U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, Cary
 [Register]
Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, Cary The Triangle Area
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 09-28-2019, 06:02 AM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
3,648 posts, read 4,333,314 times
Reputation: 4957

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Teach View Post
As do approximately 562 other jurisdictions in the US.

What is the total number of jurisdictions?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-28-2019, 07:40 AM
 
774 posts, read 275,127 times
Reputation: 655
So I had a tough time building the time line from the article in the OP. The dates made no sense. i.e. the article says the crime took place on Oct 1 2007 and then says he was arrested on June 26 (presumably of this year?).

Anyway I went to WRAL to read their version of the story to see if the dates made any more sense there.

A couple of quotes which clear up the timeline

Quote:
Furmencio Miranda-Cortazar, 45, was convicted in June of two counts of sexual battery stemming from 2015 incidents involving a 13-year-old, according to court documents. He was sentenced to consecutive 150-day jail terms and was ordered to register as a sex offender and pay $3,000 to a a child advocacy group, records show.

Because he was given credit for the 11 months he had spent behind bars awaiting his day in court, Miranda-Cortazar was able to walk free the same day.
So he committed the crime in 2015. Gotta say I love the penalty for such a crime. Consecutive ~6 month terms for sexually assaulting a child? Ya that seems like a stiff sentence aimed at dissuading such behavior. Geezus.

What did ICE do for the 11 months he was in jail? Surely they got a warrant to grab him on his immigration violations while he was confined in a jail and couldn't dodge them right? Oh....they didn't?!

My high level thoughts.


1. I have no issues with local LE not cooperating with ICE.

2. However, my position in #1 only applies to undocumented immigrants who aren't here committing crimes.

3. ICE going around and rounding up otherwise law abiding people who have come from countries the US has spent the last 90 years destroying by overthrowing democratically elected officials and installing right wing strong men who have abused their countries and turned them into lawless gang and crime ridden Banana Republics seems to be too much of a self fulfilling prophecy for me (I'm looking at you Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, although I admit that has no bearing on this specific story since he was from Mexico). I have a moral issue with an entity creating the situation people are attempting to escape and then arresting them when they escape it.

4. This guy committed a crime while he was here and should have been removed as a result of his actions.

5. On a local note, how in the hell is the penalty for sexually battering a child only 11 months?

This is the issue with the "all or nothing approach". By going in on the "nothing" side as it pertains to dealing with ICE, the Wake Co Sheriff has created a situation where, I think most people, would agree he chose the wrong course in this case.

And unfortunately for him, voters won't forget that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2019, 09:18 AM
 
2,637 posts, read 2,854,446 times
Reputation: 2222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Teach View Post
Local elected officials can't be impeached.
But NC General Statute 128-16 provides that:

"Any sheriff or police officer shall be removed from office by the judge of the superior court, resident in or holding the courts of the district where said officer is resident upon charges made in writing, and hearing thereunder, for the following causes:
(1) For willful or habitual neglect or refusal to perform the duties of his office.
(2) For willful misconduct or maladministration in office.
(3) For corruption.
(4) For extortion.
(5) Upon conviction of a felony.
(6) For intoxication, or upon conviction of being intoxicated."

We may see an example with the sheriff in Granville County. Currently he's under a voluntary suspension, but the DA is using this law to have the sheriff removed from office.

That said, I don't believe the Wake County sheriff has any risk of removal under this statute.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2019, 05:03 PM
 
919 posts, read 384,592 times
Reputation: 1032
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard-xyzzy View Post
But NC General Statute 128-16 provides that:

"Any sheriff or police officer shall be removed from office by the judge of the superior court, resident in or holding the courts of the district where said officer is resident upon charges made in writing, and hearing thereunder, for the following causes:
(1) For willful or habitual neglect or refusal to perform the duties of his office.
(2) For willful misconduct or maladministration in office.
(3) For corruption.
(4) For extortion.
(5) Upon conviction of a felony.
(6) For intoxication, or upon conviction of being intoxicated."

We may see an example with the sheriff in Granville County. Currently he's under a voluntary suspension, but the DA is using this law to have the sheriff removed from office.

That said, I don't believe the Wake County sheriff has any risk of removal under this statute.
Yes, of course removal from office is an option. Very different process from impeachment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2019, 08:23 PM
 
Location: Raleigh NC
10,659 posts, read 7,769,391 times
Reputation: 9090
Quote:
Originally Posted by GVoR View Post
So I had a tough time building the time line from the article in the OP. The dates made no sense. i.e. the article says the crime took place on Oct 1 2007 and then says he was arrested on June 26 (presumably of this year?).

Anyway I went to WRAL to read their version of the story to see if the dates made any more sense there.

A couple of quotes which clear up the timeline

So he committed the crime in 2015. Gotta say I love the penalty for such a crime. Consecutive ~6 month terms for sexually assaulting a child? Ya that seems like a stiff sentence aimed at dissuading such behavior. Geezus.

What did ICE do for the 11 months he was in jail? Surely they got a warrant to grab him on his immigration violations while he was confined in a jail and couldn't dodge them right? Oh....they didn't?!

My high level thoughts.


1. I have no issues with local LE not cooperating with ICE.

2. However, my position in #1 only applies to undocumented immigrants who aren't here committing crimes.

3. ICE going around and rounding up otherwise law abiding people who have come from countries the US has spent the last 90 years destroying by overthrowing democratically elected officials and installing right wing strong men who have abused their countries and turned them into lawless gang and crime ridden Banana Republics seems to be too much of a self fulfilling prophecy for me (I'm looking at you Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, although I admit that has no bearing on this specific story since he was from Mexico). I have a moral issue with an entity creating the situation people are attempting to escape and then arresting them when they escape it.

4. This guy committed a crime while he was here and should have been removed as a result of his actions.

5. On a local note, how in the hell is the penalty for sexually battering a child only 11 months?

This is the issue with the "all or nothing approach". By going in on the "nothing" side as it pertains to dealing with ICE, the Wake Co Sheriff has created a situation where, I think most people, would agree he chose the wrong course in this case.

And unfortunately for him, voters won't forget that.
Hopefully, all would agree that a 150-day sentence for sexual impropriety with a sub-16 year old (or pick your age) is NOT enough.

The records don't show that ICE is going around rounding up folks that haven't committed any offenses beyond illegal entry/stay (except visa overstayers).

I believe the issue as regards ICE/criminals may boil down to - is the local government authority actually checking their legal status and entering it into ANY database?

Does anyone think it's right to expect the local authorities to enter immigration status for arrested or convicted criminals, so that Federal authorities have the ability to effectively or efficiently identify them, and schedule their removal?

Either way - it's a POLITICAL question, not a RDC/Triangle question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2019, 08:38 PM
 
Location: Lake Gaston, NC
1,628 posts, read 2,221,656 times
Reputation: 3007
I just want/expect law enforcement to get law breaking people captured and locked up regardless of all the BS political crap. To turn a blind eye to juvenile sex offenders to pay back political promises is criminal itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2019, 09:09 PM
 
2,018 posts, read 1,397,564 times
Reputation: 2241
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitroad View Post
I just want/expect law enforcement to get law breaking people captured and locked up regardless of all the BS political crap. To turn a blind eye to juvenile sex offenders to pay back political promises is criminal itself.





That isn't what happened here. A criminal was charged and convicted for his crime, and served his sentence. ICE could have acted at any point during that process. They instead waited until the individual was to be released, and then act like its a massive deal when the sheriff won't hold someone on an ICE hold, after their term of incarceration has passed.


If ICE wants to do its job, do it while the individual is incarcerated for their actual sentence, don't ask the sheriff to do your dirty work and hold someone past their term of incarceration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2019, 09:39 PM
 
Location: Lake Gaston, NC
1,628 posts, read 2,221,656 times
Reputation: 3007
Quote:
Originally Posted by cchampagne232000 View Post
don't ask the sheriff to do your dirty work and hold someone past their term of incarceration.
DIRTY WORK 😱😱 keeping a convicted child sex offender in custody that offended a child for years is dirty work. Something is really wrong with this picture. There is a BIG difference between hard working immigrants and thugs. To get elected many sheriffs are ignoring the differences and treating them all as the same. Bad mistake
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2019, 10:31 PM
 
Location: Fuquay Varina
4,919 posts, read 6,904,507 times
Reputation: 12482
Quote:
Originally Posted by cchampagne232000 View Post


If ICE wants to do its job, do it while the individual is incarcerated for their actual sentence, don't ask the sheriff to do your dirty work and hold someone past their term of incarceration.
lol I guess being an ILLEGAL immigrant means nothing at all to you ! smh
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2019, 07:37 AM
 
Location: Raleigh NC
10,659 posts, read 7,769,391 times
Reputation: 9090
Quote:
Originally Posted by cchampagne232000 View Post
That isn't what happened here. A criminal was charged and convicted for his crime, and served his sentence. ICE could have acted at any point during that process. They instead waited until the individual was to be released, and then act like its a massive deal when the sheriff won't hold someone on an ICE hold, after their term of incarceration has passed.


If ICE wants to do its job, do it while the individual is incarcerated for their actual sentence, don't ask the sheriff to do your dirty work and hold someone past their term of incarceration.
so you're saying there IS a data field where "illegal alien" is selected so that ICE can readily scan some system and see who's incarcerated having been found guilty of any offense?

Does this happen at arrest/charge, or ONLY upon conviction?

And, in this case, it's incumbent upon ICE to have checked the system for NC, or for Wake County, during the 150 day period of serving the sentence, and having the proper warrant ready for Wake County by the release date.

Help us by filling in the blanks, please.
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 > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, Cary
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:10 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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