U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-28-2010, 01:39 PM
 
48 posts, read 15,976 times
Reputation: 16

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
Actually, yes, they can, and they do - every day. Police departments have to prioritize. There's not much sense in going around and arresting people, knowing very well that there's a high chance that the charges will be dismissed by a judge. The police also have to be concerned about public relations. If the public doesn't trust the police, it can lead to bigger problems.

You have a good point!
It's like how many jaywalking tickets are given out compared to running a "RED"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-28-2010, 01:39 PM
 
8,797 posts, read 5,339,424 times
Reputation: 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcsldcd View Post
Agree completely. The police cannot pick and choose what laws they want to enforce. He should be removed from office, pronto.
The Sheriff is not the "police" .. the Sheriff is the supreme law enforcement official in a county who's authority is superseded by no one .. including federal authority.

The reason is, he is an "elected" law enforcement official with his primary duty to protect the citizens of his county, which includes refusing to enforce any law that may be deemed by the sheriff to violate the rights of those citizens who he swore an oath to protect. This also includes other law enforcement actions taken by other officials.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 01:39 PM
 
9,742 posts, read 9,062,712 times
Reputation: 2049
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
If the law can be applied fairly, then there's no problem with enforcing it, but when it starts out as biased, it becomes an issue.
There's no getting around the fact that virtually all of AZ's illegals are from south of the border. That may be biased, but it's rooted in reality, not racism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,279,788 times
Reputation: 10915
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcsldcd View Post
Agree completely. The police cannot pick and choose what laws they want to enforce. He should be removed from office, pronto.

The police generally do not punish jaywalking, littering, and loitering because they have REAL crooks to catch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Southeast Arizona
3,165 posts, read 3,959,797 times
Reputation: 2042
If anything I wouldn't have thought the Sheriff of PIMA County (As in the county with the most of the Mexican border on it in this state) would object to this, seeing what illegals are doing in Tucson. Regardless he is obligated to follow the law and protect citizens because it's a policeman's duty, he can't "pick and choose", no other sheriff in this state has voiced any opposition to this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 01:42 PM
 
39,021 posts, read 23,155,465 times
Reputation: 12150
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
True, but there's a difference between prioritizing and blantantly refusing to enforce a law.
If a sheriff announced that he would not enforce a law that segregated the races, for instance that mandated that theaters had different sections of seating for different races, and had one counter dedicated to one race, and another counter to another race, and a sheriff said he wouldn't enforce this law, would you demand that he be replaced?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 01:44 PM
 
9,742 posts, read 9,062,712 times
Reputation: 2049
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
If a sheriff announced that he would not enforce a law that segregated the races, for instance that mandated that theaters had different sections of seating for different races, and had one counter dedicated to one race, and another counter to another race, and a sheriff said he wouldn't enforce this law, would you demand that he be replaced?


I'm not demanding anybody be replaced. I simply pointed out that prioritizing is not the same as refusing to enforce. Your panties are bunched way too tightly, and your false analogy is ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 01:45 PM
 
8,640 posts, read 7,734,561 times
Reputation: 2854
Maybe the left wingers do not care if the laws are enforced because the majority of the victims are hispanics preyed upon by illegal hispanics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 01:45 PM
 
470 posts, read 388,852 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
The Sheriff is not the "police" .. the Sheriff is the supreme law enforcement official in a county who's authority is superseded by no one .. including federal authority.

The reason is, he is an "elected" law enforcement official with his primary duty to protect the citizens of his county, which includes refusing to enforce any law that may be deemed by the sheriff to violate the rights of those citizens who he swore an oath to protect. This also includes other law enforcement actions taken by other officials.
It's not the shriff's place to deem anything constitutional, his job is to enforce the laws only. It is the COURTS job to deem it constitutional or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2010, 01:50 PM
 
39,021 posts, read 23,155,465 times
Reputation: 12150
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post


I'm not demanding anybody be replaced. I simply pointed out that prioritizing is not the same as refusing to enforce. Your panties are bunched way too tightly, and your false analogy is ridiculous.
Actually, the analogy isn't ridiculous. The law is requiring people whose appearance is distinct from others to carry with them extra documentation to prove their identity. That's discrimination. It's unlawful. And law enforcement officers who are obligated to uphold the law should be able to exercise their right of free speech to say they will not enforce legislation that is both unjust, and unlawful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top