ATS News: We'll be on Scene at the Arizona 1070 Protests This Week

Originally posted by Retseh
So you went all the way to Phoenix to cover and report on a protest, but didn't think to take a camera with you.

We had two HD cameras and two sets of portable sound gear.

We arrived 20 minutes prior to the expecting beginning of the "march," and stayed for quite some time, walking up and down Washington in 98 degree sun. Then we circled the area twice in the Jeep, and decided to leave. As we headed up 3rd to I10, we saw a small group, five blocks away, on Washington... and thought... big deal.

And yes... we're now kicking ourselves for not documenting the lack of activity.

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
70% of the voting public support this bill, they are going to be outnumbered 10 to 1 at this protest.

Can anyone help me out on this? Where do people keep getting these numbers from? They're PROJECTIONS. Based upon a polled sample group. Not an ACTUAL representation of all voters.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Odd. The *few* snippets I saw on TV showed massive protests outside the jails. Easily several hundred people.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by mryanbrown]

EDIT:

Here's a general scenario I'd like to present people with.

Did you know, that Mexicans can simply cross the border legally? For reasons such as visiting family.

Now should they follow that route, then they are protected by our laws. (They're technically protected by our laws even if they are here "illegally", despite the fact peoples personal OPINIONS are that they shouldn't be. They still are. see: Human Rights, Common Law)

Okay, so next point. If they're here visiting family, having simply crossed the border and as such are protected by our laws. And so long as they have committed no crime, the police have no lawful authority to interfere with them.

So, now that the scenario is laid out. let me ask this. How can you determine if a person came across the border legally or illegally?

You can't unless you actually witnessed, or have someone willing to testify or provide a statement under penalty of perjury that they witnessed it.

So under SB1070, a person must currently be committing a crime (or about to, under statutory provisions) for the police to initiate an arrest or detainment. This is nothing new, this is ALREADY EXISTING LAW. It was reiterated to make the document seem more valid.

Now that we have cause to interfere with the liberty of an individual, i.e. crime. We now find ourselves asking. Under what constitutional clauses may we determine citizenship?

In order for this invasion of privacy to lawfully exist, it must be court ordered. i.e. a warrant. Which may ONLY be granted if there is compelling evidence to establish probable cause, or if the person is CONVICTED of a crime.

So within the confines of the Constitution. To determine citizenship status, one must be first committing or about to commit a crime. And secondly evidence must be furnished or an individual convicted of a crime to issue a warrant to obtain such private information.

So you can't even really determine citizenship until a person is found guilty.

Quoting from the AZ Senate version. (Can someone find me the final approved version? I'm lazy)

37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

Essentially an officer at their discretion may arrest a person without cause (I really don't care if it says WITH probable cause. As probably cause only exists legally as a basis for obtaining a WARRANT) should they BELIEVE a person is here illegally. God where to even begin on the obvious issues with this one.

Now I realize it says "public offense" to continue on "that makes the person removable from the United States" i.e. not a citizen. So eliminate the legal fluff and it's really saying.

Being here "illegally" is a public offense. So if an officer BELIEVES you are here illegally, they may arrest you.

You haven't committed a crime, no warrant issued to arrest you, and no evidence you are here illegally. Just mere suspicion.

The entire document is pure fluff. The majority of it is a reiteration of already existing laws. Granted some of the motor vehicle codes needed updating. They needed to pass laws regarding human smuggling.

But overall, the majority of this is just to redistribute wealth. Read the information on the fines and penalties. And how it in turn covers all police expenses in court, blah blah.

Arizonans are taxed heavier, to fuel genocide through economic means. ("but genocide is murder". go buy a dictionary.) So that the police may openly abuse anyone's rights due to the EXTREME vagueness of this document. Indemnifying police against any recourse at the tax payers expense.

It's literally creates a vortex of liquidity of the tax-payers money to further the "police state".

Essentially.

The police are always right, and just to make sure they are. We are going to take your money from you in every possible way we can through statutes you ignorantly consent to. So that we can bail the police out in court. Allowing them to continue their unconstitutional practices unabated.

I mean god, people make this so damned complicated. Because rather than looking at it in simple terms...

For instance, "Is this concurrent with the Constitution?" Simple easy to read document explains the basis of law. And clearly identifies the boundaries that the law and government must operate within.

But rather than doing that, we instinctively account for a shifting baseline. The excuse that "times change". And due to this, to explain law to anyone you have to continually play this game of ping pong.

Point, counter-point.

I guess people are right. There's nothing racist about the legislation. The legislation is just so damned vague that racist individuals may apply their own personal beliefs to the law. MAKING IT a racial issue.

/rant, blah

[edit on 31-7-2010 by mryanbrown]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by mryanbrown]

reply to post by mryanbrown


Did you see the videos I posted?

I looked through about 15 videos and those were the ones furthest away to be able to judge the size of the protest.

I saw one, I think it was on CNN or MSNBC that was further back, but I cannot see to find it on the net.

My best guesstimate on the two I posted, 150-200 at the most. And the one on the TV I had seen, maybe 300.

There was not that many people there.

reply to post by endisnighe


I'm not saying thousands were there. But Yeah I seen one on local CBS showed like 300+.

That's still fairly large. The protest crowd was dense, in a small area right out front of Arpaio.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

And yes... we're now kicking ourselves for not documenting the lack of activity.

That's a fair comment, because the lack of attendance was the story.

To be fair, you missed it because it didn't occur to you, but the media missed it because they wanted to.

I thank you for going nonetheless.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I was hoping to see/read an interview with Sheriff Joe, by ATS. Part of what we see, when we log on, is the stuff made of Joe. No scouts ahead of time for this?

I'm rather dissapointed to think, it had to be something more than it was, here on ATS, but I sure would have loved to have heard it from the horses mouth, that you promote, good or bad.

An interview with an illegal, or a pro to the bill in Arizona would have been nice, even if you didn't catch hoards of people being arrested.

Ya, you were there for the margarita's and burrito's, admit it!

Nice tax write off for ya, anyway!