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.
Actually has nothing to do with SB 1113, I supported this as well... Not everything is black and white or as cut and dry as you'd like to make it homekid. Also, it isn't really about "the law" as it is with policies and procedures. I do like your attitude about rallying for change and the sort as I believe that to be very American and inline with American democracy! However, we only differ in our application of the law, how laws are enforced, the efficiency of our current sheriff, and etc etc.
Get'er done...LOL! Love it...however this is the case for many issues. It is the case for supporting laws against illegal immigrant transgressions, for rallying support AGAINST Sheriff Joe, etc. Change is certainly coming and it will be in the form of a new face and fresh start for our County's lawmen/women! We will just have to put up with Joe for a little while longer or in the long-shot that he is forced out of office.
you are talking about the interpretation of the law, thats your issue. such gripes also have to go through the court system, usually ending up at state or federal level supreme courts. ask a judge if Joe A is mis-interpreting the law.
you are talking about the interpretation of the law, thats your issue. such gripes also have to go through the court system, usually ending up at state or federal level supreme courts. ask a judge if Joe A is mis-interpreting the law.
Many people have asked a judge or jury of peers and have been agreed with and awarded hundreds of thousands or millions by the judges or juries. Also, the law isn't the issue as stated again, LOL! But the implementation and actions used. There is no interpretation issue what so ever. There are ways to enforce laws in accordance with the constitution and way so to enforce it that violates constitutional rights; that is the issue.
Many people have asked a judge or jury of peers and have been agreed with and awarded hundreds of thousands or millions by the judges or juries. Also, the law isn't the issue as stated again, LOL! But the implementation and actions used. There is no interpretation issue what so ever. There are ways to enforce laws in accordance with the constitution and way so to enforce it that violates constitutional rights; that is the issue.
yopu are missing the point. you know how law works right. laws say what you cant do. if i do something that you dont like and its legal, well, then its legal and there's nothing you can do about it other than get the laws changed.
you're a whiner and a griper. stop the 3yr old whining and go rally your troops.
and yes, SB1113 itself has nothing to do with why you think Joe A is doing things you dont like. the point was (which you failed to recognize) was to make you understand that if you want changes you have to work for it, rally the support/vote and get changes. thus far i think all your typing here on this thread has been nothing more than a typing exercise. i bet your WPM is a tad higher now too.
"Actually prejudice, discrimination and racism are not interchangeable according to any dictionary or thesaurus. I looked in the Marriam Webster dictionary and thesaurus and it says no such thing. Besides, you can't be a racist against Hispanics because it isn't a race it is an ethnicity. Read what I wrote before. There is NO cicular reasoning, it is what it is."
That's funny, the definitions I had posted earlier were copy and pasted from online versions of Webster's dictionary and thesaurus.
But, whatever.
You said that the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office has "discrimination and prejudice based on a presumption of national origin, immigration status, ethnicity." If you don't want to call it "racism" you can call it "ethnicityism" or whatever "ism" you want. The word used to symbolize the definition does not matter since we know what the intent was. And the intent was a serious accusation that should not be thrown around lightly.
I also wanted to revisit "tent city." The people in tent city would still be behind bars no matter what county or state they were in. It just so happens that they are in tent city instead of a conventional prison cell. So your problem is with the accommodations. However, it should be noted that these same accommodations are used by our brave men and women in uniform in similar weather conditions across the world. If it is good enough for Marines and soldiers, how come it is not good enough for someone who was ordered by a judge to be there because of a perceived serious crime?
yopu are missing the point. you know how law works right. laws say what you cant do. if i do something that you dont like and its legal, well, then its legal and there's nothing you can do about it other than get the laws changed.
LOL, this is true for the public. However, there are ways to enforce laws, AGAIN that are constitutional and ways that aren't. Discriminating against certain individuals because they appear to be from a different country, because of ethnicity, etc is an ILLEGAL approach to enforcing immigration laws. You are missing the point and I don't think you know how the law actually works. If law enforcement takes a misstep, doesn't obtain evidence in a constitutionally sound way, many cases are dismissed, a mistrial is granted, or the evidence is inadmissible.
Quote:
you're a whiner and a griper. stop the 3yr old whining and go rally your troops.
This is probably the weakest argument. I could call you a whiner or griper because you continually do so when someone disagrees with you. This is a discussion about a Sheriff who doesn't enforce the law in an efficient and prudent manner. If you can't help yourself but name call because you can't sustain an adult conversation then you should reconsider posting.
Quote:
and yes, SB1113 itself has nothing to do with why you think Joe A is doing things you dont like. the point was (which you failed to recognize) was to make you understand that if you want changes you have to work for it, rally the support/vote and get changes. thus far i think all your typing here on this thread has been nothing more than a typing exercise. i bet your WPM is a tad higher now too.
Ok, how many times are you going to say the same thing over and over again??? yes, in order to effect change blah blah blah...we've gone over this. My WPM has always been greater than 80, LOL! So I don't need excercise. Takes me roughly 30 sec. to 1 min to reply to you, hardly an "exercise." Watching too much ESPN...come on, you know what commercial I am talking about, LOL!
Last edited by fcorrales80; 09-06-2009 at 12:30 PM..
That's funny, the definitions I had posted earlier were copy and pasted from online versions of Webster's dictionary and thesaurus.
But, whatever.
You said that the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office has "discrimination and prejudice based on a presumption of national origin, immigration status, ethnicity." If you don't want to call it "racism" you can call it "ethnicityism" or whatever "ism" you want. The word used to symbolize the definition does not matter since we know what the intent was. And the intent was a serious accusation that should not be thrown around lightly.
I don't usually say things against someone, but calling someone ignorant isn't exactly horrible. So, you are ignorant to the fact that race has NOTHING to do with the above mentioned categories. French and German are nationalities and ethnicities not different races... Seriously richie, you need to understand the differences; it is a huge and major different. Why don't you post the link to this dictionary that states the terms are interchangeable. Because honestly, prejudice and discrimination are NOT the same word and have different definitions! Race and ethnicity also have different definitions and are completely separate from racial categories.
Quote:
I also wanted to revisit "tent city." The people in tent city would still be behind bars no matter what county or state they were in. It just so happens that they are in tent city instead of a conventional prison cell. So your problem is with the accommodations. However, it should be noted that these same accommodations are used by our brave men and women in uniform in similar weather conditions across the world. If it is good enough for Marines and soldiers, how come it is not good enough for someone who was ordered by a judge to be there because of a perceived serious crime?
Because they are innocent until proven guilty. Remember we/I served in those conditions because we volunteered to do so understanding the consequences (for the most part) and taking on those duties. Imagine if you were arrested because you were accused of a crime you didn't commit. However, there was some evidence against you. Because of the nature of the crime and your lack of family or community ties (maybe unemployed and therefore not needing to go to work) were held without bail; this is hypothetical. Now would you want to be locked up like you were already convicted and put in tent city, or would you rather like the fact that you are still innocent until proven guilty to be on your side and afford you that circumstance in order to not be punished as if you had already been convicted...any reasonable and intelligent person would expect the latter.
"Prejudice and discrimination" against a race is racism! You have a hard-nosed definition of race that I'm sure many disagree with--it's too narrow. For example, if I prejudged blacks, except those from north Africa, I would not be racist according to your definition, but I'm sure (if I indeed prejudged blacks, which I don't) most would consider me a racist.
In the words of Kansas: "If I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know."
"Now would you want to be locked up like you were already convicted and put in tent city, or would you rather like the fact that you are still innocent until proven guilty to be on your side and afford you that circumstance in order to not be punished as if you had already been convicted"
You leave out the fact that you'd still be in jail somewhere. You'd be behind bars. Is it a conventional prison cell or tent city? That's the only question.
"there was some evidence against you."
You bet! For the D.A. to prosecute, there has to be enough evidence that they're confident they'll get a conviction. So they have a hearing and the D.A. presents the evidence to a judge. The accused's attorney defends the accused. The judge hears it all and then decides if the person will go to prison while awaiting trail (because of the seriousness of the crime), and (if so) sets bail.
Most of the time, the person does get convicted. Other times, the accused enters into a plea bargain. Some other times there is a mis-trial (and later a re-trial). Not very often, the person is found innocent. That some are found innocent is a statement about the D.A., not Sheriff Joe.
"Prejudice and discrimination" against a race is racism! You have a hard-nosed definition of race that I'm sure many disagree with--it's too narrow. For example, if I prejudged blacks, except those from north Africa, I would not be racist according to your definition, but I'm sure (if I indeed prejudged blacks, which I don't) most would consider me a racist.
HUH? you are making no sense...What is a "hard-nosed" definition of race, LOL! As far as I know there is only one definition of race.
This says NOTHING of race, ethnicity, discrimination, or prejudice being "interchangeable" or the same thing. It says racial discrimination, which as talked about ad nauseam in prior post, is racism...no shoooot, but that has nothing to do with the issue concerning immigration law and discrimination due to a prejudged determination of national origin or status (again your place of origin or status is NOT related to race).
Quote:
You leave out the fact that you'd still be in jail somewhere. You'd be behind bars. Is it a conventional prison cell or tent city? That's the only question.
Yes you'd be held in detention but you shouldn't be punished if not convicted. The difference is, and NO one can deny, that being jailed in tent city is probably a horrible experience, dirty, and hot in the summer. An innocent person should NOT be punished until they are proven innocent. This is the American way and a value I hold high because it's basic premise makes this one of the greatest countries in the world (in my opinion).
Quote:
You bet! For the D.A. to prosecute, there has to be enough evidence that they're confident they'll get a conviction. So they have a hearing and the D.A. presents the evidence to a judge. The accused's attorney defends the accused. The judge hears it all and then decides if the person will go to prison while awaiting trail (because of the seriousness of the crime), and (if so) sets bail.
Most of the time, the person does get convicted. Other times, the accused enters into a plea bargain. Some other times there is a mis-trial (and later a re-trial). Not very often, the person is found innocent. That some are found innocent is a statement about the D.A., not Sheriff Joe.
Of course they have evidence other wise they would arrest and hold you BUT as stated before that isn't the same as being found guilty and convicted. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and until they can prove you are guilty you are innocent; many times they are found innocent. Do you know the rate of innocent vs guilty judgements in Maricopa County? Either way evidence isn't an automatic guilty sentence. There could be evidence that someone had motive or opportunity to commit a crime but that doesn't mean they actually did the said crime...
LOL, this is true for the public. However, there are ways to enforce laws, AGAIN that are constitutional and ways that aren't. Discriminating against certain individuals because they appear to be from a different country, because of ethnicity, etc is an ILLEGAL approach to enforcing immigration laws. You are missing the point and I don't think you know how the law actually works. If law enforcement takes a misstep, doesn't obtain evidence in a constitutionally sound way, many cases are dismissed, a mistrial is granted, or the evidence is inadmissible.
hmmmm, thats sounds like legal and illegal. one major flaw in your thinking here. what you wrote is correct, however, there is zero evidence that Joe A's office knowingly practices discrimination. if you have such evidence then i suggest you report it your local district attorney's office for investigation. your lack of evidence clearly shows your losing battle. i ask for concrete proof of such court cases, and i got back a "search Google and you'll find some". so i did and found very little, and i go back "you didnt search hard enough". but then you start the whole "let me get into my ASU" bit. either produce the evidence to back the claim (so i dont have to, by your belief, improperly search using Google) or dont make mention of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fcorrales80
Ok, how many times are you going to say the same thing over and over again???
as many times as it takes for you to understand how the process of change works. i forgot to ask, what website was it that you run that supports your claims of Joe A's unconstitutional law enforcement??? also, i forgot the name of that organization you said you belong to, the one that has lots of supporters just like you against Joe A's office, what's the name of that organization and when did you join???
hmmmm, thats sounds like legal and illegal. one major flaw in your thinking here. what you wrote is correct, however, there is zero evidence that Joe A's office knowingly practices discrimination. if you have such evidence then i suggest you report it your local district attorney's office for investigation. your lack of evidence clearly shows your losing battle. i ask for concrete proof of such court cases, and i got back a "search Google and you'll find some". so i did and found very little, and i go back "you didnt search hard enough". but then you start the whole "let me get into my ASU" bit. either produce the evidence to back the claim (so i dont have to, by your belief, improperly search using Google) or dont make mention of it.
Actually this isn't true and the reason for the lawsuits currently in progress and those lost or settle which awarded money to victims of discrimination by the Sheriff's Department. Here are some; I'm really surprised (or shouldn't be that you can't find ANY cases). LOL!
Maybe this can get you started; also there are more lawsuits from the recent raid as well. You should also look up the insurance cost the the MCSO; it is the most expensive coverage and policy of any law enforcement agency in the country. The deductible alone for the thing is $5million dollars and the monthly premiums would make Bill Gates upset. On the other hand, the Phoenix P.D. is a COMPLETELY different story...
Quote:
as many times as it takes for you to understand how the process of change works. i forgot to ask, what website was it that you run that supports your claims of Joe A's unconstitutional law enforcement??? also, i forgot the name of that organization you said you belong to, the one that has lots of supporters just like you against Joe A's office, what's the name of that organization and when did you join???
Oh trust me I understand; this is why his numbers are sliding and support is dwindling. I don't run any website, I work for a German/American business corporation and am a veteran.
Organizations I belong to:
Arizona Association of Chicanos for Higher Education (AACHE)
Supporter of (because of family members and loved ones):
National Hispanic Peace Officers Association (Police, Highway patrol men, deputies, etc)
Southwest Hispanic Culture Association
National Society of Hispanic MBA's
Arizona Project Vote (Hispanic Vote Project)
Equality Arizona (mostly a gay rights organization)
My bf is a Phoenix cop, so he is a member of the city's police organization; they and Chief Harris have opposed Arpaio's tactics and agree that his policies are questionable at best and discriminatory.
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.
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.
Not everything is black and white or as cut and dry as you'd like to make it homekid. Also, it isn't really about "the law" as it is with policies and procedures. I do like your attitude about rallying for change and the sort as I believe that to be very American and inline with American democracy! 
Also, the law isn't the issue as stated again, LOL! But the implementation and actions used. There is no interpretation issue what so ever. There are ways to enforce laws in accordance with the constitution and way so to enforce it that violates constitutional rights; that is the issue.
