Now if only the Republican Party would adopt these rules..


    A cheap joke, I know!

    May 12, 2010 at 10:31 a.m.

  • Well code, those things happen.....

    About err 85, I was arrested, cuffed, put in the back of the local police car, yeah it was my fault, but the policeman got another call and went speeding down a bunch of streets, I was rolling around on the back seat like a pinball because they didn't bother to seat belt me in, even hit the floorboard and got yelled at to get my A&& back up on the seat.

    Another time, the ex called the police on me, she out and out lied to them about what happened, but she was the female in the situation and she just had to be telling the truth, so they thought. That is, until I pulled up my pants leg and they saw the big bruise she had caused by throwing a ashtray at me.

    Bottom line, police make assumptions on almost ever call, are they right all the time? NO far from it.

    The poor guy in Seattle, that is bad, and IMO the officer involved should be relieved of duty and the person compensated. But to compare a police call in Washington state to the Immigration law in Arizona is disingenuous.

    May 8, 2010 at 6:58 p.m.

  • Can we trust all of our police officers to uphold laws like the one in Arizona when they behave like this?

    "SEATTLE -- City leaders expressed shock and disappointment Friday at video that first aired on KIRO 7 Eyewitness News showing two Seattle police officers kicking a man as he lay on the ground. The man was detained during a robbery investigation last month.
    The two officers have been reassigned as police conduct an investigation amid a firestorm of reaction.
    The racially charged videotape shows officers stomping on the innocent detainee after they responded to several 911 calls for a report of an armed robbery in the parking lot of a night club near Lake Union.
    In the video, a male officer is seen kicking the man who had been ordered to the ground while threatening him with racial slurs. Shortly after, a female officer kicked the man in the back of his leg.

    The man was released when the officers realized he was not involved in the reported crime."

    May 8, 2010 at 6:35 p.m.

  • All men are not created equal. If a person has a darker complexion, speaks only Spanish, and is classed as a Hispanic, they have special rights that no one else has. They can live in the US without being a citizen or legal guest, they have free medical care, do not have to have a driver's license, don't have to pay income tax, do not have to pay for child birth expenses, get free food, can perform any crime such as stealing cars or smuggling drugs, trashing private property, do not have to have auto insurance, and on and on. They are special people and anybody that dares to challenge this should be arrested. If this sound racist or discriminatory, it all of the other people that don't have these rights. I don't have these rights and if I am stopped without a driver's license and insurance, I am arrested. I can't get free medical care, or free food and its not fair. I want my rights too! It is time everybody that is being discriminated against start standing their ground! If the things that I stated in the first part of this post are not true, PROVE IT! Start enforcing the laws that are already written.

    May 8, 2010 at 5:17 p.m.

  • Writein..."This is a prime example of "MY WAY OR HI WAY", "Got mine get yours" mentiality."

    You forgot "Ox-bow mentality."

    May 7, 2010 at 8:26 p.m.

  • It should be obvious to u, that I love screwN with grammer Naziz, lol, bye for today!

    May 7, 2010 at 5:51 p.m.

  • Gyro,

    Polygamy is against the law, I wish it wasent but it is.

    May 7, 2010 at 5:23 p.m.

  • It seems conservatives on this forum always preach that those to oppose this law are unedcuated and didn't read the bill. This is a prime example of "MY WAY OR HI WAY", "Got mine get yours" mentiality.

    I have read the bill and I still question the consitutuionality of this law.

    May 7, 2010 at 5:13 p.m.

  • Sandwich.

    Please. you NEED read your history.

    May 7, 2010 at 5:07 p.m.

  • John, have you read the law? It doesn't seem so.

    You probably should spend a little time learning the difference between to, two and too, before you try to convince me of your intellectual prowess. You, my man, make a mockery of yourself when you use $5 words but can't grasp a simple usage like that. I would give leway if it was a one time typo, but I have seen it over and over again and had to point it out.

    Bragging about one's acumen does not make it so, just as your bragging about your female conquests back in junior high did not make them any more real.

    I have found that those who brag typically have little to brag about.

    May 7, 2010 at 5:06 p.m.

  • Question: If we arrested all the illegals where would we put them? We do not have the prision space. Why do you think all the Mormans who have several wives are not arrested? The answer, we do not have the 2.5 millions beds or space to put them.

    May 7, 2010 at 4:58 p.m.

  • Lighten up, have some fun in your writings, be silly for once. The problems of the world, were here before us and they will be here after us; without any notice of our presence, for the most part.

    I know were I stand, you know were you stand, I’ll assume you want what’s bests, as do I. We may agree or disagree on that, depending on the subject matter. In the end, some of our assumptions may prove them selves right, while others wrong; we aren’t perfect, duh!

    I give the presumption of vanity and arrogance, but I’m not really; actually, I’m pretty simple and enjoy simple things.

    My position on this law, is based on my most humbling beliefs, the right to live without molestation or intimidation. I’ve experienced a legal environment comparable, to what Arizona is attempting to create, and can testify that it is unconstitutional.

    More than knowing constitutional rights, which anyone can do online, I understand their intent. In college, I spent thousands of hours in independent study, relating to the founding fathers. I sought to understand them on a personal level and too decipher the articulated manner in which they formed the U.S. Constitution.

    I found it funny, in later studies, how “separate but equal” was determined legal by one court, then around 50 years later, illegal. What changed, did the constitution, no, public opinion. At least, those opinions that matter, I think we all know what I mean.

    America has always struggled between holding firm to it’s belief in a Constitution, that protects citizens from the state and the “mob”, wanting the state to assert it’s interest. The legalities involved in immigration, are just another one of those cases, where we struggle between the proper application of the “Rule of law”, over “Mob rule”.

    May 7, 2010 at 2:36 p.m.

  • "No matter how you come at me, I’m like Mohammad Ali, the Latino Christian version; except I fight with my mind, not my fist.

    I’m so pretty, so, so, pretty. I move like a butterfly and sting like a bee!"

    Oh, me! I'm gonna hafta start wearing my boots when I read this site. I don't mind wading through it, but when it slops over the tops of my shoes and squishes between my toes, it's getting too deep.

    May 7, 2010 at 1:56 p.m.

  • holein1

    [Based on your argument of the person’s inability to face his/her accuser, it would seem that you assume failure to provide adequate identification would result in automatic and immediate deportation. Which is not the case at all.]

    What does happen? Does the officer “judge” if a person is a citizen or not. Under this law, he would most definitely have too. This law creates second class citizens, of those, who would most likely be identified as being an illegal alien.

    Are not officers required to investigate persons “they suspect”, engaged in criminal behavior? So, wouldn’t they investigate persons “they suspect“, are illegal aliens?

    They would not need any other reason, other than their “suspicions” based on appearance and mannerism, to question someone’s legal status; because illegal aliens are criminals, whose very presence in this country is unlawful.


    [In fact, I was arrested on a warrant for an unpaid ticket because of just such an episode. Were my rights violated? Was I arrested because the police used a flimsy excuse to ask for my ID or was it because I was the idiot that didn’t pay the ticket?]

    Did the state of Texas, create a law; Requiring, that officers request proof of identification specifically to ascertain if a person had not paid their tickets?

    I think, that if they did, Millions of Texans would be in an uproar, don’t you think?

    No matter how you come at me, I’m like Mohammad Ali, the Latino Christian version; except I fight with my mind, not my fist.

    I’m so pretty, so, so, pretty. I move like a butterfly and sting like a bee!

    May 7, 2010 at 1:11 p.m.

  • Asking for an ID when you are have done a suspect violation of traffic laws is asked for. ID, drivers license, registration or insurance. You have not admitted guilt, and it is LEGAL. Don't give the officer any ID or a fake ID and see how fast you go to the station. IT IS LEGAL.
    People, read the law before you make a statement. Not what the mainstream media or your special interest group or blog say it is. It mirrors current federal law so why are you not saying that Obama, Pelosi or Reid are racists? The steps to identifying individuals are the same and have in fact been relaxed some in Arizona to quiet the lies being told.
    There are racist out there during this stuff. They are shown to be coming from the left without any doubt.

    Education brings truth out. It will not be heard from the current left propagandist.

    May 6, 2010 at 8:24 p.m.

  • The Miranda warning is a warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody, or in a custodial situation, before they are interrogated. A custodial situation is one in which the suspect's freedom of movement is restrained (judged by the "free to leave" test), even if he is not under arrest. An elicited incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was informed of his/her "Miranda rights" and made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights. However, a 2004 Supreme Court ruling upheld state "stop-and-identify" laws, allowing police in those jurisdictions to require biographical information such as name, date of birth, and address, without arresting suspects or providing them Miranda warnings.

    May 6, 2010 at 6:09 p.m.

  • "The Miranda rights exist, to protect American citizens from the state. To prevent the state, from denying American citizens their Constitutional rights, through “unsavory practices”; like “presumption of guilt”, instead of “presumption of innocence”. Which shifts, the burden of proof onto the state, in these matters."

    Uh....,in order to be given your Miranda rights don't the police make every effort to identify you first? I know it's a chicken or egg thing.

    Let's see the police can't ask for identification. So since they can't prove who you are, they really can't arrest you because you really don't exist. The Miranda rights issue vanishes in a puff of smoke, it's a waste of time - I hope this clears that up.

    May 6, 2010 at 5:54 p.m.

  • How does being asked to produce ID an assumption of guilt? I'm just not getting that. It's a "you commited an infraction, show me who you are".
    Do you see it as something wrong when an officer pulls up behind you and he has already called in your license plates, gotten your name and address, and knows whether you have insurance or not? Anyone who owns a car or has insurance is already in that system.
    Do you see it as a prusumption of you being a theif when you are asked for your ID everytime you make a financial transaction, rent a movie, write a check, or do the 100's of other things that you are asked to show proper identification for?
    All of you make it sound like the ID of everyone who is supposed to be here is not, most likely, already in the system, and the info cannot be crosscheck very quickly with one call.
    People who do not carry their ID with them, are just asking for trouble, since they know about this law and what it will mean to them to be asked for it and they don't have it with them.
    Get a grip and quit dreaming up false images. The cops know that they are going to be watched very carefully by the world, so they will try to cover themselves with video proof, so they can dodge all of the false claims of racial profiling.
    All of the uproar is over stopping something that should have been stopped a long time ago and the people complaining the most is those that have something to lose, in one way or the other and I don't mean our rights either.
    MY rights are being restored by this new law and I hope nothing stops it. My right to feel more secure in my own Country is important to me.

    May 6, 2010 at 4:49 p.m.

  • Bring the law to Texas!!!

    May 6, 2010 at 4:31 p.m.

  • Asking for ID is not a presumption of guilt, but I guess I can see where you would see it that way. There have been numerous times that I was approached by the police and asked to show my ID. In fact, I was arrested on a warrant for an unpaid ticket because of just such an episode. Were my rights violated? Was I arrested because the police used a flimsy excuse to ask for my ID or was it because I was the idiot that didn't pay the ticket?

    Based on your argument of the person's inability to face his/her accuser, it would seem that you assume failure to provide adequate identification would result in automatic and immediate deportation. Which is not the case at all.

    May 6, 2010 at 4 p.m.

  • holein1

    [ Also, the Miranda rights have nothing to do with presumption of innocence, they are about self incrimination and the right to judicial representation ]

    You’ve actually made my case, in a round about way. This issue is about persons, “illegally being in the country”.

    If an officer requests identification from an American citizen, on these grounds, it implies a “presumption of guilty”. Which is illegal, because every American citizen, is entitled to face “his accusers” in court, are we not?

    If a citizen fails to produce proper identification, is it not “self-incriminating“, under this legal condition?

    In addition, he or she, may be legally liable for failure to produce proper identification; but now he or she maybe illegally detained. This is cruel and unusual punishment, for forgetting your identification, is it not? Not to mention, potential problems with employers if you are late, because of a misunderstanding.

    The law, is trying to circumvent the judicial process; by establishing in “practice”, that all persons “illegal status” is in questioned, “unless proven otherwise“.

    I’m not really getting into a sophisticated discussion on this; because most people have made their minds up, and will disregard any words of merit.

    You are correct in you assumption regarding Miranda rights, at least that is my opinion. However, I believe you have lost focus as to why?

    The Miranda rights exist, to protect American citizens from the state. To prevent the state, from denying American citizens their Constitutional rights, through “unsavory practices”; like “presumption of guilt”, instead of “presumption of innocence”. Which shifts, the burden of proof onto the state, in these matters.

    Primarily because of the overwhelming burden and cost it could be, for citizens, to ensure their rights are not being denied by the state.

    I have suggestions, on how to remedy this matter, but between figuring out how to organize events downtown to pay for the cost of downtown development; I have very little time to get into it. Quite frankly, I don’t believe either side really wants to do what is right, Constitutionally and ethically.

    May 6, 2010 at 3:16 p.m.

  • "I got as far as “sign the guestbook”, who signs the guest book in their own house?" John - This is not their house, hence the issue. Possession is 9/10ths of the law is not true. Also, the Miranda rights have nothing to do with presumption of innocence, they are about self incrimination and the right to judicial representation. If you do not have proof of citizenship they will try to identify you in a database, it's not like they ask and if you don't produce they throw you on a bus waiting to deport you. Have you actually read the law?

    I saw the AZ senator that is calling for a boycott of AZ on tv last night. Interesting that the man was elected by the people to serve the will of the people, but is calling for an economic boycott that will ultimately hurt those people. I guess it's the same logic that says "We know we came here illegally, but damn we're already here and it's really tough to get back and would take a long time, but you should just let us stay and make us legal because, because."

    May 6, 2010 at 2:02 p.m.

  • yeah- a National ID Card.... well we have TWIK (SP??)card drivers license card, social security cards, and hell even discount cards. Why don't we just install everything on microchips - medical, financial, social, criminal background checks , yada yada and run ourselves through scanners everywhere we go. We can call the chips-- Marks of the Beast-- without them we can't buy or sell.......... anyone see this???

    May 6, 2010 at 1:50 p.m.

  • SanAntosWorks...Okay, we understand you don't like the Arizona law. Do you have ANY suggestions as to what can be done to end the tide of illegals flooding across the border? Our government doesn't seem to be interested in either stopping the tide or sending them back; the government wants to do a magic trick and turn the illegals into legals -- presto, chango and they'll all be good democrats.

    May 6, 2010 at 12:28 p.m.

  • Mexico is firm in their immigration laws...

    Illegal immigration is classed as a felony punishable by 2 to 10 years in prison...

    US is very lacks in their enforcement of current laws, the beg out cry is about racial profiling and the AZ bill does not mention singling a race out...It gives the authority to officers that stop someone for a crimnal violation/act the opportunity to pursue if the individual is here legally or not...well written, but, not well excepted...

    we actually used to live in a civil society where a person did not have to worry about foreign groups wishing our demise...however, things have changed and the global environment, free trade, and open borders do not provide a safe environment for our citizens of legal residence to live a safe lifestyle...
    Those against AZ need to think about citizens and citizens rights...not the rights of law breakers who come here to commit crimes, sell drugs, spread gang activity, or look to kill americans that are unsuspecting...
    The great media coverage is once again one sided in this event and many people are outraged because they do not take time to read and understand the law as it was written...The media does not show the law authorities and the danger they are constantly burdened with in protecting the citizens of the US and its visitors. Granted their are good people coming here but, those that look to flow in with the same stream that come to violate the law need to be processed out or jailed. Each month, in Houston alone there are crimes committed by illegal aliens that only murder, kidnap, or steal from others, then escape south of the border...

    All the more for legal immigration verses illegal immigration... The mexican government needs to be held accountable for the citizens who come to the US and abuse the system...

    healthcare alone in 1 city, Dallas, last year cost taxpayers $900,000...

    that is just a drop in the bucket...

    these individuals cost taxpayers billions annually and do not have to be responsible for anything financially. They are also costing US citizens jobs by working here illegally(granted the employer is 90% responsible) but, when does the user/abuser of the system have to answer for their end of the the fiasco???

    They choose to come here illegally because as the 111,000 legal immigrants from mexico last year had to pay and fill out the paperwork and wait for a legal process to enter...

    All illegals should be returned to go through the same process of immigration and those criminals wanting to break the law would be left as the only ones not granted entry...maybe...

    May 6, 2010 at 11:59 a.m.

  • We have 2 options.

    Let people from other nations take over our country, where that precious Constitution will become trash in the waste basket once they get in control, or take control of the situation now.
    Tying the officers hands with all of the "can't dos", amounts to doing nothing and letting a bad situation, get much worse.
    In a location where illegal immigrants abound, there is nothing wrong with assuming things. More often than not, the officers will be right just because of the sheer numbers involved.
    I do not see it as racial profiling. It's Country first, and all else last.

    May 6, 2010 at 10:44 a.m.

  • John Lara.

    Welcome to my world.

    May 6, 2010 at 10:36 a.m.

  • I got as far as “sign the guestbook”, who signs the guest book in their own house?

    Generally speaking, when an officer asks for identification, it is not with an intention to prosecute. If you do not have identification, there is no presumption of guilt, for anything other than failing to produce proper identification.

    Just because you failed to produce identification, you should not be prosecutable for another crime? We are a nation under rule of law, not mob rule. Every American citizen, has the right to “presumption of innocence“, this is why we have “Miranda rights“, to enforce this belief; which this law violates.

    This law, clearly transforms officers into de facto legal aides of the state prosecution; in an attempt to extend the powers of the state prosecution above and beyond the powers of the court to enforce. This is done by placing the burden of proof on citizens, without a trial; as to proof of their legal citizenship.

    In the Arizona case, if you do not produce it, you are then presumed to be an illegal citizen; because the law changes the legal environment to, “presumption of guilt”.

    You are guilty of being an illegal alien, until you prove otherwise, plain and simple. Who will most likely be the persons pulled over and asked this, “dark skin people”.

    This law, if allowed to exist, may threaten to undermine many civil liberties; regardless of race, or any other distinction. I understand the frustration of many, in regards to illegal aliens, but you do not burn the United States Constitution, to deal with one problem. You find another way to do it, without putting endanger your own Constitutional rights. Those that support the Arizona law, may simply be too focused on illegal aliens, to see the dangers of pursuing this action.

    Thomas Jefferson said something about a government giving you what you want and taking away your freedoms. The Arizona law may free them of illegal aliens, but it definitely creates the legal environment to enslave their liberties. In a police state, only the police are free.

    May 6, 2010 at 10:05 a.m.

  • Pencil me into the "Agree with Zman" column! Great common sense article!

    May 6, 2010 at 9:33 a.m.

  • Great article.

    May 6, 2010 at 9:25 a.m.