Tom Tancredo: Beware of racial profiling in immigration laws

posted at 5:07 pm on April 26, 2010 by Allahpundit

He supports Arizona’s new law — with a caveat. If it ends up doing what the left claims it’ll end up doing, then it’s no go.

Contrast Tanc’s statement with what McCain said over the weekend about the law being a “good tool” for cops even though he’s, er, not sure that every part of it is legal. We’ve actually reached the point where Maverick and Tom Tancredo are more or less simpatico on immigration.

Coloradans can expect to become part of the debate waging in Arizona over the strictest, most sweeping immigration legislation in the country…

“If I had anything to say about it, we’d be doing it in Colorado,” smiles former Republican Colorado Congressman Tim [sic] Tancredo.

Tancredo applauds the law in that Arizona took control of enforcing laws the federal government hasn’t enforced.

But he questions how police can stop people for any reason. “I do not want people here, there in Arizona, pulled over because you look like should be pulled over,” says Tancredo.

He suspects police in Arizona will only pull people over for breaking the law.

The director of the Arizona Police Association expects the law will be “rarely applied” and notes that there’s nothing in it requiring cops to check someone’s illegal status. Only when “reasonable suspicion” arises does it come into play. Two issues then: (1) Is being caught without ID sufficient grounds to generate “reasonable suspicion”? No, according to my reading of the statute. Showing ID can overcome “reasonable suspicion” that already exists, but that’s the key — it has to already exist. (2) Can cops pull someone over on suspicion of being an illegal alien or do they need an independent reason? Sixty percent of the public supports the former scenario, but here’s what reader John B., a lawyer, e-mailed this morning about what the law actually says:

The first sentence of the section [of the statute] you posted, in my view, requires that a lawful stop be made in the first place, before you even get to the question of reasonable suspicion as to whether a person is here illegally.

The first sentence of the section you posted states, “FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL …” … Stop right there. I would argue that the language of the statute requires “lawful contact” to be made in the first place. That’s condition #1 – that the law enforcement officer have reasonable suspicion (governed by Terry v. Ohio) to stop a suspect in the first place…

The statute in my view, in no way, codifies the mere question of citizenship as the basis for which to stop someone. If that weren’t the case, the AZ legislature could simply have omitted the language in the statute before “where reasonable suspicion exists ….”

First, you need reasonable suspicion to stop someone. Then, you need reasonable suspicion that they’re here unlawfully. Two levels.

If that’s correct, then you’re not going to see citizens being pulled off the sidewalk and threatened with jail unless they show their “papers.” There has to be some sort of independent suspicion first — although admittedly, given the welter of federal and state criminal laws that the modern citizen has to navigate, cooking up “reasonable suspicion” of driving infractions, etc., wouldn’t be hard for a cop looking to justify making a stop.

Exit question: Which of you dangerous tea-party radicals went and smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows of Arizona’s state Capitol?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Would it be more or less helpful if our neighbor to the south was France, Germany, or Norway?

Inanemergencydial on April 26, 2010 at 5:08 PM

There has to be some sort of independent suspicion first — although admittedly, given the welter of federal and state criminal laws that the modern citizen has to navigate, cooking up “reasonable suspicion” of driving infractions, etc., wouldn’t be hard for a cop looking to justify making a stop.

Bingo.

Therein lies the flaw.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:10 PM

What is with the picture of Tom Tancredo — what is he wearing? Is this some sort of joke?

DaydreamBeliever on April 26, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Exit question: Which of you dangerous tea-party radicals went and smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows of Arizona’s state Capitol?

Refried beans? Not me.

amerpundit on April 26, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Exit question: Which of you dangerous tea-party radicals went and smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows of Arizona’s state Capitol?

I needed that laugh, thanks. :)

KinleyArdal on April 26, 2010 at 5:12 PM

So when do we get to debate what’s actually in the bill instead of what the MSM reported?

uknowmorethanme on April 26, 2010 at 5:12 PM

There has to be some sort of independent suspicion first — although admittedly, given the welter of federal and state criminal laws that the modern citizen has to navigate, cooking up “reasonable suspicion” of driving infractions, etc., wouldn’t be hard for a cop looking to justify making a stop.

Bingo.

Therein lies the flaw.

Really? How often do you get pulled over for reasonable suspicion of driving infractions that you’re completely unaware of?

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:13 PM

I’ve never seen so much hand-wringing and angst over the enforcement of existing common-sense laws in all my life.

No other country allows people to enter their county without any documentation and enjoy their welfare, school & hospitals free of charge – for good reason. It’s just plain stupid.

The funniest part is how the Feds all of the sudden want to intervene. Hey, just enforce your own already existing laws and we wouldn’t have a problem.

Clearly, I’m a racist.

Dorvillian on April 26, 2010 at 5:13 PM

What is with the picture of Tom Tancredo — what is he wearing? Is this some sort of joke?

DaydreamBeliever on April 26, 2010 at 5:11 PM

It’s a longtime frontpage photo for posts dealing with Ol’ Tom. Years old. Allah calls him Sir Tancelot.

amerpundit on April 26, 2010 at 5:13 PM

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Why is it so many people seem to think that police only ever pull cars over, and never actually approach people on foot?

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Exit question: Which of you dangerous tea-party radicals went and smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows of Arizona’s state Capitol?

Why would I waste perfectly good refried beans? /

Emily M. on April 26, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Exit question: Which of you dangerous tea-party radicals went and smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows of Arizona’s state Capitol?

Not me. I only use guacamole when performing vandalism intended to intimidate political opponents.

trubble on April 26, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Here’s the full Photoshopped picture.

amerpundit on April 26, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Why is it so many people seem to think that police only ever pull cars over, and never actually approach people on foot?

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:14 PM

They approach folks on foot with reasonable suspicion of driving infractions? Who knew?

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Exit question: Which of you dangerous tea-party radicals went and smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows of Arizona’s state Capitol?

Not us down here in South Texas. Here, we eat the refried beans but paint our swastikas in blood, preferably from feral hogs or deer.

TXUS on April 26, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Really? How often do you get pulled over for reasonable suspicion of driving infractions that you’re completely unaware of?

MC is very, very chary of “da man”. It’s kind of a kink.

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Well, if they were refried beans, I’m sure they were not the Goya brand. Here in Wilmington, Delaware, the local food bank has specifically asked that people donate Goya products because that is the what the food bank clients prefer.

DaydreamBeliever on April 26, 2010 at 5:18 PM

“I do not want people here, there in Arizona, pulled over because you look like should be pulled over,” Obviously, he’s not familiar with Sheriff Joe’s crime sweeps…

ExUrbanKevin on April 26, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Why is it so many people seem to think that police only ever pull cars over, and never actually approach people on foot?

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:14 PM

So your claim is that people on foot might be walking around breaking one of the welter of laws without knowing it? The driving scenario was more realistic.

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Really? How often do you get pulled over for reasonable suspicion of driving infractions that you’re completely unaware of?

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Does it count if you’re a girl at a license check at 2 am and the cops are asking you multiple times to get out of your car on a quiet back road for no reason at all? SKETCHY.

Human nature is human nature. Virtue isn’t imparted simply by pinning on a badge.

Diane on April 26, 2010 at 5:19 PM

They approach folks on foot with reasonable suspicion of driving infractions? Who knew?

And a very reasonable suspicion of getting shot.

katy the mean old lady on April 26, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Yeah, better picture of Tancredo, I think. Let’s try to stay classy, shall we?

DaydreamBeliever on April 26, 2010 at 5:20 PM

…smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows of Arizona’s state Capitol?

Ha… had to verify because I figured you were joking.

Original, but weird….. refried beans?

tru2tx on April 26, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Exit question: Which of you dangerous tea-party radicals went and smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows of Arizona’s state Capitol?

.
.
Ernesto may have, but I doubt it.

midlander on April 26, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Which of you dangerous tea-party radicals went and smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows of Arizona’s state Capitol?

What a waste of perfectly good Mexican food!

Fistfights have been known to break out here over who has the best salsa or chips or pollo fundido (Someburros is the only correct answer to that last question).

Come to Arizona, where the politics are a joke but the Mexican food is fantastic! :)

ExUrbanKevin on April 26, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Does it count if you’re a girl at a license check at 2 am and the cops are asking you multiple times to get out of your car on a quiet back road for no reason at all? SKETCHY.

Human nature is human nature. Virtue isn’t imparted simply by pinning on a badge.

Diane on April 26, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Sounds like paranoia. Would they be stupid enough to do something nefarious to you with witnesses around? And if they wanted you out of the car, you’d get out of the car.

The point is not that cops are virtuous, it’s that you don’t just bebop along on a daily basis in violation of the law without knowing it.

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Obviously, he’s not familiar with Sheriff Joe’s crime sweeps…

Obviously, neither are you. Joe’s been under DoJ investigation for well over a year, now…

without results.

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 5:22 PM

So your claim is that people on foot might be walking around breaking one of the welter of laws without knowing it? The driving scenario was more realistic.

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Amazing. You apparently believe police officers exist only to enforce traffic laws.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:22 PM

But he questions how police can stop people for any reason. “I do not want people here, there in Arizona, pulled over because you look like should be pulled over,” says Tancredo.

Absolutely. The police should only pull over people who look like they shouldn’t be pulled over.

“Hey, he looks perfectly innocent… turn on the siren!”

Daggett on April 26, 2010 at 5:23 PM

I’m offended that Tancredo is immitating an Italian!

Cybergeezer on April 26, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Would they be stupid enough to do something nefarious to you with witnesses around?

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:21 PM

If they’re a bad cop? Quite possibly.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:23 PM


Exit question: Which of you dangerous tea-party radicals went and smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows of Arizona’s state Capitol?

From:

http://history1900s.about.com/cs/swastika/a/swastikahistory.htm

Until the Nazis used this symbol, the swastika was used by many cultures throughout the past 3,000 years to represent life, sun, power, strength, and good luck.

It was a well intentioned device on my part to simply well wish those who are struggling to find meaning in these tumultuous times.

My bad. /pout

oldfiveanddimer on April 26, 2010 at 5:23 PM

The people of Arizona are saying: lead us [properly], follow us, or get the Hell out of our way.

We’ve actually reached the point where Maverick and Tom Tancredo are more or less simpatico on immigration.

Not really as Tancredo seems like a fairly honest man and John McCain has become a pathological liar.

MB4 on April 26, 2010 at 5:23 PM

wouldn’t be hard for a cop looking to justify making a stop.

If the person that hits you in an accident is without a DL or insurance papers, would you like the offier to find out why? Or just let them drive off with a ticket?

barnone on April 26, 2010 at 5:24 PM

Amazing. You apparently believe police officers exist only to enforce traffic laws.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Amazing that you could read my comments and come to that conclusion.

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:24 PM

If they’re a bad cop? Quite possibly.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:23 PM

You’re paranoid, and you apparently think bad=stupid. If a cop is bad, he doesn’t need this particular law in order to carry out his eeevil schemes. Got any other arguments against?

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:26 PM

John McCain has become a pathological liar.

Yeah, about three decades ago

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Amazing that you could read my comments and come to that conclusion.

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:24 PM

They approach folks on foot with reasonable suspicion of driving infractions? Who knew?

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Yeah, just amazing.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:26 PM

I think this is a ploy; The Obama administration is pandering to the ‘deaf, dumb, and blind’ vote, and intends to staff the Border Patrol with these people.

Cybergeezer on April 26, 2010 at 5:26 PM

“I do not want people here, there in Arizona, pulled over because you look like should be pulled over,”

Obviously, he’s not familiar with Sheriff Joe’s crime sweeps… AZ criminals
ExUrbanKevin on April 26, 2010 at 5:18 PM

FIFY

macncheez on April 26, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Exit question: Which of you dangerous tea-party radicals went and smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows of Arizona’s state Capitol?

You got me. It was me. But you can’t prosecute me for the crime because treating criminals like criminals violates my civil rights.

Daggett on April 26, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Exit question: Which of you dangerous tea-party radicals went and smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows of Arizona’s state Capitol?

I did. Senor Rahm gave me 20 dollars to do it. Do you think he should have given me more?

NoBordersJose on April 26, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Bingo.

Therein lies the flaw.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Ok, so in your mind the cops won’t need any real reason to stop and harass or question people…which given the passage you quoted also implies that this is already the case. What’s stopping cops from using the myriad of laws and infractions from harassing people right now? If cops are so eager to cook up reasons to harass you and presumably charge you with something then can’t they already do that? Certainly some cops do and will abuse this but if this is a rampant problem currently I don’t really see how this new law makes this situation worse. Not only do the cops have to have a reason to question you in the first place they have to have reasonably suspect you’re here illegally (and your skin color is NOT a reason according to this law and the governors executive order).

gwelf on April 26, 2010 at 5:27 PM

You got me. It was me. But you can’t prosecute me for the crime because treating criminals like criminals violates my civil rights.

Daggett on April 26, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Not if you’re white…

gwelf on April 26, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Amazing. You apparently believe police officers exist only to enforce traffic laws.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:22 PM

When was the last time that you encountered a police officer, not on traffic duty, responding to a criminal complaint or on a protection detail of some kind?

With budget cuts, they ONLY respond to a complaint or are patroling waiting for a traffic call. They are not standing on street corners waiting to fake a littering complaint so they can ask for someone’s papers.

barnone on April 26, 2010 at 5:29 PM

You’re paranoid, and you apparently think bad=stupid.

Often, it does mean they’re stupid. I’m also not paranoid, nor is any citizen who has been approached by a police officer for whatever reason, has committed no crime, but is still harassed by a bad cop.

If a cop is bad, he doesn’t need this particular law in order to carry out his eeevil schemes. Got any other arguments against?

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:26 PM

If a cop is bad, and likes to throw his badge around because he’s addicted to the power trip, this is one more way for him to get away with a little more.

But hey, you go ahead and put full faith in government agents. I’ll go on a case by case basis. So far, some cases have been good. Some far from good. “Never been confronted by a bad cop” is a nice way to live, while you can.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:29 PM

We’ve actually reached the point where Maverick and Tom Tancredo are more or less simpatico on immigration.

No, no we haven’t.

We *have* reached the point where McCain is telling lies about his positions for the moment, but they are not *actually* his positions, and he is not *actually* in rough agreement with Tancredo.

Have we not f-ing learned this about McCain yet?

Midas on April 26, 2010 at 5:29 PM

When was the last time that you encountered a police officer, not on traffic duty, responding to a criminal complaint or on a protection detail of some kind?

barnone on April 26, 2010 at 5:29 PM

Three weeks ago. Not the first time, either. The Madison cops are a busy bunch.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:30 PM

They approach folks on foot with reasonable suspicion of driving infractions? Who knew?

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Yeah, just amazing.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:26 PM

OK, see if you can follow. Your original argument was that the welter of driving laws made it easy for cops to pull people over with reasonable suspicion of driving infractions.

Then you say sometimes cops approach on foot. Now, your original argument was driving infractions. See?

It’d help if you’d answer a question straightforwardly instead of answering with a cutesy question. Then maybe it’d be easier for you to follow.

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:30 PM

RINO! TRAITOR! HANG HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEM!

/sarc :)

ThePrez on April 26, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Sounds like paranoia. Would they be stupid enough to do something nefarious to you with witnesses around? And if they wanted you out of the car, you’d get out of the car.
misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Right. That was total paranoia, coming home from work, two cops laughing with each other, finding various ways to ask me to come out of the car. By myself. Outnumbered. Yeah, I’ll make sure to tell my daughter those situations are totally fine.

Diane on April 26, 2010 at 5:30 PM

“Never been confronted by a bad cop” is a nice way to live, while you can.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:29 PM

I’ve actually been jailed by a bad cop for doing precisely nothing. But I’m a grown-up, so I got over it.

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:31 PM

If a cop is bad, he doesn’t need this particular law in order to carry out his eeevil schemes. Got any other arguments against?

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:26 PM

That’s the answer in a nutshell to this ridiculous argument.

tru2tx on April 26, 2010 at 5:31 PM

What’s stopping cops from using the myriad of laws and infractions from harassing people right now?

gwelf on April 26, 2010 at 5:27 PM

What’s stopping bad cops? Citizens who know their rights. In most states, that means not having to fork over your ID to any officer who doesn’t like the way you look. I guess that’s no longer the case in Arizona.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Bingo.

Therein lies the flaw.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Ok, so in your mind the cops won’t need any real reason to stop and harass or question people…which given the passage you quoted also implies that this is already the case. What’s stopping cops from using the myriad of laws and infractions from harassing people right now? If cops are so eager to cook up reasons to harass you and presumably charge you with something then can’t they already do that? Certainly some cops do and will abuse this but if this is a rampant problem currently I don’t really see how this new law makes this situation worse. Not only do the cops have to have a reason to question you in the first place they have to have reasonably suspect you’re here illegally (and your skin color is NOT a reason according to this law and the governors executive order).

gwelf on April 26, 2010 at 5:27 PM

All cops hate MadisonConservative. The all spend all day and half the night trying to think of new ways to harass MadisonConservative. It’s all most of them live for.

MB4 on April 26, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Your original argument was that the welter of driving laws made it easy for cops to pull people over with reasonable suspicion of driving infractions.

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Where in the hell did you read that? I never said a thing about driving laws.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:33 PM

If a cop is bad, and likes to throw his badge around because he’s addicted to the power trip, this is one more way for him to get away with a little more.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:29 PM

This? This is your argument? So as between trying to get a handle on illegal immigration and giving a bad cop one more way to get away with a little more, screw the illegal immigration problem?

Makes sense.

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:33 PM

You’re paranoid, and you apparently think bad=stupid. If a cop is bad, he doesn’t need this particular law in order to carry out his eeevil schemes. Got any other arguments against?

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:26 PM

You don’t give a bad guy another weapon. All it will take is a few news stories about cops using this law to detain innocent civilians, and public opinion will turn against this bill — and against any Republican who supports it — in a New York minute.

Caiwyn on April 26, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Exit question: Which of you dangerous tea-party radicals went and smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows of Arizona’s state Capitol?

damn, I hope refried beans cloak my fingerprints well…./

ted c on April 26, 2010 at 5:33 PM

I’ve actually been jailed by a bad cop for doing precisely nothing. But I’m a grown-up, so I got over it.

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Yep. Grown-ups care nothing about their rights. You’re a real role model.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:34 PM

There has to be some sort of independent suspicion first — although admittedly, given the welter of federal and state criminal laws that the modern citizen has to navigate, cooking up “reasonable suspicion” of driving infractions, etc., wouldn’t be hard for a cop looking to justify making a stop.

Bingo.

Therein lies the flaw.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Where in the hell did you read that? I never said a thing about driving laws.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Um. Here.

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:34 PM

Yep. Grown-ups care nothing about their rights. You’re a real role model.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:34 PM

There’s a difference between caring and paranoia.

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Exit question: Which of you dangerous tea-party radicals went and smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows of Arizona’s state Capitol?

hmmmm why does it have to be use teabagging individuals? Why can’t it be LaRaza?

upinak on April 26, 2010 at 5:36 PM

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:33 PM

A. Get the feds enforcing existing laws.
B. Create new laws that we’re not sure will be enforced any more than the current ones, while now forcing Arizonian citizens to carry ID no matter what they’re doing.

Gee, how could I be so foolish as to choose the former? To demand the enforcement of existing laws would be…hell, what would be the word…conservative.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:36 PM

I say beware of Tom Tancredo.He spoke at our local Tea Party and sounded like a raving lunatic .He talked about the legalisation of all drugs about 10 of thousands of foreign troops hidden at bases in this country ready to take over the country when Obama gives the word.I know that things are bad and getting worse under Obama but some of this stuff is getting crazy.

thmcbb on April 26, 2010 at 5:36 PM

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:34 PM

Thanks for the non-discussion discussion. Man, HotAir sucks these days.

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:37 PM

What’s stopping bad cops? Citizens who know their rights. In most states, that means not having to fork over your ID to any officer who doesn’t like the way you look. I guess that’s no longer the case in Arizona.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:32 PM

I hear that in Arizona the cops all have instructions to harass MadisonConservative on sight. If they see an illegal alien and MadisonConservative at the same time they have been told to harass MadisonConservative first.

MB4 on April 26, 2010 at 5:37 PM

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:34 PM

I see in vain to find the word “driving” in what I quoted from AP.

“Stop” does not equal “traffic stop”. Again, you seem unaware that police do more than stop cars.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:37 PM

I guess that’s no longer the case in Arizona.

MC, DID YOU READ the law? What changed?

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 5:38 PM

MB4 on April 26, 2010 at 5:37 PM

You made more sense when you just posted song parodies.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Obviously, he’s not familiar with Sheriff Joe’s crime sweeps…

Obviously, neither are you. Joe’s been under DoJ investigation for well over a year, now…

without results.

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Ummn, yeah, I am. I live here, I have to deal with him. The fact is, if Sheriff Joe went after illegal guns the way he goes after illegal aliens, the hue and cry from conservatives of all stripes would be deafening.

But because he targets his political opponents and talks tough, he’s our best friend.

Some of us don’t view the Bill of Rights as a buffet table, though. I love (and use) my Second Amendment rights, but I like the other nine as well…

ExUrbanKevin on April 26, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Three weeks ago. Not the first time, either. The Madison cops are a busy bunch.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Where were the officers, what were they doing? Were they walking into the police station or going to lunch? How many were there?

barnone on April 26, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Yep. Grown-ups care nothing about their rights. You’re a real role model.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:34 PM

There’s a difference between caring and paranoia.

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:35 PM

That’s easy for you to say, misterpeasea, the cops aren’t out to get you.

MB4 on April 26, 2010 at 5:39 PM

There’s a difference between caring and paranoia.

misterpeasea on April 26, 2010 at 5:35 PM

You said yourself that you were locked up for no reason. That doesn’t sound like paranoia to me. If you’re not upset about that, you are a world class idiot.

Caiwyn on April 26, 2010 at 5:39 PM

MC, DID YOU READ the law? What changed?

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Um, before you didn’t have to carry ID on your person at all times. Now you do.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:41 PM

You made more sense when you just posted song parodies.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:38 PM

You never have made much sense at all and are emphasizing that on this thread.

If you think my song parodies make more sense, I will give you one. Coming up … …

MB4 on April 26, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Good grief, this place is descending into a pit of ridiculous uneducated neener-neener-ism.

ffs.

Midas on April 26, 2010 at 5:42 PM


“Illegalbaggers…!”

/

Seven Percent Solution on April 26, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Where were the officers, what were they doing? Were they walking into the police station or going to lunch? How many were there?

barnone on April 26, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Responding to call about a man with a holstered gun on his hip at a pet store. Two of them. Remarkably restrained since the last time.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:42 PM

But because he targets his political opponents and talks tough, he’s our best friend.

I wouldn’t say he was “my friend”, not knowing the man. He does seem like a fairly effective LEO, though.

Why would conservatives be bothered if someone went after illegal guns?

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 5:44 PM

What’s stopping bad cops? Citizens who know their rights. In most states, that means not having to fork over your ID to any officer who doesn’t like the way you look. I guess that’s no longer the case in Arizona.
MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:32 PM

I don’t see how the law in AZ changes this. In theory the same gateway to harassing you is a barrier (‘lawful contact’) – so you can give the same cop crap about this issue when he asks for your ID (‘Hey – you don’t have a lawful reason to be questioning me in the first place so I don’t need to give you my ID’).

There are bad cops and these cops need to be dealt with but I think that most cops will go out of their way a little to make your day worse if you are pissy with them. If a cop asks me for my ID I hand it over and he looks at it for a second and we part ways. If I make a big deal out of it (because it’s my right!) of course he’s going to press me more.

gwelf on April 26, 2010 at 5:44 PM

They’ll be coming to take Madison away, ha-haaa.
They’ll be coming to take Madison away, ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-haaa.
To the funny farm, where life is free from cops all the time and he’ll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats and they’ll be coming to take him away, ha-haaa!!!
To the happy home, with trees and flowers and chirping birds and basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and toes and they’ll be coming to take him away, ha-haa!!!
To the funny farm, where life is free from cops all the time……
- Napoleon XIV

MB4 on April 26, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Um, before you didn’t have to carry ID on your person at all times. Now you do.

Um, no. You don’t. Where do you find that…???

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Um, no. You don’t. Where do you find that…???

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 5:45 PM

When you’re driving….you do have to carry you’re license with you.

terryannonline on April 26, 2010 at 5:47 PM

If a cop asks me for my ID I hand it over and he looks at it for a second and we part ways. If I make a big deal out of it (because it’s my right!) of course he’s going to press me more.

gwelf on April 26, 2010 at 5:44 PM

That’s some people’s style. I believe that style simply encourages bad cops to flex their badge more often. If you’ve committed a crime, that’s different. If you haven’t, and an officer merely has some arbitrary beef, I don’t see why that cop should be placated while harassing you.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Um, no. You don’t. Where do you find that…???

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Do we really have to re-hash this? You know where.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:48 PM

I even heard Brit Hume say this might not be constitutional. I think the problem is such that it is subjective, the whole issue what is reasonable can vary from person to person.

For instance, if you see a guy with a van full of men in it, can you pull them over and ask for ID? Maybe the guy is obeying the rules of the road, but the cop sees that van and just knows they are suspicious…then what?

I also heard that a drivers license would be valid proof. That is a lot different from asking for papers, which is what I had heard before.

I think it will take some time to know if all the elements of the bill are deemed constitutional. I am sure there will be challenges to it. Judge Nepalitano is being quoted by lefties to make the claim the bill can not be legal…very strange bedfellows on this.

Most people are concerned about constitutional issues, but right now they are more concerned about the violence crossing the border.

Terrye on April 26, 2010 at 5:48 PM

Mr. Krentz remains unavailable for comment.

kingsjester on April 26, 2010 at 5:50 PM

I also heard that a drivers license would be valid proof. That is a lot different from asking for papers, which is what I had heard before.

Terrye on April 26, 2010 at 5:48 PM

And what if you’re not driving a car when a cop approaches you?

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:50 PM

That’s some people’s style. I believe that style simply encourages bad cops to flex their badge more often. If you’ve committed a crime, that’s different. If you haven’t, and an officer merely has some arbitrary beef, I don’t see why that cop should be placated while harassing you.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:47 PM

I partially agree with you. I agree that police serve a very important function in society and they are granted special powers to carry out this function and that strong laws are needed to protect citizens from abuse of this power. I just don’t see how this AZ law really changes the current equation of balance. IF they have reason to make ‘lawful contact’ AND IF they have a reasonable suspicion to suspect you are here illegally then they can ask for ID. Is going to be easy for bad cops to abuse this? Probably – but they already do and I don’t think this law really gives the bad cops any more leeway to mess with you. If they are going to run right over the first criteria of ‘lawful contact’ which already exists the second one is no big deal to them. You as a citizen still have these 2 criteria as protection after the fact.

gwelf on April 26, 2010 at 5:54 PM

MB4 on April 26, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Obsession, much?

Diane on April 26, 2010 at 5:55 PM

Terrye on April 26, 2010 at 5:48 PM

I agree that it’s possible that this law is unconstitutional or simply a bad/ineffective law.

But unfortunately this is hard to examine objectively as the left is pouncing on it to take back to offense politically. To hear lefties talk about it you’d think that AZ just became a police state.

gwelf on April 26, 2010 at 5:56 PM

Obsession, much?

Diane on April 26, 2010 at 5:55 PM

Don’t make him more jealous, m’dear.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:57 PM

Um, no. You don’t. Where do you find that…???

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Do we really have to re-hash this? You know where.

If you’re making statements of fact, back them up.

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 5:59 PM

gwelf on April 26, 2010 at 5:54 PM

It’s the matter of the officer now being able to haul you to the station if you don’t hand over ID. Before, such an action would be more difficult to justify, particularly if that citizen brings action against the officer. Now, it’s one more out.

Will this probably happen? No. Most cops are good, and a good deal of the bad cops probably aren’t even smart enough to figure out this loophole. I hope it never happens. I hope.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Delusional disorders are a form of psychosis in which a person has paranoid delusions which are often intense and long lasting. They may take the form of the affected person hearing sounds, such as police sirens, when no one else hears them, and people, such as cops, talking about how they are out to get them when they really aren’t.

Sigmund on April 26, 2010 at 6:04 PM

A white guy robs a bank.

You put out an APB for “a white male”.

Is that racial profiling?

An Hispanic woman defrauds a group of eldery citizens.

You put out an APB for “an Hispanic female”.

Is that racial profiling?

A black guy carjacks a pizza delivery vehicle.

You put out an APB for “a black male”.

Is that racial profiling?

The entire poisoned tone laid over this subject is idiotic, irrational, and studiously anti-sensible.

If the “race” of a perp helps catch them, you add it to the mix. Height, weight, age, distinguishing marks, et al.

If a very-heavily tattooed guy robbed a jewelry store would it be a bigoted anti-Body Art slur to mention that obvious detail in the police bulletin?

Profiling works, because it is not dependent on one single fact, like “race”, but as a collection of clues.

People trying to defend our nation need to uphold the pragmatic value of rational profiling, and scoff at the hysterical caricature used by those trying to subvert our laws and undermine our nation.

They could say (in the fulminating faces of the race card players):

I’M NOT FOR RACIAL PROFILING, I’M FOR RATIONAL PROFILING.

Take back the moral highground from border-eroding, freeloader-enabling, scofflaw-encouraging Utopian morons, anarchist anti-capitalists, and their useful idiot (” There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ human“) idealists.

profitsbeard on April 26, 2010 at 6:04 PM

Ohforgawdssake! This law doesn’t change anything. If you are walking down the street and you match the description of the person who just stole a pack of cigarettes from the convenience store, a cop will stop you, ask where you are coming from and ask for your ID. If you don’t have any ID, he will ask for your SS number and run you through NCIC that way. You either come up clean or you don’t. This is NOT some plot to harass ordinary citizens. Everyone who is in this country legally should have an SS number. It’s a requirement! You can also give the officer your driver’s license number if you have it memorized.

As far as carrying ID at all times, it is required in some states, not in others. However, if you are walking down the street and suddenly get hit by a car or suffer a stroke and fall over unconscious, wouldn’t it be a good idea to have some sort of ID with you so your family can be contacted? Let’s not make a huge deal out of nothing, people. This is not a conspiracy by “big brother” to get you.

speed911 on April 26, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 2