Racial profiling to be legalized!

[Brightblade]

One thing I haven;t heard yet is anyone talking about how the Mexican president has called for mexicans to watch out when they travel here, yet Mexico has some very strict laws on illegal immigration in their country. They're worse to Salvadorans and Colombians then we could ever be to any hispanics. I, personally, think we should take a page from Mexicos immigration policy.

 

[Duddits]

My point, however, stands. There is a light year of distance between creating laws to assist in the apprehension of criminals, and laws criminalizing behavior.

So where does this fit in? lol

 

[Georgebobbilly]

criminal trespass?

 

[Duddits]

criminal trespass?

Right. But what got him to that point?

 

[Raesvelg]

Right. But what got him to that point?

Congenital brain defects and a lifetime of neglect, I'd wager.

 

[Duddits]

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, doesn't behavior lead one to break the law in the first place? If so, what's the difference between creating laws meant to assist in apprehending criminals and laws that criminalize behavior?

 

[Raesvelg]

In this instance, the difference is that the behavior (entering the country illegally) is already established, and the law itself simply allows law enforcement officers a means by which they can apprehend those who break the law, rather than having to let them go in some sort of asinine jurisdictional dispute the likes of which plagues our country on multiple levels.

 

[Skaw]

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, doesn't behavior lead one to break the law in the first place? If so, what's the difference between creating laws meant to assist in apprehending criminals and laws that criminalize behavior?

Just because a person shakes "nervously" doesn't mean they have suspicious behavior, it could be the side effect of a neurological or physical disorder - not thought process.

Aw, fuck it, who am I kidding look at this law breaking scumbag



He's obviously hiding something, being unable to focus or sit still. Book him, Deputy Duddits.

Or . . . howzabout we make it just a little tougher to get an I.D. here?

Even as a native(in more ways than one) U.S. citizen, I'm required to either keep a valid I.D. or be prepared to be detained until my identity can be confirmed. Make the I.D. tougher to get in the first place, and problem solved as far as I'm concerned.

Actually, no. You're not required to keep a valid I.D. or be prepared to be detained. The only form of "I.D." required to be held is a Drivers License, and thats only if you're in the drivers seat of a vehicle. You do not have to identify yourself to police unless they detain you. And they can only detain you if they have probable cause you're doing something illegal. Suspicion doesn't cut it, so "being Hispanic" isn't a good enough reason. Even if detained, verbal identification of your name and address is all you are legally required to give to Police. Whether or not you falsify it is another legal problem all together. A much more serious one.

I wish it didn't surprise me over how many people know very little about the amendments written to protect us from the law.

 

[Duddits]

Just because a person shakes "nervously" doesn't mean they have suspicious behavior, it could be the side effect of a neurological or physical disorder - not thought process.

Aw, fuck it, who am I kidding look at this law breaking scumbag



He's obviously hiding something, being unable to focus or sit still. Book him, Deputy Duddits.

I think you read too much into my question. There's a big difference between behavior that leads to breaking the law and behavior that is the result of a neurological disorder. Obviously you're not a big Michael J Fox fan since you used him as an example. Why the fuck am I even arguing with you?

By the way, thanks for the promotion to Deputy. Maybe I'll call some of my law enforcement buddies in Baltimore and ask them what they would do if they came across someone who doesn't have any I.D. You'd probably disagree with what they tell me.

 

[Skaw]

By the way, thanks for the promotion to Deputy. Maybe I'll call some of my law enforcement buddies in Baltimore and ask them what they would do if they came across someone who doesn't have any I.D. You'd probably disagree with what they tell me.

What they would do, or what they legally can do? Big difference. Ammendment Four of the Bill of Rights, pal. Police cannot legally demand Identification unless you're detained. You can only be detained on probable cause. You can forfeit your constitutional right not to ID yourself to Police beforehand, but that is your own damn fault - much like running your mouth to an officer instead of being quiet and demanding to speak to a lawyer.

Police are legally allowed to trick you through lies though. But you're legally allowed to not fall in to that trap. Due Process applies to everyone on United States soil, not just citizens. Considering you don't know or don't care what your rights are, I'm willing to bet you're also a big supporter of the Patriot Act, and the bill in Congress that allows the government to strip citizenship of anyone even remotely suspected of being a terrorist agent(No probable cause, just suspicion.)

And I was using Michael J Fox as an example of someone who might seem suspicious just based on their behavior. Obviously everyone knows the terrible disease he has to put up with, but what of someone significantly less famous being questioned by a cop performing the same uncontrollable ticks?

 

[Duddits]

What they would do, or what they legally can do? Big difference. Ammendment Four of the Bill of Rights, pal. Police cannot legally demand Identification unless you're detained. You can only be detained on probable cause. You can forfeit your constitutional right not to ID yourself to Police beforehand, but that is your own damn fault - much like running your mouth to an officer instead of being quiet and demanding to speak to a lawyer.

Police are legally allowed to trick you through lies though. But you're legally allowed to not fall in to that trap. Due Process applies to everyone on United States soil, not just citizens. Considering you don't know or don't care what your rights are, I'm willing to bet you're also a big supporter of the Patriot Act, and the bill in Congress that allows the government to strip citizenship of anyone even remotely suspected of being a terrorist agent(No probable cause, just suspicion.)

And I was using Michael J Fox as an example of someone who might seem suspicious just based on their behavior. Obviously everyone knows the terrible disease he has to put up with, but what of someone significantly less famous being questioned by a cop performing the same uncontrollable ticks?

I'll give you props for knowing more about the U.S. Constitution than most people but you have to realize that it's a slippery slope as well. Not all situations will fall under the 4th and 5th Amendments and sometimes they both work hand in hand. That's why the U.S. Supreme court will always debate cases involving the two.

As far as the Michael J Fox issue is concerned, if a cop can't tell the difference between suspicious criminal behavior from behavior resulting from a physical disability or some medical disorder or doesn't even bother asking, he shouldn't be a cop in the first place. Unfortunately, there are a lot of cops out there that can't tell the difference or are unwilling to learn the difference, and they are the ones that have to answer for their actions when they and their department get sued by the victim.

 

[Tristam Green]

So where does this fit in? lol

Clearly being a dumbfuck is the same caliber as being a hardened criminal. Either way, GBB is probably correct -- criminal trespass.

 

[Reauland]

What they would do, or what they legally can do? Big difference. Ammendment Four of the Bill of Rights, pal. Police cannot legally demand Identification unless you're detained. You can only be detained on probable cause.

And I was using Michael J Fox as an example of someone who might seem suspicious just based on their behavior. Obviously everyone knows the terrible disease he has to put up with, but what of someone significantly less famous being questioned by a cop performing the same uncontrollable ticks?

That's actually what I meant when I mentioned having I.D. earlier. Forgive me for not being more clear. If I'm stopped on suspicion of something, anything, I'm required to identify myself, yes? And if I can't, or won't, they're perfectly within their bounds to continue detaining me until they can ascertain my identity, correct?

And the Michael J. Fox example actually references something I asked as a hypothetical far, far earlier in this thread. If some average Joe suffering from Parkinson's was stopped by police on suspicion of public intoxication, are you saying that the police would be in the wrong there too? More to the point, if they stop him after seeing him walk out of a bar and he is, in fact, drunk, has he been victimized by the police? I fail to see how that's glaringly different than a cop detaining some guys hangin around outside Home Depot at 5:00 in the morning on suspicion that they're illegals.

I agree that there's opportunity to abuse this legislation, but I would like to suggest to everyone reading that it might not necessarily be counter to our interests to give people in law enforcement the benefit of the doubt before we just label them all as bigots, else how are we any less prejudiced than we're already assuming them to be?

In short, I think we need to be careful of just how far we're willing to go in turning a blind eye in the holy name of Political Correctness.

 

[Skaw]

That's actually what I meant when I mentioned having I.D. earlier. Forgive me for not being more clear. If I'm stopped on suspicion of something, anything, I'm required to identify myself, yes? And if I can't, or won't, they're perfectly within their bounds to continue detaining me until they can ascertain my identity, correct?

You're missing the point. Even when detained, the only I.D. you're required to give is verbal. Driving requiring a driving license is entirely different, since driving without one is itself illegal. Not having a state issued I.D. on your person, or not giving it to the police, is entirely protected by the Constitution. Whether you're a legal citizen or an illegal immigrant, the Bill of Right is universal for anyone on United States territory.

 

[Reauland]

So what happens if I tell em I'm Barney Rubble and my current address is 420 Hydro Lane, Bedrock MD? How do cops go about verifying the veracity of my statement? I may be wrong, but I'd think they'd be required somehow to figure out whether or not I'm telling them the truth or I'm some shitbag lying to em cuz I got felony warrants out on me.

 

[Raesvelg]

You're missing the point. Even when detained, the only I.D. you're required to give is verbal. Driving requiring a driving license is entirely different, since driving without one is itself illegal. Not having a state issued I.D. on your person, or not giving it to the police, is entirely protected by the Constitution. Whether you're a legal citizen or an illegal immigrant, the Bill of Right is universal for anyone on United States territory.

Actually, that's the wonderful thing about the Constitution.

It may or may not be applicable to compulsory ID.

And I'm serious, by the way, about that being a wonderful thing. The document is written in fairly vague language in many places, quite intentionally most of the time, in order to give future generations some wiggle room in how to interpret it.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees freedom from "unreasonable" search and seizure.

What's unreasonable? It seems perfectly rational to me that, when a police officer has reason to stop you and subsequently requests your ID, that you should give him one, rather than being afforded the opportunity to lie to the police about your identity, and that failure to prove you are who you say you are will result in you being detained until such time as your identity can be verified, dependent on the discretion of the arresting officer.

The Fourteenth Amendment is also a bit fuzzier than you think.

It guarantees that no state shall create laws that infringe upon the rights of citizens, and guarantees equal protection under the law to everyone within its jurisdiction.

Note the distinction. Given the way that its worded, for example, the Arizona law we're discussing is, in fact, perfectly Constitutional in its intent. The execution may bring it afoul of the Supreme Court, but there's nothing in the 14th Amendment that says you can't write laws that abridge the rights of foreigners, particularly those who are in the country illegally.

 

[Skaw]

Actually, that's the wonderful thing about the Constitution.

It may or may not be applicable to compulsory ID.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," is pretty specific if you ask me. Papers being documentations, obviously.

You're right. Lying to the police is one thing. Not telling them anything is another, coincidentally, constitutionally protected thing(5th Amendment.) Once you're detained though, there is nothing unreasonable when it comes to demanding you to identify yourself. But the police can't detain you just for not handing them an I.D. card(if you're not driving a vehicle, obviously.)

 

[Raesvelg]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," is pretty specific if you ask me. Papers being documentations, obviously.

A.) "Obviously" according to whom? Vague language, remember? Papers could refer to documentation of any specific variety, or none. In this case, for example, in my opinion, the framers are referring to papers as covering financial and personal records, not necessarily proof of identity that didn't really exist when the Constitution was written.
B.) And again, the key word here is unreasonable. Which you appear to be missing.

You're right. Lying to the police is one thing. Not telling them anything is another, coincidentally, constitutionally protected thing(5th Amendment.) Once you're detained though, there is nothing unreasonable when it comes to demanding you to identify yourself. But the police can't detain you just for not handing them an I.D. card(if you're not driving a vehicle, obviously.)

Except that that is not the case.

Stop and Identify laws are constitutional, they've been challenged already and passed muster, with the caveat that identification was assumed to be verbal. Returning to the "unreasonable" clause, it's not a very far leap from requiring people to identify themselves (truthfully) to the police to require people to carry and present proof of identity, and we already compel people to do so in a number of situations that are NOT driving a vehicle. Boarding a plane, for example, can frequently require proof of identity.

 

[Skaw]

Stop and Identify laws are constitutional, they've been challenged already and passed muster, with the caveat that identification was assumed to be verbal. Returning to the "unreasonable" clause, it's not a very far leap from requiring people to identify themselves (truthfully) to the police to require people to carry and present proof of identity, and we already compel people to do so in a number of situations that are NOT driving a vehicle. Boarding a plane, for example, can frequently require proof of identity.

Walking on the sidewalk, being a passenger in a vehicle, sitting on a bench, standing in line at a store, however, doesn't. And State/Federal issued IDs aren't mandatory to be carried anywhere and everywhere.

Yes, you can falsify who you are verbally, and the police will just have to take your word on it unless they can bring you in on probable cause that you're doing something illegal. Having brown skin and speaking Spanish isn't illegal however, nor should it ever be.

 

[Raesvelg]

So.

We must now admit that the police CAN compel you to reveal your identity, thus it is not fully covered by the 4th or 5th Amendments. Just want be sue that we're on the same page there.

And we can agree that selectively pulling people off the street does not constitute an appropriate use of this power, and I'd wager that it would not pass Constitutional muster if someone tried it.

Of course, it IS legal to pull everyone in a given area for a variety of reasons, (sobriety checkpoint, speed trap, etc) but we'll leave that aside for the moment.

Now.

What does the Arizona law, in full text, state?