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.
the democratic presidents are different than the republican presidents. The democratic presidents pardon drug smugglers drug pushers and drug kingpins. The republican president pardoned a man who deports drug smugglers,drug pushers and drug kingpins.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by phma
I support their power to pardon. I have not been impressed by the way it has been used by past presidents of both parties. The pardon of Joe A. is the first time I see it being used to correct an injustice. Maybe there ore others but nothing comes to mind and I didn't research it, so its possible.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taratova
The democratic presidents are different than the Republican presidents. The democratic presidents pardon drug smugglers drug pushers and drug kingpins. The Republican president pardoned a man who deports drug smugglers,drug pushers and drug kingpins.
Oh please, Arpaio was given due process and convicted of a crime, whether you or anyone else doesn't believe he is guilty of anything is irrelevant. Stop making excuses based on personal bias and nothing else.
I voted "no", but my actual position is more nuanced.
IMO the president SHOULD have the power to pardon, but with the Senate able to reverse said pardon - i.e. the Mondale Amendment of the 1970s, which Arlen Specter tried to revive in response to Clinton's pardons, and which was widely discussed in Dem circles during the Bush Administration, albeit to no avail.
There was No injustice.. Arpaio has gotten away with Racial Profiling for many decades.. not discounting his treatment of prisoners!!
As to "Pol".. the choices was far too narrow. I think any and all pardons MUST demonstrate proper review pf the cases being considered.. then of course there has to be no connection with "THE PERSON" being pardoned. ALL those getting commuted sentences have to be arms length and pardoning anyone prior to actual sentencing is or should be prohibited.
The above demonstrates in Trump's case.. Not sentenced nor spent any time in jail... Arpaio's connection to COZY... Zero vetting or time spent of looking at the case ( Trump pre-judged it as WITCH HUNT~ just like he alleges looking into his criminal behaviours both STATE and Federally) and no previous President ever has pardoned anyone in first 6-7 months and zero vetting !!
Let's face it.. Arpaio's history has been shown for decades.. and this pardon exposes clearly that TRUMP sides with Racial profiling and abusive Police Tactics! Racial Profiling was outlawed in NYS not that many years ago.. SO maybe Trump better MOVE!!
My BBM above is proof of just how he feels about anyone other than himself and support by haters in USA political ideation. Arpaio and Trump were both the front line in BO's birther agenda!! What's it going to take to understand just how destructive Trump ( POTUS) is actually underdetermining American Values and democracy??????
August 12, 2013, US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the stop and frisk practice (not the law itself) was unconstitutional and directed the police to adopt a written policy to specify where such stops are authorized.[28][29] Scheindlin appointed Peter L. Zimroth, a former chief lawyer for the City of New York, to oversee the program.[30] Mayor Bloomberg indicated that the city will appeal the ruling.[31] Scheindlin had denied pleas for a stay in her overthrow of the policing policy, saying that "Ordering a stay now would send precisely the wrong signal. It would essentially confirm that the past practices... were justified and based on constitutional police practices. It would also send the message that reducing the number of stops is somehow dangerous to the residents of this city."[32]
On October 31, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit blocked the order requiring changes to the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk program and removed Judge Shira Scheindlin from the case.[33][34][35] On November 9, 2013, the city asked a federal appeals court to vacate Scheindlin's orders.[36][37] On November 22, 2013, the federal appellate court rejected the city's motion for a stay of the judge's orders.[38]
On July 30, 2014, Southern District Court Judge Analisa Torres denied the police unions' motions to intervene and granted the proposed modification of the District Court's August 2013 remedial decision.[35][39] A week later, the City of New York filed a motion to withdraw its appeal.[39] On August 13, 2014, the Second Circuit announced the cases will be argued on October 15, 2014.[35][40] On October 31, a three-judge panel on the Second Circuit unanimously ruled against the unions and allowed the city to proceed with its overhaul of the police department.[41]
The New York State Assembly today announced the passage of legislation prohibiting law enforcement officers from engaging in racial or ethnic profiling (A3949, Wright). The legislation would also create a private right of action against law enforcement agencies for individuals who have been the subject of racial profiling, allowing courts to award damages, costs and reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff.
"The current tension between law enforcement agencies and minority communities makes the passage of this legislation both necessary and timely," said Speaker Heastie. "I think we can all agree that racial profiling is wrong and infringes on the constitutional rights of minorities. However, New York law does not specifically prohibit racial profiling and there is no requirement to track statistics so we can better understand policing techniques and identify the extent of the problem. It is past time that we enact an outright prohibition on racial profiling and work towards fostering a more collaborative relationship between minority communities and law enforcement officers to ensure that all New Yorkers have the same rights and protections."
The bill would require every New York law enforcement agency to adopt procedures for reviewing complaints of racial or ethnic profiling and for taking corrective measures to prevent future incidents. It would also require law enforcement agencies to collect and maintain data on traffic stops, pat downs and searches which would be compiled in an annual report by the Division of Criminal Justice Services. The collected data would likewise be included in a statewide public database to promote transparency and integrity, as well as to inform both law enforcement and the community.
"The color of one's skin is insufficient cause to put them through a humiliating and unconstitutional search," said bill sponsor Keith Wright. "This legislation would end this practice and provide those who are subjected to racial profiling legal recourse while enabling victims to recover damages and deter future violations. The riff between communities and the police is damaging the integrity of our neighborhoods. Outlawing discriminatory police practices is a step in the right direction towards mending these wounds and expanding justice for all."
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.
