Author Topic: Sheriff Joe on the Arizona Law (Read 3744 times)

Straw Man · « **Reply #1 on:** April 29, 2010, 06:05:01 PM »

Here's another AZ Sheriff (interview starts @ 4:45).

loco · « **Reply #2 on:** April 29, 2010, 06:29:11 PM »

Funny how Sheriff Joe completely dodges the question:

What is "reasonable suspicion"? How does an officer determine that?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #3 on:** April 29, 2010, 06:36:36 PM »

I already posted what the legal definition of reasonable suspicion is.

loco · « **Reply #4 on:** April 29, 2010, 06:38:30 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on April 29, 2010, 06:36:36 PM

I already posted what the legal definition of reasonable suspicion is.

333386,

Why wouldn't Sheriff Joe answer the questions?

loco · « **Reply #5 on:** April 29, 2010, 06:40:06 PM »

Quote from: Straw Man on April 29, 2010, 06:05:01 PM

Here's another AZ Sheriff (interview starts @ 4:45).

Those are some great points Sheriff Clarence brings up!

benchmstr · « **Reply #6 on:** April 29, 2010, 06:40:34 PM »

Quote from: loco on April 29, 2010, 06:38:30 PM

333386,

Why wouldn't Sheriff Joe answer the questions?

because he knows that the law is demanding racial profiling...

bench

benchmstr · « **Reply #7 on:** April 29, 2010, 06:45:28 PM »

seriously, as a Lt. investigator i haven't had to do a traffic stop in over a year.....but if Texas passes this law(and some are trying) i will run as far from it as i can....officer will be screwed over this...

bench

240 is Back · « **Reply #8 on:** April 29, 2010, 07:18:04 PM »

I am not sure how Jeb, Rubio, tancredo, Krystol can all be so wrong on this issue.

brooklynbruiser · « **Reply #9 on:** April 29, 2010, 08:36:43 PM »

Did they ever get to the bottom of that Arpaio email scandal?

loco · « **Reply #10 on:** April 30, 2010, 08:44:54 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on April 29, 2010, 06:36:36 PM

I already posted what the legal definition of reasonable suspicion is.

333386,

Why wouldn't Sheriff Joe answer the questions?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #11 on:** April 30, 2010, 08:50:07 AM »

IDK. Maybe because he is not a lawyer and can't articulate the case law on reasonable suspicion that George Whorewell or myself can?

Also - I posted a thread that this law merely mimics the Federal Law, which has been upheld.

Option D · « **Reply #12 on:** April 30, 2010, 08:59:53 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on April 30, 2010, 08:50:07 AM

IDK. Maybe because he is not a lawyer and can't articulate the case law on reasonable suspicion that George Whorewell or myself can?

Also - I posted a thread that this law merely mimics the Federal Law, which has been upheld.

he=cop though right..so this will be very important right.. isnt he the one makin these stops

240 is Back · « **Reply #13 on:** April 30, 2010, 09:00:55 AM »

33 and GW do make very compelling cases - with legal backing.

I just dont understand how SO MANY people are against it. makes no sense. This is not a left/right issue at all, oddly.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #14 on:** April 30, 2010, 09:01:58 AM »

Its called "HISPANDERING" for votes and fear of lack of votes in the next election.

MRDUMPLING · « **Reply #15 on:** April 30, 2010, 09:07:24 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on April 30, 2010, 09:00:55 AM

33 and GW do make very compelling cases - with legal backing.

I just dont understand how SO MANY people are against it. makes no sense. This is not a left/right issue at all, oddly.

Like 333 said, it is pandering so you wondering how some known politicians are against it isn't the problem. There are some very real concerns about the law, but stop mentioning these politicians like we should be for or against something just because they are.

Straw Man · « **Reply #16 on:** April 30, 2010, 09:59:12 AM »

Quote from: loco on April 29, 2010, 06:40:06 PM

Those are some great points Sheriff Clarence brings up!

yes he does

anyone who can't stand Olberman should just fast foward to 4:45 and watch the interview

it's hard to argue against anything Dupnik says

240 is Back · « **Reply #17 on:** April 30, 2010, 10:51:48 AM »

"There are some very real concerns about the law"

33 - Is this true?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #18 on:** April 30, 2010, 10:54:12 AM »

There are with any law.

However, when balanced with WHY the law is being passed and the fact that the Federal Govt has completely abdicated its responsibilities, said concerns do not outweigh the utility and usefulness of allowing those who often deal with these criminals to be able to the very job that the feds are NOT doing.

loco · « **Reply #19 on:** April 30, 2010, 12:41:22 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on April 30, 2010, 08:50:07 AM

IDK. Maybe because he is not a lawyer and can't articulate the case law on reasonable suspicion that George Whorewell or myself can?

Also - I posted a thread that this law merely mimics the Federal Law, which has been upheld.

Congratulations to you and George Whorewell on passing the bar!

No offense, but I don't care how many lawyers can define "reasonable suspicion" in this new law. What concerns me and many others is the people in law enforcement who don't have a clue what that means, yet they will be the ones enforcing this new law.

loco · « **Reply #20 on:** April 30, 2010, 12:42:57 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on April 30, 2010, 09:01:58 AM

Its called "HISPANDERING" for votes and fear of lack of votes in the next election.

I oppose this law, and I'm not "HISPANDERING" for votes. I care about Latino American citizens who will be the targets for racial profiling because of this new law.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #21 on:** April 30, 2010, 12:44:08 PM »

I'm sure the law will be tested in court and go to the sc.

benchmstr · « **Reply #22 on:** April 30, 2010, 01:53:13 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on April 30, 2010, 08:50:07 AM

IDK. Maybe because he is not a lawyer and can't articulate the case law on reasonable suspicion that George Whorewell or myself can?

Also - I posted a thread that this law merely mimics the Federal Law, which has been upheld.

neither of you have "articulated" anything.....you just gave you theory on what you read...big difference....

bench

24KT · « **Reply #23 on:** April 30, 2010, 10:08:42 PM »

Quote from: loco on April 30, 2010, 12:42:57 PM

I oppose this law, and I'm not "HISPANDERING" for votes. I care about Latino American citizens who will be the targets for racial profiling because of this new law.

oh I'm sure to get around the racial profiling charges, they'll try to make sure they harass Caucasian Americans, African Americans, and Asian Americans to ensure the numbers don't skew in any one direction on paper.

24KT · « **Reply #24 on:** April 30, 2010, 10:35:23 PM »

This is the guy whose officers are expected to enforce this law using their personal discretion?

I don't think anyone in thier right minds would trust the discretion of these officers.

This video was taken from a tv telecast and the audio is faint so you'll have to pay close attention.

A Murder takes Place in Sheriff Arpaio's Jail

http://jonsjailjournal.blogspot.com/ Brutal murder of inmate, Robert Cotton, by Caucasian Brother, Pete Van Winkle, in Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Maricopa County jail. Phoenix, Arizona.