posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 01:42 PM
Not ONE of the supporters of this horrid law has answered my challenge:
Explain HOW a cop, not the brightest of bulbs on a good day, could possibly form ' reasonable suspicion ' that a human being is ' illegal '
WITHOUT using profiling. What factors could a cop use? If it is not speaking the English language proficiently, that is NOT an indicator because
knowing the English language is not a requirement for legal status.
If it is dress or appearance, then that also is NOT a legal indicator because anyone can dress any way they wish....native born Americans can dress
like a ' foreigner ', so appearance cannot be used. So, all you have are legal and normal factors, and from then a cop cannot come up with probable
cause to drag them in and jail them.
The people who support the pro-profiling law that the Fed judge just gutted NEVER seem to be able to tell us what a cop would use to determine
someones status. Papers are NOT required by a citizen....so NOT having papers cannot be used against a person.
The way a person looks is NOT any kind of indicator, obviously...anyone with even a smattering of intelligence knows that no one can tell is
someone is legal or not just by appearance...impossible.
So, ALL the factors that a cop could use boil down to profiling and a guess....there is NO WAY to form a sure opinion based on any of the factors
listed above. Who in Gods name wants cops guessing about legal matters and dragging people off to jail to rot until someone can come up with proof of
Is there any doubt that turning the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty upside down will cause great grief and untold false arrests?
Since no supporter of the hate law can tell us how it can be enforced legally and fairly, they MUST admit that it is a bad law, and if they do not
then they are being as dishonest as Joe Arpaio...and that is bottom of the barrel dishonest.