Scrolls of Lore Forums  

Go Back   Scrolls of Lore Forums > Scrolls of Lore > Halls of Lordaeron

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #56476  
Old 08-30-2017, 03:35 PM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,166

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kakwakas View Post
Q. I've already kind of covered the Fourth Amendment part.
Now I'm talking about what I will call the Fourteenth Amendment
violation, which is loosely called racial profiling. We're not
going to use that term, because what it is more precisely is
the determination that the MCSO used race as one factor among
others in making law enforcement decisions
in a way that was
not constitutional.
Do you understand my question now?
A. I don't, and I apologize. I'm not trying to be difficult.
Q. No, no, no. Do you understand, for example, that I looked
at the reports that were made from what I called day labor
operations?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that I found that the only vehicles that were pulled
over during day labor operations were the vehicles that had
picked up a Hispanic occupant?
A. I recall that now.
Q. And do you recall that during what I called small --
small-scale saturation patrols, vehicles were only stopped that
had Hispanic occupants, apparently, by a number, at least, of
the arrest reports detailing the number of stops made during
the operation?
A. I do recall that in your order now.
Q. All right. And do you recall that I similarly traced through the fact that the location for the large-scale
saturation patrols was based at least on some of the same
locations in which you'd conducted both small-scale saturation
patrols and day labor operations?
A. I don't recall that in the order, but I don't doubt that
it's there, either, sir.
Q. All right. Well, thank you.
Do you recall that Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Sands, and
others, indicated that they did use race as one factor among
others in determining who -- when officers determined who they
would question once a vehicle was pulled over
?
A. I remember something in the order that stated the fact
that -- that people who were of Latino ancestry were
questioned. I don't recall all of the details to -- to who
that was attributed to.
Q. Do you recall that I discussed MCSO press releases that
indicated that they weren't racially profiling because race
wasn't the only factor used in determining which vehicles to
pull over?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do you recall, for example, my determination about the
fact that despite the testimony of some, but not all, MCSO
officers that there was a zero tolerance policy, that there was
in fact no such zero tolerance policy, or, if there was, it had
not been communicated to officers?
A. Yes, sir.

http://media.phoenixnewtimes.com/9671781.0.pdf
Okay. You asked if I thought people should be investigated for being brown - I'd say no.

Yet, if you ask if officers should be able to use race "as one factor among many", then I would say yes. I think the person asking the above questions is being a little ridiculous. And he reveals his ideologies with...

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/05/2....php?p=1603112

Quote:
It also prohibits deputies from reporting a vehicle’s Latino occupants to federal immigration authorities or detaining, holding or arresting them, unless there is more than just a “reasonable belief” that they are in the country illegally. To detain them, the ruling said, the deputies must also have reasonable suspicion that the occupants are violating the state’s human-trafficking and employment laws or committing other crimes.
I find that ruling inherently problematic.
Reply With Quote
  #56477  
Old 08-30-2017, 03:55 PM
Kakwakas Kakwakas is offline

Elune
Kakwakas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: US
Posts: 8,387

Darkmoon Card: Elementals

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
Okay. You asked if I thought people should be investigated for being brown - I'd say no.

Yet, if you ask if officers should be able to use race "as one factor among many", then I would say yes. I think the person asking the above questions is being a little ridiculous. And he reveals his ideologies with...
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
__________________
Member #14
Reply With Quote
  #56478  
Old 08-30-2017, 04:06 PM
Ruinshin Ruinshin is offline

Elune
Ruinshin's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 21,145

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kakwakas View Post
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Which wouldnt apply.

The linked part specifies reasonable suspicion* of being an illegal immagrant isnt enough, but you need more crimes.

It isnt protecting personal rights, its excusing the crime of being here illegally. Now, the correct action would be to focus on what constitutes reasonable suspicion.

*Yes, legally speaking, different than probanle cause.
__________________
Fucking Epic :X
Reply With Quote
  #56479  
Old 08-30-2017, 04:41 PM
Kakwakas Kakwakas is offline

Elune
Kakwakas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: US
Posts: 8,387

Darkmoon Card: Elementals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruinshin View Post
Which wouldnt apply.

The linked part specifies reasonable suspicion* of being an illegal immagrant isnt enough, but you need more crimes.

It isnt protecting personal rights, its excusing the crime of being here illegally. Now, the correct action would be to focus on what constitutes reasonable suspicion.

*Yes, legally speaking, different than probanle cause.
Being brown is not grounds for reasonable suspicion. It legally cannot be.
__________________
Member #14

Last edited by Kakwakas; 08-30-2017 at 04:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #56480  
Old 08-30-2017, 04:44 PM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,166

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kakwakas View Post
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
1) Citizens.

2) It's funny. I can read this amendment as saying that we can't prosecute anyone for any crime since it abridges their privileges and immunities. But I don't think it means that.

Quote:
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Arpaio may have been guilty of this, for which I might've supported his termination or prosecution.

But I don't support telling him to ignore certain criminal activity.

Quote:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
"Reasonable belief" that someone is illegally here should be sufficient enough so that this amendment doesn't apply. Did Arpaio work within these limits? Maybe not.

But the court said it didn't matter. The court said "reasonable belief" of illegal activity wasn't enough. That's the problem.

Last edited by BaronGrackle; 08-30-2017 at 04:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #56481  
Old 08-30-2017, 04:49 PM
Kakwakas Kakwakas is offline

Elune
Kakwakas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: US
Posts: 8,387

Darkmoon Card: Elementals

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
1) Citizens.
Citizens can look like (or even be) Mexicans.

Quote:
But not telling him to ignore certain criminal activity.
Looking like or being Mexican is not illegal.


Quote:
"Reasonable belief" that someone is illegally here should be sufficient enough so that this amendment doesn't apply. Did Arpaio work within these limits? Maybe not.
Looking like a Mexican is not grounds for "reasonable belief."
__________________
Member #14
Reply With Quote
  #56482  
Old 08-30-2017, 04:55 PM
Ruinshin Ruinshin is offline

Elune
Ruinshin's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 21,145

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kakwakas View Post
Being brown is not grounds for reasonable suspicion. It legally cannot be.
Sure. But the argument is that it can be A factor.
__________________
Fucking Epic :X
Reply With Quote
  #56483  
Old 08-30-2017, 04:59 PM
Kakwakas Kakwakas is offline

Elune
Kakwakas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: US
Posts: 8,387

Darkmoon Card: Elementals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruinshin View Post
Sure. But the argument is that it can be A factor.
Not in America under the Constitution it can't be.
__________________
Member #14
Reply With Quote
  #56484  
Old 08-30-2017, 05:09 PM
Ruinshin Ruinshin is offline

Elune
Ruinshin's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 21,145

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kakwakas View Post
Not in America under the Constitution it can't be.
Then descriptions of crimes involving a black male who's six ft tall wearing a red shirt and tan pants wouldnt be able to be used, as skin color is a factor.

Going back to my afirmative action point, I believe that the Supreme Court has ruled that administrations can use skin color as a factor, but not the only factor.

So im not sure thats true.
__________________
Fucking Epic :X
Reply With Quote
  #56485  
Old 08-30-2017, 05:19 PM
ijffdrie ijffdrie is offline

Elune
ijffdrie's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: A rock of certainty amid an ocean of possibility
Posts: 15,788

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I find that ruling inherently problematic.
Skimming the ruling, there's some rather vital context missing from those statements. Note how the words 'immigration law' aren't in the interview. That's because they weren't pulling people because of reasonable suspicion in regards to their immigration status. That's not actually allowed in the US, apparently. However, you can pull someone over on the basis of another violation, and then investigate their immigration status.
So what happened was that they pulled people over on the basis of suspected traffic violations. A vastly disproportionate number of these suspicions were aimed towards cars with hispanic occupants. And a suspiciously low number of these stops resulted in actually being cited for traffic violations. But hey, it gives the officers a basis to investigate the immigration status of all hispanic car occupants, which was the real goal of the stop.
__________________
This is not a signature.

Last edited by ijffdrie; 08-30-2017 at 05:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #56486  
Old 08-30-2017, 05:31 PM
Kakwakas Kakwakas is offline

Elune
Kakwakas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: US
Posts: 8,387

Darkmoon Card: Elementals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruinshin View Post
Then descriptions of crimes involving a black male who's six ft tall wearing a red shirt and tan pants wouldnt be able to be used, as skin color is a factor.
Stop being obtuse. Suspects can be described with race. Race cannot be used to suspect.
__________________
Member #14
Reply With Quote
  #56487  
Old 08-30-2017, 05:50 PM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,166

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kakwakas View Post
Not in America under the Constitution it can't be.
That seems both incorrect and impossible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ijffdrie View Post
Skimming the ruling, there's some rather vital context missing from those statements. Note how the words 'immigration law' aren't in the interview. That's because they weren't pulling people because of reasonable suspicion in regards to their immigration status. That's not actually allowed in the US, apparently. However, you can pull someone over on the basis of another violation, and then investigate their immigration status.
So what happened was that they pulled people over on the basis of suspected traffic violations. A vastly disproportionate number of these suspicions were aimed towards cars with hispanic occupants. And a suspiciously low number of these stops resulted in actually being cited for traffic violations. But hey, it gives the officers a basis to investigate the immigration status of all hispanic car occupants, which was the real goal of the stop.
Is it a law, that such isn't allowed?
Reply With Quote
  #56488  
Old 08-30-2017, 05:58 PM
Mutterscrawl Mutterscrawl is offline

World Builder
Mutterscrawl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 32,510

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
. It is pretty obvious that they aren't being enforced and when one state or sheriff dared do so they had to stop him. .
He literally refused to turn people he imprisoned over for deportation, his officers beat a man, do you just think it is okay to beat and abuse people if they're illegal immigrants?
__________________
Brought to you by Sanguine Enterprises.

My Worldbuilding:
http://bloodinkworlds.tumblr.com/
Reply With Quote
  #56489  
Old 08-30-2017, 06:04 PM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,166

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutterscrawl View Post
He literally refused to turn people he imprisoned over for deportation, his officers beat a man, do you just think it is okay to beat and abuse people if they're illegal immigrants?
Right, maybe he should've been charged and convicted of that.
Reply With Quote
  #56490  
Old 08-30-2017, 06:08 PM
Ruinshin Ruinshin is offline

Elune
Ruinshin's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 21,145

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kakwakas View Post
Stop being obtuse. Suspects can be described with race. Race cannot be used to suspect.
Again, im not sure on the legality of that.

You cant pull someone over because they are latino, but once pulled over, you can follow up.

Similar to drunk driving check points. Technically, handing your license over isnt part of the "are you drunk" but police check because its an easy, and often likely, chance people drive with expired shit or forged or altered, despite not having any reason to think this is the case. The Supreme Court has upheld this despite it being a violation.

Point in fact, I know of one case where someone lost in appeals and got charged with obstruction for not handing the license to the officer.

So, if theres, say, a truck thats pulled over for speeding near a know crossing point, and its driver is a latino, they cant speak english, and are in torn cloths and look shidty, their race plays into the probable cause, you can dig. But it wasnt the reason the truck got pulled over.

This isnt the same as racial profiling, where you check on or arrest someone because of their skin.
__________________
Fucking Epic :X
Reply With Quote
  #56491  
Old 08-30-2017, 06:10 PM
ijffdrie ijffdrie is offline

Elune
ijffdrie's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: A rock of certainty amid an ocean of possibility
Posts: 15,788

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
Is it a law, that such isn't allowed?
If I understand it correctly, there is a legal standard that needs to be met before you can perform Terry stops (established in a supreme court case), and reasonable suspicion of being an unauthorized alien does not meet this.

Quote:
So, if theres, say, a truck thats pulled over for speeding near a know crossing point, and its driver is a latino, they cant speak english, and are in torn cloths and look shidty, their race plays into the probable cause, you can dig. But it wasnt the reason the truck got pulled over.
Based on the things I just read, this is correct. What the county was convicted on is the fact that it was deemed a proven fact that the pulling over was not based on a perceived traffic violation, but on the desire to investigate immigration status.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
Right, maybe he should've been charged and convicted of that.
Lack of people with standing, plus broad standard of police qualified immunity make that very difficult, as I understand it.
__________________
This is not a signature.

Last edited by ijffdrie; 08-30-2017 at 06:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #56492  
Old 08-30-2017, 06:13 PM
Ragnahar Ragnahar is offline

Poor Soldier
Ragnahar's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 12,430
BattleTag: Mathias#1221

Default

People still going crazy because a man convicted of Contempt was pardoned?

__________________
Game over, man. Game over.
Reply With Quote
  #56493  
Old 08-30-2017, 06:16 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Yeah I don't want to treat illegal immigrants any different than any other kind of criminal. Throw them in prison or deport them. Fine businesses that hire them. I am skeptical of these other concentration camp like accusations because he would have certainly been charged for them. His pardon was for a misdemeanor for ignoring a court order. The court may have acted out of its authority so Trump's pardon could be a proper check and balance.

Apparently another judge blocked Texas from enforcing the law against sanctuary cities too.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-federal-judge

Stuff like this is why I don't mind McConnell blocking Obama's judges. If the senate can remain in control and I believe it will it can be a good way to help block these kind of judges.
Reply With Quote
  #56494  
Old 08-30-2017, 06:34 PM
Kakwakas Kakwakas is offline

Elune
Kakwakas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: US
Posts: 8,387

Darkmoon Card: Elementals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruinshin View Post
You cant pull someone over because they are latino
Correct. That is what they were doing.
__________________
Member #14
Reply With Quote
  #56495  
Old 08-30-2017, 08:37 PM
Mutterscrawl Mutterscrawl is offline

World Builder
Mutterscrawl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 32,510

Default

I think there's room in American politics for a reasonable discussion on accountability for police

And while I doubt there's a military coup pending I think the divide between police/military and civilians is worsening.

Rather than decry bad eggs or acknowledge the possibility of systemic problems, or even take steps to address claims of such, police and many conservatives tend towards treating people like they're crazy or whining, it feels like police close ranks are not kind to those that break with that culture

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...street/383258/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence
__________________
Brought to you by Sanguine Enterprises.

My Worldbuilding:
http://bloodinkworlds.tumblr.com/
Reply With Quote
  #56496  
Old 08-31-2017, 05:21 AM
Noitora Noitora is offline

Elune
Noitora's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 34,692
BattleTag: Chillman#1339

Default

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxne...eople.amp.html

So tell me how this isn't racist, but a black man saying this about white peoplr is?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fojar View Post
Yeah but where would this forum be if not for people speculating endlessly about things Blizzard doesn't give a shit about
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathon View Post
SoL: 20 something know it alls telling other 20 something know it alls they know everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kobebyarlant View Post
All this faction bitching and people arguing with each other and it's Fojar of all people that comes in with reasonable positivity.
Reply With Quote
  #56497  
Old 08-31-2017, 05:29 AM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noitora View Post
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxne...eople.amp.html

So tell me how this isn't racist, but a black man saying this about white peoplr is?
That looks racist to me.
Reply With Quote
  #56498  
Old 08-31-2017, 06:09 AM
Noitora Noitora is offline

Elune
Noitora's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 34,692
BattleTag: Chillman#1339

Default

How does that make you feel?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fojar View Post
Yeah but where would this forum be if not for people speculating endlessly about things Blizzard doesn't give a shit about
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathon View Post
SoL: 20 something know it alls telling other 20 something know it alls they know everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kobebyarlant View Post
All this faction bitching and people arguing with each other and it's Fojar of all people that comes in with reasonable positivity.
Reply With Quote
  #56499  
Old 08-31-2017, 06:25 AM
C9H20 C9H20 is offline

Elune
C9H20's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,234

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noitora View Post
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxne...eople.amp.html

So tell me how this isn't racist, but a black man saying this about white peoplr is?
Seems like a pretty clear and cut case of sarcasm to me. Perhaps a bit tasteless given US racial hangups but hardly worth losing a job over.

I'd argue you would have a point if it was a white cop saying that to a black person or vice versa.
Reply With Quote
  #56500  
Old 08-31-2017, 06:32 AM
Mertico Mertico is offline

Elune
Mertico's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 7,261

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutterscrawl View Post
1. Are you like Dylan Roof, who think you can just kill people because you don't like them?

Because killing people just for being illegal immigrants isn't self defense, it's bigotry and ethnic cleansing. Illegal immigrants don't all 'hate america' and steal, many of them pay taxes that they don't get benefits from. This is not an invasion, but lots of people will play it up like it is because it's easier to hate people and see them as an enemy, as something to fight, rather than as part of a complex social/economic system.

I don't hate America, I love our country and its values, I will not see people like you sell its soul out of misguided hate because you scapegoat all your problems onto "THE EVIL OTHER".

Now answer my Questions Mertico: Do you think you have the right to kill and abuse people, to break the laws that ALREADY APPLY to them, just because they're illegal immigrants?


2. No, Joe Arpaio flagrantly assaulted civil rights, there are numerous accounts, aside from the Phoenix New Times, which you have yet to even provide evidence was wrong in their story aside from your own conspiracy-theory speculation.


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...rights/538119/
You're supposing a lot of things here. Is illegal a race? The answer is no. In North Dakota illegals would likely be Canadian. Is Hispanic a race? The answer is no. It just so happens that there are more Mexican illegals than there are Argentine. You must hate self defense as illegals are breaking and entering into the country. Are you allowed to shoot someone who enters your home illegally? The answer is yes. They do consume more tax dollars than they put back in. By defending illegals to the degree that you do is an attack on all American citizens, abandoning them for something foreign. Why do illegals matter more to you than American citizens?

Do I or anyone else at this moment in time have the legal protection to defend this country from illegals? No. Should every American have that right? Yes. It is the defense of this country, perhaps even defined as such by the second amendment. Should illegals be protected by American laws? No.

If you care so much about raising wages, why support illegals? If you care so much about the American poor, why support illegals? If you care so much about human rights than why are illegals granted more rights than American citizens?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
politics, serious business, sylvanas for president

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.