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.
Mere presence in the country is still a civil violation only. An undocumented person's presence in Maricopa County is not a crime, even if they crossed the border illegally.
Doesn't matter what you want to call it. It is a violation of our immigration laws to enter our country illegally. They aren't undocumented either they are illegal aliens.
Stop and Frisk was dumped in NYC because it violated people's rights.
Stop and Frisk worked, but it was stopped because we have Mayor Putz and a bunch of liberal losers in the city counsel. It wasn't "dumped" for any other reason.
Stop and Frisk worked, but it was stopped because we have Mayor Putz and a bunch of liberal losers in the city counsel. It wasn't "dumped" for any other reason.
Someone just did. So what? What does that have to do with defending the indefensible, hero-worshipping, false idol-making, & along with the apparently requisite circle-jerking?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
You really seem to like the term circle jerk. Projecting much?
I have no use for Arpaio. Don't know much about him, have no real opinion on him, but I do note that many slamming the pardon here are hypocrites , and many don't seem to know what he was convicted of. One at least even thought he was convicted of a felony. I am merely commenting on the facts ,and the misinformation being given by many of the Arpaio haters.
Oh. So that's what you were ostensibly doing for pages, thanks for the explanation.
Actually, the circle-jerking is less nauseating than defending the indefensible, hero-worshipping, & idolatry.
The judge called for a federal monitor to oversee broad reforms, including the use of body-worn cameras for some patrol officers, though she was “not ordering an end to the practice of stop-and-frisk.”
You can stop and frisk when you have probable cause. The camera's would show whether there is probable cause. Ending the program would save NYC millions in future settlements for violating people's constitutional rights.
You can stop and frisk when you have probable cause. The camera's would show whether there is probable cause. Ending the program would save NYC millions in future settlements for violating people's constitutional rights.
The likes of the ACLU will always sue. When the order came down from this ultra-liberal judge, the Bloomberg administration appealed. Putz dropped the appeal and stopped the practice. It was controversial, but effective. The controversial part was because minorities felt they were singled out, but hey stop-and-frisk happened mostly in high crime areas and guess who lives there?
The likes of the ACLU will always sue. When the order came down from this ultra-liberal judge, the Bloomberg administration appealed. Putz dropped the appeal and stopped the practice. It was controversial, but effective. The controversial part was because minorities felt they were singled out, but hey stop-and-frisk happened mostly in high crime areas and guess who lives there?
Anyway. We're getting off-topic.
It's not hard to understand why you can not simply stop people and search them with no probable cause. I find it unfathomable that anyone would support that.
It's not hard to understand why you can not simply stop people and search them with no probable cause. I find it unfathomable that anyone would support that.
Ditto.
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.