things that make you go hhhhmmmm.


yea okaaaaay. because the police are always honest! give me a break. i live in nyc and the police are always harassing people based on appearance. racial profiling at its finest



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


There is a difference between the 2. The only time a FEderal Lawsuit is brought is if 42 USC 1983 is violated by the Officer. It is a civil rights violation lawsuit, and will always be prosecuted at the Federal level. This type of violation is also criminal, not civil.

The civil immunity protects us from being sued by people for no reason at all when we perform our duties (because some people think they know the law when they dont and end up going to jail because of it
0. If we are within state law, city ordinace and policy and procedure, we are generally immune from provate lawsuits directed solely at us. This being said Lawyers have gotten rich figuring out ways around this.

Just be smart about what you do when you are contacted by Law Enforcement. Unless it is something of an exigent circumstance, the Officer will answer some of the questions you have about why he stopped you etc.

As far as the Law in Arizona goes.. We will have to wait and see how the legal challenge turns out. If Arizona wins that, then we will see how it is applied. The Feds have already said they would file chrges against the officers the moment they detect racial profiling.

While I think in this case the Federal Government are a bunch of candy ass, incompetent boobs, at the very least we can all agree that we live in one of the best countries on the planet. Where else can you find 2 government entities fighting over human rights.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Anybody wanting to mimic an illegal occupation specialist or an IOS in training, should behave like one.
First, when commuting to work, there should be as many of you in the vehicle, or more, as the vehicle can hold. If you are in a truck, a few should be in the back as well.
If you are pulled over because the vehicle is unsafe, or lacks inspection tags, or whatever, immediately exit the vehicle and run. This is important, and will sell the con very well.
Absolutely do NOT speak English. If you do, well you might have to explain why the others are still hopping fences into people's yards.

Film all of this. Get a change of venue to a "sympathetic" city in California where the city is still solvent, and you are good to go.





new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join