Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
The problem with your argument is that in THIS CASE - the only real criteria to being stopped is that you are HISPANIC.  |
You assume. The law did not state that. Your problem is that the law did not explicitly
prohibit racial bias. Here's why I countered you.
The words "lawful contact" were perfectly acceptable, because racial discrimination as it pertains to law enforcement is already against the law - hence the word LAWFUL contact. It already precluded the practice of using someone's race as an assuming factor of criminal behavior. That means that the "contact" could not have been racially motivated. Doing so would have gotten said officer in a whole heap of trouble. The issue here is that people like you don't trust your state government to enforce that statute, and you cry wolf when a law does not explicitly say something you want it to. That's why it was changed; not because it was wrong, but because people whine and complain about more explicit wording in the law.
Let me tell you something, I have no problem with wanting the law to be more explicit. The way some of you people went about it is what I take issue with - instead of calmly and civilly approaching the matter and expressing your concerns about
possible racial bias on the part of rogue officers, you raised a ruckus, marched in the streets and yelled fascism.
At the end of the day, the officers know what to look for. The PROFILE is always the same:
- Beat up pickup truck, possibly with expired or no tags
- unmarked vans with overly tinted windows, usually with older tags
- a bunch of people crammed into a tiny vehicle, clearly oversized for said vehicle
- day laborers
None of that has anything to do with race - just signs. People crying wolf over this thing is just going to make it worse.