Pima County Sheriff Dupnik Wont Enforce The Law (taxes, living in)

[Grannysroost]

This is law, but not implemented yet and other law enforcement, elected officials are echoing the same, they have enough to do and this adds to their job and existence. The Pima County sheriff has the right to say he won't do this as do the others until it goes into existence if it does, then they can choose to enforce it or not. He is voicing his opinion as everyone else is..for or against, and he is elected. He chose his path as did other elected officials and IMO that is better than biting the tongue and just see what happens and go from there.

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by Bummer

TOO MUCH, Boompa.

They are costing the Arizona Taxpayers enough as it is primarily due to our wonderful leaders in Washington.

McCain and Kyle have been there for decades doing nothing

[revelated]

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.

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by revelated

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... you raised a ruckus, marched in the streets and yelled fascism.

Gee, kind'a sounds like the TEA party crowd.


Ken

[Grannysroost]

Originally Posted by revelated

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.

Who do you think is driving that pickup, some white guy? Is that how you can tell an illegal from a legal? I have legal neighbors that cram into a van to go somewhere like a movie or shopping...so what is your point?

[revelated]

Originally Posted by Grannysroost

Who do you think is driving that pickup, some white guy? Is that how you can tell an illegal from a legal? I have legal neighbors that cram into a van to go somewhere like a movie or shopping...so what is your point?

Didn't we already go over this?

Those that meet the REAL profile, would get pulled over. ID would be asked for. License and registration are checked. If all's well, they're sent on their way.

None of that process has anything to do with race. They do it now.

[Grannysroost]

Originally Posted by revelated

Didn't we already go over this?

Those that meet the REAL profile, would get pulled over. ID would be asked for. License and registration are checked. If all's well, they're sent on their way.

None of that process has anything to do with race. They do it now.

I missed something...What is the REAL profile they use you speak of?

[revelated]

Originally Posted by Grannysroost

I missed something...What is the REAL profile they use you speak of?

Geez, is the board going by that fast?

http://www.city-data.com/forum/14004896-post83.html

Originally Posted by LordBalfor

Gee, kind'a sounds like the TEA party crowd.


Ken

Different set of circumstances. The tax issue has been around for decades. This law just came up.

[deckdoc]

You tell who is illegal by going into every business that has engineers and demand proof of citizenship~ and DL is not proof, because most engineers are in this country with work visas and most stayed after the visa expired without any effort of renewing! Another place with LOTS of illegal immegrants are the hospitals~ lots of Drs and nurses same thing!

We just have to get tough on those type people~ illegals they are!!!

[Grannysroost]

Originally Posted by revelated

Geez, is the board going by that fast?

http://www.city-data.com/forum/14004896-post83.html




Different set of circumstances. The tax issue has been around for decades. This law just came up.

Yes the board does go fast for me because I have to look at every post in answer to your question...and if that scenario is proof of what they use....there are real problems here. Like I responded...My legal neighbors leave with family crammed in their van...short of beat-up truck...that is profiling when they are on their way to a movie or shopping...

And then they have been profiled...as legal is no profiling...checkmate...and their rights have been violated because of a family of Hispanics in a van going to a movie....