Alabama judge casts doubt on harsh new illegal immigration law

[chloe]

In June, Alabama Gov Robert Bentley (R) signed into law what is by some measures the harshest anti-immigration bill in the nation. For example, birth certificates or other papers showing legal resident status will now be required at government agencies and from parents seeking to enroll their children in public schools. Law enforcement can detain people suspected of entering the country illegally if they do not produce proof of residency and employers or individuals face penalties if they knowingly transport, harbor, or hire illegal immigrants. Judge Blackburn said in court Wednesday that she believed “there are a lot of problems” with the statute, but that she would only hear arguments that framed the debate by its legality, opposed to its supposed moral or political merits.
Judge Sharon Blackburn acknowledged that the language in the bill as written is unclear on details regarding the process of demanding documentation at police stops and whether state schools have the right to demand the birth certificates of parents. She suggested Alabama lawmakers should have taken longer to define exactly how some procedures would happen under the law.
Blackburn did not say when she would make a final ruling.


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0824/Alabama-judge-casts-doubt-on-harsh-new-illegal-immigration-law

[ConHog]

Yes, heaven forbid we make any attempt to make sure our tax dollars are only being used to educate citizens.

[J.T]

Law enforcement can detain people suspected of entering the country illegally

How is this new? Police weren't able to detain persons suspected of being in the act of committing an illegal act before? I mean, isn't that pretty much the entire point of having police in the first place?


Judge Sharon Blackburn acknowledged that the language in the bill as written is unclear on details regarding the process of demanding documentation at police stops

Doesn't federal law require they have their green card/id with them already? What's the problem?

The only possible snag I see is the bc of the parents; the rest should already be law.

[KartRacerBoy]

A judge doing her job. Yay.

And ConHog, lets create as many juvenile delinquents as possible by not letting kids that have done nothing wrong not go to school. More gang members. Yeah!!! :rolleyes:

[ConHog]

How is this new? Police weren't able to detain persons suspected of being in the act of committing an illegal act before? I mean, isn't that pretty much the entire point of having police in the first place?


Doesn't federal law require they have their green card/id with them already? What's the problem?

The only possible snag I see is the bc of the parents; the rest should already be law.

Yes of course federal law already requires that. But the idiots are trying to get around that by claiming that police are profiling when they decide who they are asking for ID. First of all, DUH profiling works, second of all, police should be asking EVERYONE for ID when they detain them.

[KartRacerBoy]

Yes of course federal law already requires that. But the idiots are trying to get around that by claiming that police are profiling when they decide who they are asking for ID. First of all, DUH profiling works, second of all, police should be asking EVERYONE for ID when they detain them.


Asking for ID isn't the same as asking for proof of citizenship or immigration status. And many of my public defender clients of whatever race had no picture ID if they didn't have a license so they couldn't produce picture ID.

Profiling is unconstitutional. Discrimination based on race.

[Trigg]

A judge doing her job. Yay.

And ConHog, lets create as many juvenile delinquents as possible by not letting kids that have done nothing wrong not go to school. More gang members. Yeah!!! :rolleyes:

If they're in the country illegally, the police should escort them home to their illegal parents and deport the whole lot of them.

Takes care of the "more gang members" problem.

I do have some simpathy for kids who were brought here unlawfully, it wasn't their choice. But, they are still here illegally and should be deported.

[ConHog]

Asking for ID isn't the same as asking for proof of citizenship or immigration status. And many of my public defender clients of whatever race had no picture ID if they didn't have a license so they couldn't produce picture ID.

Profiling is unconstitutional. Discrimination based on race.

First of all EVERYONE should have ID, it costs $5 to get a non driver's state ID. Second of all, profiling is NOT unconstitutional. The FBI, for one, does it all the time. It works as a police investigative tool, else law enforcement wouldn't have been using it for thousands of years.

I can't wait til the Read ID Act takes effect, unless they push it off again, and then it will be simple, your state ID will be proof that you're a citizen.

[fj1200]

Asking for ID isn't the same as asking for proof of citizenship or immigration status. And many of my public defender clients of whatever race had no picture ID if they didn't have a license so they couldn't produce picture ID.

Profiling is unconstitutional. Discrimination based on race.

How is it profiling if, when asked to produce ID to determine status, they are unable to? I think most of the laws are written to specifically avoid profiling.

[ConHog]

How is it profiling if, when asked to produce ID to determine status, they are unable to? I think most of the laws are written to specifically avoid profiling.

What he meant to say was that he thinks that asking illegal immigrants for something that will prove they are illegal should be illegal.

Here's an analogy. When you go to a club , if you look to be under 21 they ask for your ID before letting you in. Is that profiling

[Trigg]

what he meant to say was that he thinks that asking illegal immigrants for something that will prove they are illegal should be illegal.

Here's an analogy. When you go to a club , if you look to be under 21 they ask for your id before letting you in. is that profiling


yep

[ConHog]

yep

Thank you, now next question.

Is it illegal and or unconstitutional?

[Gaffer]

Profiling is purely common sense. There's nothing Constitutional or unconstitutional about it. Someone with an accent should have his status checked more closely than someone with no accent. Don't speak English or very little English, you probably weren't born here. A car full of Mexican looking dudes cruising a white or black neighborhood needs to be stopped and the occupants checked out. If nothing else they know they have been noted. If whites or blacks are cruising a Mexican neighborhood they will be stopped. It's profiling and used for prevention of crimes. Those with accents need to be checked further for their citizenship status. Swedish, French, British, Nigerian, Spanish, got a heavy accent, lets see some additional identification. Let's all say it together...COMMON SENSE.

The govt is currently using a policy of not letting local law enforcement do their job and coming down on the states that do. States are having to enforce federal law that the feds are ignoring. The feds are ignoring illegals because of votes and economics. Cheap labor is wanted by many industries and votes are important. Anyone that thinks illegals aren't involved in the voting process is a fool. Hairy reid didn't get elected by the people of Nevada. And the current administration intend to put the illegals to good use.

[ConHog]

Profiling is purely common sense. There's nothing Constitutional or unconstitutional about it. Someone with an accent should have his status checked more closely than someone with no accent. Don't speak English or very little English, you probably weren't born here. A car full of Mexican looking dudes cruising a white or black neighborhood needs to be stopped and the occupants checked out. If nothing else they know they have been noted. If whites or blacks are cruising a Mexican neighborhood they will be stopped. It's profiling and used for prevention of crimes. Those with accents need to be checked further for their citizenship status. Swedish, French, British, Nigerian, Spanish, got a heavy accent, lets see some additional identification. Let's all say it together...COMMON SENSE.

The govt is currently using a policy of not letting local law enforcement do their job and coming down on the states that do. States are having to enforce federal law that the feds are ignoring. The feds are ignoring illegals because of votes and economics. Cheap labor is wanted by many industries and votes are important. Anyone that thinks illegals aren't involved in the voting process is a fool. Hairy reid didn't get elected by the people of Nevada. And the current administration intend to put the illegals to good use.


Why did KRB run when I correctly pointed out that profiling has been used by law enforcement for thousands of years? Hell, the FBI has an entire department that does nothing BUT create profiles . Go to a big city where there is a serial killer on the loose and see who they are looking for. Oh that's right a mid 20s single white guy, because that's the most likely profile to have committed the crime. Now how is that different from profiling and saying okay the Hispanic who barely speaks English and doesn't have any ID on him is the most likely person to be an illegal immigrant, not the blue haired old lady.

Geez, I wish they would let the TSA profile to.

[KartRacerBoy]

How is it profiling if, when asked to produce ID to determine status, they are unable to? I think most of the laws are written to specifically avoid profiling.

Put a little thought into it, please. Who do you think the cops are going to ask this question to? The white 50ish guy?

[KartRacerBoy]

Why did KRB run ....


Cz I was terrified of your POWERFUL question and intellect. Or I had to take a dump or had something else to do. You choose.

But please don't be THAT kind of idiot.

[ConHog]

Cz I was terrified of your POWERFUL question and intellect. Or I had to take a dump or had something else to do. You choose.

But please don't be THAT kind of idiot.

Oh , I'm not EXCEPT when the idiot I'm calling out for running is over posting in the dinner thread so I know he's not in taking a dump. :laugh2:


Seriously though, you damn well know that profiling is an accepted law enforcement technique except here suddenly when it comes to illegal immigration and terrorism and then suddenly "Don't profile" is the battle cry.

Fuck that, I say profile more. If 20 year old black men seem to sell more crack cocaine than any other group of people, then guess who we should target when investigating such crimes. Just for example.


It's Law Enforcement 101.

[KartRacerBoy]

Oh , I'm not EXCEPT when the idiot I'm calling out for running is over posting in the dinner thread so I know he's not in taking a dump. :laugh2:


Seriously though, you damn well know that profiling is an accepted law enforcement technique except here suddenly when it comes to illegal immigration and terrorism and then suddenly "Don't profile" is the battle cry.

Fuck that, I say profile more. If 20 year old black men seem to sell more crack cocaine than any other group of people, then guess who we should target when investigating such crimes. Just for example.


It's Law Enforcement 101.

Bullshit. Profiling is idiocy. I had a 20ish black guy as a criminal client once stopped for DWB (driving while black) in his BMW 3 series. He was an electrician. The cops stopped him becz he was a young black guy in an expensive car in a bad neighborhood. The jury found him not guilty and the all white jury after the trial were all appalled at the arrrest and profiling.

Luckily, enough people disagree with your opinion to make profiling difficult for police to use without intense scrutiny.

[ConHog]

Bullshit. Profiling is idiocy. I had a 20ish black guy as a criminal client once stopped for DWB (driving while black) in his BMW 3 series. He was an electrician. The cops stopped him becz he was a young black guy in an expensive car in a bad neighborhood. The jury found him not guilty and the all white jury after the trial were all appalled at the arrrest and profiling.

Luckily, enough people disagree with your opinion to make profiling difficult for police to use without intense scrutiny.

So wait, you're ONE case that you didn't even give us all the facts on is proof that profiling doesn't work?

I find it nearly impossible to believe that a case of driving while black made it to jury. I'm not saying there aren't cases of someone getting pulled over under the circumstances you describe, no doubt it happens, but that is racism, not profiling. Profiling is using statistical analysis to determine the group most likely to commit certain crimes.

I was military police for over 20 years, they absolutely, positively teach law enforcement to use profiling as a tool. It is not my fault you don't understand the difference between racism and profiling.

Or do you really contend that the FBI doesn't profile?

Oh, I would love to hear the real and complete story of why your client's case made it to a jury. Obviously he was at least accused of more than driving while black. My guess is that the vehicle either wasn't titled or he simply didn't have any ID on him at the time of the stop. I tend towards no plate on the car. Otherwise you need to explain under what pretense the police pulled him over for.

[Gaffer]

Bullshit. Profiling is idiocy. I had a 20ish black guy as a criminal client once stopped for DWB (driving while black) in his BMW 3 series. He was an electrician. The cops stopped him becz he was a young black guy in an expensive car in a bad neighborhood. The jury found him not guilty and the all white jury after the trial were all appalled at the arrrest and profiling.

Luckily, enough people disagree with your opinion to make profiling difficult for police to use without intense scrutiny.

What was he charged with? The reason for pulling him over is obvious. I would have done the same. What did they arrest him for?

[ConHog]

What was he charged with? The reason for pulling him over is obvious. I would have done the same. What did they arrest him for?

KRB just pulled the usual defense attorney crap. Tell half the story, only the evidence that helps his client look better, and hope the "jury" is too stupid to notice.

Unfortunately for him, we did notice.

[KartRacerBoy]

KRB just pulled the usual defense attorney crap. Tell half the story, only the evidence that helps his client look better, and hope the "jury" is too stupid to notice.

Unfortunately for him, we did notice.

And you pulled the typical racist cop thing. :rolleyes:

And prosecutors don't tell the story that makes defendants look guilty? They don't try to prove their case? Don't be stupid, please.

[ConHog]

And you pulled the typical racist cop thing. :rolleyes:

And prosecutors don't tell the story that makes defendants look guilty? They don't try to prove their case? Don't be stupid, please.

I thought you were smarter than this. Listen. Profiling =/= racism. It is equals good police work, and a wise use of resources. If your facts show that 90% of a certain crime is in fact committed by a specific group then it just makes sense that you would concentrate your resources on THAT group, regardless of their race.

Oh, and no a prosecutor really can't just omit certain facts the way you just did. Why are you refusing to tell us why your client was really pulled over?

[Gaffer]

And you pulled the typical racist cop thing. :rolleyes:

And prosecutors don't tell the story that makes defendants look guilty? They don't try to prove their case? Don't be stupid, please.

As I said, what was he charged with? A man in an expensive car in a bad neighborhood is going to get pulled over no matter what color he is. If he's not up to something he'll be sent on his way, maybe warned to stay out of the area. It's profiling based on the car, not the individual. Such a person is usually there for prostitution or drugs.

[KartRacerBoy]

I thought you were smarter than this. Listen. Profiling =/= racism. It is equals good police work, and a wise use of resources. If your facts show that 90% of a certain crime is in fact committed by a specific group then it just makes sense that you would concentrate your resources on THAT group, regardless of their race.

Oh, and no a prosecutor really can't just omit certain facts the way you just did. Why are you refusing to tell us why your client was really pulled over?

I thought you were smart, too. Race doen't equal criminal, but you seem to think it is. I'm sorry for you.

And I've seen plenty of prosecutors hold back facts in trial that would help exonerate a defendant. Get off your wife's highhorse.

What facts did I hold back? The fact that a jury was outraged at police behavior and a not guilty verdixt? YOU can be a better judge than 12 people that heard all the evidence over 10 hours? Please. It was a DUI charge, btw, disguised as DWB.

[ConHog]

I thought you were smart, too. Race doen't equal criminal, but you seem to think it is. I'm sorry for you.

And I've seen plenty of prosecutors hold back facts in trial that would help exonerate a defendant. Get off your wife's highhorse.

What facts did I hold back? The fact that a jury was outraged at police behavior and a not guilty verdixt? YOU can be a better judge than 12 people that heard all the evidence over 10 hours? Please. It was a DUI charge, btw, disguised as DWB.

You're being a full of shit crybaby in this thread KRB.

No one said race equaled criminal. I in fact said that in many cases it is the WHITE guy who should be the target of profiling. For instance, who do you think is the primary suspect group in the case of serial killers? Oh that's right, 30 something white males because statistically speaking that is the most likely group to commit said crime. I don't see you whining about that profiling.

As for prosecutors, I'm sure occasionally it happens, but generally speaking a prosecutor wants to get the right guy/gal and not just send SOMEONE to prison, a defense attorney however has no such qualms their , your, only job is to get their, your, client off, regardless of guilt.

Oh and I see now what happened. Black guy got pulled over for swerving all over the road, passed the sobriety tests but was arrested anyway, screamed racism, and a jury voted not guilty; and now you want us to just take your word for it that the cops didn't truly think he was DUI they just saw a black guy and went and got him.

Good grief, I am so sick of hearing about racism. I'm married to a full Hispanic, I KNOW what real racism looks like, I know it exists, I know it can be ugly, I also know that throwing racism out every time a minority feels the slightest bit inconvenienced is getting old.

[KartRacerBoy]

You're being a full of shit crybaby in this thread KRB.

No one said race equaled criminal. I in fact said that in many cases it is the WHITE guy who should be the target of profiling. For instance, who do you think is the primary suspect group in the case of serial killers? Oh that's right, 30 something white males because statistically speaking that is the most likely group to commit said crime. I don't see you whining about that profiling.

As for prosecutors, I'm sure occasionally it happens, but generally speaking a prosecutor wants to get the right guy/gal and not just send SOMEONE to prison, a defense attorney however has no such qualms their , your, only job is to get their, your, client off, regardless of guilt.

Oh and I see now what happened. Black guy got pulled over for swerving all over the road, passed the sobriety tests but was arrested anyway, screamed racism, and a jury voted not guilty; and now you want us to just take your word for it that the cops didn't truly think he was DUI they just saw a black guy and went and got him.

Good grief, I am so sick of hearing about racism. I'm married to a full Hispanic, I KNOW what real racism looks like, I know it exists, I know it can be ugly, I also know that throwing racism out every time a minority feels the slightest bit inconvenienced is getting old.


You made a completely inane statement so I matched it. IMO, profiling is unconstitutional and stupid.

Being a successful black guy in an unsuccessful/poor black neighborhood makes one suspicious? Should the guy have moved to white suburbia so he wasn't "suspicious"? I truly hope as a military cop you didn't think like that.

Nice to see how you support the justice system, Mr. ex-cop. If they are pulled over and arrested, they are guilty cz the cops say so. Do you want to play executioner, too?

Good grief, I'm sorry you're tired of hearing that racism exists. And racism in policing exists. Do you think that a criminal charge like DUI doesn't scare the shit out of someone? Do you think it's a joke to them? It's someone's life. It will follow them around and humiliate them for the rest of their life. It's not some insignificant event, but that's how you view it. You're wrong.

[Gaffer]

Wow, a black guy arrested for DUI screams racism. I'm shocked, truly shocked, who ever heard of such a thing. And in the courtroom the whole trial becomes about race, not the fact he was driving drunk. You did a great job turning that all around. I'll bet after the trial he drove down to the club to party and celebrate. He can, after all, drive erratically now without worry, cause it would be racist profiling to pull him over again.

I've got your measure now.

[ConHog]

You made a completely inane statement so I matched it. IMO, profiling is unconstitutional and stupid.

Being a successful black guy in an unsuccessful/poor black neighborhood makes one suspicious? Should the guy have moved to white suburbia so he wasn't "suspicious"? I truly hope as a military cop you didn't think like that.

Nice to see how you support the justice system, Mr. ex-cop. If they are pulled over and arrested, they are guilty cz the cops say so. Do you want to play executioner, too?

Good grief, I'm sorry you're tired of hearing that racism exists. And racism in policing exists. Do you think that a criminal charge like DUI doesn't scare the shit out of someone? Do you think it's a joke to them? It's someone's life. It will follow them around and humiliate them for the rest of their life. It's not some insignificant event, but that's how you view it. You're wrong.

You're opinion on the matter doesn't mean anything in the face of thousands of years of profiling being used to good ends in law enforcement.

The successful black guy you refer to was obviously arrested for more than being black. At minimum a grand jury or judge found that there was sufficient evidence of DUI to send it to a jury. You already admitted that. As I said, I suspect that he was driving erratically and pulled over for THAT, not because he was black, but the cop was white so instead of just presenting his evidence that he wasn't drunk he no doubt shouted that the cop was a racist and that pissed the cop off so he arrested him even though he passed the field sobriety exam, which by the way is legal to do, and the case went to trial. I have no doubt that is exactly how it happened. If the "successful" black man had not have mentioned racism I doubt he would have been arrested.

That isn't racism, that's called don't piss the cops off when they pull you over dumb shit.

By the way if this black guy was so successful why was he relying on a public defender?

And of course I never implied that DUI was no big deal.

[ConHog]

Wow, a black guy arrested for DUI screams racism. I'm shocked, truly shocked, who ever heard of such a thing. And in the courtroom the whole trial becomes about race, not the fact he was driving drunk. You did a great job turning that all around. I'll bet after the trial he drove down to the club to party and celebrate. He can, after all, drive erratically now without worry, cause it would be racist profiling to pull him over again.

I've got your measure now.

I'm sorely disappointed in KRB after this thread. I understand he's liberal, but I thought he was at least rational.

[Gaffer]

I'm sorely disappointed in KRB after this thread. I understand he's liberal, but I thought he was at least rational.

Me too.

[Kathianne]

Me too.

Seems to me there's a world of difference between acting as a defense attorney and speaking one's rational take on what police methods should be.


If they are pulled over and arrested, they are guilty cz the cops say so. Do you want to play executioner, too?


Then goes on to explain how the man was found not guilty. So I guess what the say so of cops, doesn't carry full weight?

[J.T]

Put a little thought into it, please. Who do you think the cops are going to ask this question to? The white 50ish guy?

Depends. If he speaks with a strong Irish accent and has IRA materials in the back seat, he might be worth checking out.

[Gaffer]

Depends. If he speaks with a strong Irish accent and has IRA materials in the back seat, he might be worth checking out.

Wow I agree with JT on something.

[ConHog]

Depends. If he speaks with a strong Irish accent and has IRA materials in the back seat, he might be worth checking out.



That's different
























somehow.

[KartRacerBoy]

Wow, a black guy arrested for DUI screams racism. I'm shocked, truly shocked, who ever heard of such a thing. And in the courtroom the whole trial becomes about race, not the fact he was driving drunk. You did a great job turning that all around. I'll bet after the trial he drove down to the club to party and celebrate. He can, after all, drive erratically now without worry, cause it would be racist profiling to pull him over again.

I've got your measure now.

Take off your Klan costume you fucking idiot. Where did I say the trial became one of race issues? You obviously know zero about how trails work but so I'll give you some slack.

The trial was about whether the guy passed the sobriety tests. The cops testified about the entire case, including why the defendant was stopped. I filed a motion to supress and we had a hearing about whether the stop was legal and whether the case should proceed to trial. The judge, a former prosecutor, found for the state. The jury then found the defendant not guilty and when the judge, prosecutor, and I met with the jury after the verdict, the jury foreman asked why the defendant had even been stopped. Unsolicited.

But nice to see I've got your racist measure, too. If they aren't white, that makes them guilty. Must be nice living in that absolutist world of yours where you can reach judgment based on race.

[ConHog]

Take off your Klan costume you fucking idiot. Where did I say the trial became one of race issues? You obviously know zero about how trails work but so I'll give you some slack.

The trial was about whether the guy passed the sobriety tests. The cops testified about the entire case, including why the defendant was stopped. I filed a motion to supress and we had a hearing about whether the stop was legal and whether the case should proceed to trial. The judge, a former prosecutor, found for the state. The jury then found the defendant not guilty and when the judge, prosecutor, and I met with the jury after the verdict, the jury foreman asked why the defendant had even been stopped. Unsolicited.

But nice to see I've got your racist measure, too. If they aren't white, that makes them guilty. Must be nice living in that absolutist world of yours where you can reach judgment based on race.

That was uncalled for. Gaffer isn't an idiot and he certainly hasn't said anything to make me believe he's a racist.

As you damn well know a person can be arrested and found guilty of DUI even if they pass the field sobriety tests. It happens.

As for the jury foreman's remarks. Who gives a shit if the guy understands why the cop suspected DUI or not. His ONLY job is to determine whether there is evidence to support a conviction, no one cares if he agrees the police had a good reason to stop him or not.

[J.T]

Take off your Klan costume you fucking idiot.

:laugh:
Where did I say the trial became one of race issues?
That's all you talked about. You literally said nothing else about any actual evidence in the case.

-You screamed racism when he was pulled over ('he was pulled over for being black!')
-You screamed that the Jury was racist ('they're all White- they must be racists because Whites are all racists!!!1!!!!')
-You claimed the same evil White racist jury was 'outraged' over the 'racism' you accused the cop of

You said literally nothing that wasn't about race. That was the entire narrative.




You obviously know zero about how trails work

:laugh:


The trial was about whether the guy passed the sobriety tests.

Really, you told us all those racist crackers on the jury were all 'appalled' about a White cop pulling over a black guy. You said it was all about the profiling. Now all of a sudden you want to claim it was all about the sobriety tests- the same sobriety tests you never saw fit to even mention, let alone contest, until now.


The cops testified about the entire case, including why the defendant was stopped.
Let me guess... he was a racist kkk skinhead nazi who stopped your negroe client for 'driving while black'? :laugh:


I filed a motion to supress

You filed a motion to suppress evidence regarding the behavior that led the officer to believe your client was intoxicated? That nigger must've been guilty as hell- no wonder you opted to turn the whole trial into a giant race-baiting session!

The jury then found the defendant not guilty
Sounds to me like there was no trial at all. Rather, you knew your client was guilty as hell and you instead turned the whole thing around and tried the cop with being White. You managed to trick a bunch of idiot leftists to convict the cop of being White and now the blood will be on your hands when that same client gets drunk and runs down an innocent child.

the jury foreman asked why the defendant had even been stopped
But the cop couldn't answer, because you sought to suppress the evidence that showed that anything other than race was a factor..


But nice to see I've got your racist measure, too.
:laugh:You're the one who made it a race issue


If they aren't white, that makes them guilty
:laugh::laugh:



Must be nice living in that absolutist world of yours where you can reach judgment based on race.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Trigg]

Practically everytime I watch COPS they pull someone over who's in a nice car driving through a crappy neighborhood. Usually the conversation in the car revolves around this being a "high drug area and people driving in to buy it".

They pull over white people for being in those neighborhoods, profilling those innocent people simply for DWW in a bad neighborhood.

Profilling is not racist and it isn't a bad idea.

The airports should use it a little more instead of stopping little old ladies, everyone knows they should be going after Middle Eastern men in their 20's-30's. .

Like cornhog says, no one screams racism when the cops start looking for a white middle aged man whenever there is a mass murderer on the loose.

[ConHog]

:laugh:
That's all you talked about. You literally said nothing else about any actual evidence in the case.

-You screamed racism when he was pulled over ('he was pulled over for being black!')
-You screamed that the Jury was racist ('they're all White- they must be racists because Whites are all racists!!!1!!!!')
-You claimed the same evil White racist jury was 'outraged' over the 'racism' you accused the cop of

You said literally nothing that wasn't about race. That was the entire narrative.


:laugh:


Really, you told us all those racist crackers on the jury were all 'appalled' about a White cop pulling over a black guy. You said it was all about the profiling. Now all of a sudden you want to claim it was all about the sobriety tests- the same sobriety tests you never saw fit to even mention, let alone contest, until now.
Let me guess... he was a racist kkk skinhead nazi who stopped your negroe client for 'driving while black'? :laugh:

You filed a motion to suppress evidence regarding the behavior that led the officer to believe your client was intoxicated? That nigger must've been guilty as hell- no wonder you opted to turn the whole trial into a giant race-baiting session!

Sounds to me like there was no trial at all. Rather, you knew your client was guilty as hell and you instead turned the whole thing around and tried the cop with being White. You managed to trick a bunch of idiot leftists to convict the cop of being White and now the blood will be on your hands when that same client gets drunk and runs down an innocent child.

But the cop couldn't answer, because you sought to suppress the evidence that showed that anything other than race was a factor..

:laugh:You're the one who made it a race issue
:laugh::laugh:


:lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol:



Gotta give credit where credit is due. JT just handed KRB his ass right here.

[J.T]

Profiling is a tool. Can it be a bad thing if people misuse profiles or rely too heavily on them? Sure. Just look at the D.C. sniper case, where they ignored the murderers when they encountered them because they were focusing on 30-something White guys who read The Turner Diaries too many times. That was a failure to properly weigh other evidence and remember that profiles are statistical constructs and that there will be outliers. The fact remains, however, that if you're looking for persons guilty of gang-related activity, you look first at non-Whites wearing baggy clothes, gang colours, and 'flags'- the overwhelming majority of gang members fit this profile and most people who dress in such a manner and hang out in groups of similarly-dressed persons have some sort of gang affiliation.

[Trigg]

this could explain why KRB is unemployed and has been for a year. He's a crappy lawyer who sees racism in every case.

[ConHog]

I find it appalling that KRB has been the biggest racist in this thread all the while screaming that others are racists.

[Gaffer]

Take off your Klan costume you fucking idiot. Where did I say the trial became one of race issues? You obviously know zero about how trails work but so I'll give you some slack.

The trial was about whether the guy passed the sobriety tests. The cops testified about the entire case, including why the defendant was stopped. I filed a motion to supress and we had a hearing about whether the stop was legal and whether the case should proceed to trial. The judge, a former prosecutor, found for the state. The jury then found the defendant not guilty and when the judge, prosecutor, and I met with the jury after the verdict, the jury foreman asked why the defendant had even been stopped. Unsolicited.

But nice to see I've got your racist measure, too. If they aren't white, that makes them guilty. Must be nice living in that absolutist world of yours where you can reach judgment based on race.

I'll put away my klan costume when you put away your white guilt.

Maybe you could have gone a little more in depth about the trial in the first place and I wouldn't have to make assumptions. You stated that he was arrested based on profiling, which means you used that as a defense and took the trial from a DUI to a racial harassment case. You got the jury to concentrate on the racial part and they forgot the DUI part. Good maneuvering.

I'm not a lawyer, but eight years with a sheriff's department did give me some experience in court rooms. It also gives me some experience in how and why profiling is used.

You call me a klansman based on a few statements I made yet you know nothing about me. Profile much?

[J.T]

this could explain why KRB is unemployed and has been for a year. He's a crappy lawyer who sees racism in every case.

Maybe he can get a show on MSNBC. He can start off substituting for Al Sharpton when Al's at the Black Panther meetings.

[J.T]

I'll put away my klan costume when you put away your white guilt.

Maybe you could have gone a little more in depth about the trial in the first place and I wouldn't have to make assumptions. You stated that he was arrested based on profiling, which means you used that as a defense and took the trial from a DUI to a racial harassment case. You got the jury to concentrate on the racial part and they forgot the DUI part. Good maneuvering.

I'm not a lawyer, but eight years with a sheriff's department did give me some experience in court rooms. It also gives me some experience in how and why profiling is used.

You call me a klansman based on a few statements I made yet you know nothing about me. Profile much?He's not even profiling. He's justa racist fuck. He assumes that you're White and, therefore, a racist KKK nazi skinhead who should feel guilty for the Jews buying black slaves from other black tribes in Africa and ferrying them across the Atlantic 200 years ago.

[Trigg]

Maybe he can get a show on MSB. He can start off substituting for Al Sharpton when Al's at the Black Panther meetings.

his show is a black panther meeting.

Everything that comes out of his mouth is racist.

[ConHog]

Hey KRB, this is all I have left to say about you and this thread



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEPgb5v3qZg

[Gaffer]

He's not even profiling. He's justa racist fuck. He assumes that you're White and, therefore, a racist KKK nazi skinhead who should feel guilty for the Jews buying black slaves from other black tribes in Africa and ferrying them across the Atlantic 200 years ago.

The only thing you got wrong here is they were not Jews, they were arabs.

[J.T]

The only thing you got wrong here is they were not Jews, they were arabs.
That's not what the Jews claim


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUE0si2llTY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB2A3kI91h0

http://www.davidduke.com/general/if-the-white-race-is-to-be-condemned-in-the-liberal-press-why-are-not-the-jewish-people-condemned-the-worlds-leading-role-in-the-slave-trade-over-the-last-2000-years_229.html

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xk38lg_who-brought-the-slaves-to-america-jews-did_news

[KartRacerBoy]

That was uncalled for. Gaffer isn't an idiot and he certainly hasn't said anything to make me believe he's a racist.

As you damn well know a person can be arrested and found guilty of DUI even if they pass the field sobriety tests. It happens.

As for the jury foreman's remarks. Who gives a shit if the guy understands why the cop suspected DUI or not. His ONLY job is to determine whether there is evidence to support a conviction, no one cares if he agrees the police had a good reason to stop him or not.

No, it was called for. Disagree if you want to. It's your right.

As for the jury, yeah, when 12 people are unanimous in their condemnation of the mere arrest, let alone the charge, that says NOTHING about the cops or their behavior. Stop being such a cop/prosecutor apologist. Neither are perfect. Some are racist. They make bad decisions sometimes.

[J.T]

No, it was called for. Disagree if you want to. It's your right.

As for the jury, yeah, when 12 people are unanimous in their condemnation of the mere arrest, let alone the charge, that says NOTHING about the cops or their behavior.
In this case, you're right. It doesn't mean anything about the cop, seeing as all you did was manage to get a bunch of idiot leftists to find the cop guilty of being White after you already said you siled to suppress the evidence regarding the defendant's behavior and the reason for the the stop.

You're a racist and a race baiter. Everyone sees it now. You knew the nigger was guilty and so you tried the police with being White and turned the whole thing into a race-baiting circus in order to protect the guilty party. We get it. That's your job. Well, it was- evidently, you're not so good since you haven't been working in some time.

Perhaps you'd be more successful if you spent less time spewing your racist hatred of Whites and focused on the evidence in the cases you handle. You got off with race-baiting this one time. That wasn't a sign you should make it standard practice.


Hell, I'm just waiting for you to inform us your name is Abraham Ben-Strauss :laugh:

[ConHog]

No, it was called for. Disagree if you want to. It's your right.

As for the jury, yeah, when 12 people are unanimous in their condemnation of the mere arrest, let alone the charge, that says NOTHING about the cops or their behavior. Stop being such a cop/prosecutor apologist. Neither are perfect. Some are racist. They make bad decisions sometimes.

It was uncalled for Gaffer didn't say anything racist , and disagreeing with YOU doesn't make someone an idiot.

Of course there are cops who are racists. That's just what's going to happen when you have humans as cops. That doesn't mean that every time a black person is arrested by a white cop it is racism though.

You still haven't answered my questions. Why was he originally pulled over? And don't say "because he was black" because if that is all it were then the judge would have tossed it, and the guy would have had a lawsuit against the city. My guess is that he was driving erratically, and all I can do is assume I am right since you are hiding the truth.

Further, what exactly were you trying to suppress? I assume it wasn't the field sobriety exam since you claim your client passed that. Were you trying to suppress the cop from telling the jury why he initially pulled your client over to begin with?

Attitudes like yours where the mean old white guy is ALWAYS guilty of racism if he confronts a black guy in anyway are exactly why people don't take charges of racism all that seriously.

[KartRacerBoy]

:laugh:
That's all you talked about. You literally said nothing else about any actual evidence in the case.

-You screamed racism when he was pulled over ('he was pulled over for being black!')
-You screamed that the Jury was racist ('they're all White- they must be racists because Whites are all racists!!!1!!!!')
-You claimed the same evil White racist jury was 'outraged' over the 'racism' you accused the cop of

You said literally nothing that wasn't about race. That was the entire narrative.


:laugh:


Really, you told us all those racist crackers on the jury were all 'appalled' about a White cop pulling over a black guy. You said it was all about the profiling. Now all of a sudden you want to claim it was all about the sobriety tests- the same sobriety tests you never saw fit to even mention, let alone contest, until now.
Let me guess... he was a racist kkk skinhead nazi who stopped your negroe client for 'driving while black'? :laugh:

You filed a motion to suppress evidence regarding the behavior that led the officer to believe your client was intoxicated? That nigger must've been guilty as hell- no wonder you opted to turn the whole trial into a giant race-baiting session!

Sounds to me like there was no trial at all. Rather, you knew your client was guilty as hell and you instead turned the whole thing around and tried the cop with being White. You managed to trick a bunch of idiot leftists to convict the cop of being White and now the blood will be on your hands when that same client gets drunk and runs down an innocent child.

But the cop couldn't answer, because you sought to suppress the evidence that showed that anything other than race was a factor..

:laugh:You're the one who made it a race issue
:laugh::laugh:


:lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol:

I really don't know what to say. You can't understand why a duck floats, so I'm not really sure how to explain it to you. Enjoy that sense of superiority you've somehow acquired. God knows how you got it. And when you've been to law school and understand jack shit about a trial, let me know. Clearly you and many posters on this board, including ConHog, don't know shit about how the law works.

[Gaffer]

That's not what the Jews claim


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUE0si2llTY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB2A3kI91h0

http://www.davidduke.com/general/if-the-white-race-is-to-be-condemned-in-the-liberal-press-why-are-not-the-jewish-people-condemned-the-worlds-leading-role-in-the-slave-trade-over-the-last-2000-years_229.html

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xk38lg_who-brought-the-slaves-to-america-jews-did_news




Anti-Jewish propaganda. Stop buying into that garbage and you'll be a better person.

David Dukes is an asshole and dailymotion is a conglomeration of assholes. Try researching the other side of the coin once in a while.

[ConHog]

Anti-Jewish propaganda. Stop buying into that garbage and you'll be a better person.

David Dukes is an asshole and dailymotion is a conglomeration of assholes. Try researching the other side of the coin once in a while.

can we keep on topic here. I don't want KRB to weasel his way off without answering my questions because the thread got derailed. :laugh2:

[Gaffer]

can we keep on topic here. I don't want KRB to weasel his way off without answering my questions because the thread got derailed. :laugh2:

:salute: you bet. I just wanted to correct him on that bit of misinformation he was posting. Back to ripping krb a new one.

[ConHog]

:salute: you bet. I just wanted to correct him on that bit of misinformation he was posting. Back to ripping krb a new one.



He'll probably pull an OCA here anyway and run away only to come back three days later and claim he was just bored , but we can try to pin him down to actually telling the truth. If he's capable.

[J.T]

Anti-Jewish propaganda.

Written by Jewish historians? :slap:

Almost all the sources are Jewish, including the American Jewish History Society.

Are you claiming Jews are all liars and Jewish historians can't be trusted as sources because Jews are incapable of telling the truth and would go so far as to blame themselves for something they were no guilty of, just to avoid telling the truth?

[Gaffer]

Written by Jewish historians? :slap:

Almost all the sources are Jewish, including the American Jewish History Society.

Are you claiming Jews are all liars and Jewish historians can't be trusted as sources because Jews are incapable of telling the truth and would go so far as to blame themselves for something they were no guilty of, just to avoid telling the truth?

Lets take this to another thread and not derail this one.

[KartRacerBoy]

It was uncalled for Gaffer didn't say anything racist , and disagreeing with YOU doesn't make someone an idiot.

Of course there are cops who are racists. That's just what's going to happen when you have humans as cops. That doesn't mean that every time a black person is arrested by a white cop it is racism though..

I didn't say that every time a white cop arrests a black person that racism is involved. I merely stated that 12 JURORS said the entire case was bullshit and that the arresting cops were racist. I also said it was a case of profiling. As for Gaffer, believe what you want. And you're upset becz juries don't always believe cops. That really seems to piss you off. Despite your statement that cops are human, you don't seem to like them being questioned.


You still haven't answered my questions. Why was he originally pulled over? And don't say "because he was black" because if that is all it were then the judge would have tossed it, and the guy would have had a lawsuit against the city. My guess is that he was driving erratically, and all I can do is assume I am right since you are hiding the truth.

Further, what exactly were you trying to suppress? I assume it wasn't the field sobriety exam since you claim your client passed that. Were you trying to suppress the cop from telling the jury why he initially pulled your client over to begin with?

Attitudes like yours where the mean old white guy is ALWAYS guilty of racism if he confronts a black guy in anyway are exactly why people don't take charges of racism all that seriously.

Why was the guy pulled over? For all the BS reasons cops pull over someone. He "crossed" a double yellow line as a single car lane expanded to three lanes. The video shows he never crossed the line into oncoming traffic. The lines simply split to have a triangular "no drive zone." I noted in my motion to suppress that the clear intent of the law was to stop people from going into oncoming traffic. My client, as the video showed, was actually FARTHER from oncoming vehicles when he touched the lines than before the lines split b

Is your wife really a prosecutor? Were you really a military cop? Do you talk to her about her work at all? I tried to suppress all the evidence of the alleged DUI since the arrest was bogus, IMO. Zero "reasonable suspicion." Ask her about it. It's how the law works.

And dismissive attitudes of racism like yours are why non-whites get so pissed with the white majority. No evidence of racis is EVER good enough. It's always something else.

[ConHog]

I didn't say that every time a white cop arrests a black person that racism is involved. I merely stated that 12 JURORS said the entire case was bullshit and that the arresting cops were racist. I also said it was a case of profiling. As for Gaffer, believe what you want. And you're upset becz juries don't always believe cops. That really seems to piss you off. Despite your statement that cops are human, you don't seem to like them being questioned.



Why was the guy pulled over? For all the BS reasons cops pull over someone. He "crossed" a double yellow line as a single car lane expanded to three lanes. The video shows he never crossed the line into oncoming traffic. The lines simply split to have a triangular "no drive zone." I noted in my motion to suppress that the clear intent of the law was to stop people from going into oncoming traffic. My client, as the video showed, was actually FARTHER from oncoming vehicles when he touched the lines than before the lines split b

Is your wife really a prosecutor? Were you really a military cop? Do you talk to her about her work at all? I tried to suppress all the evidence of the alleged DUI since the arrest was bogus, IMO. Zero "reasonable suspicion." Ask her about it. It's how the law works.

And dismissive attitudes of racism like yours are why non-whites get so pissed with the white majority. No evidence of racis is EVER good enough. It's always something else.

Yes I of course know all about how it works, you try to get ALL evidence tossed regardless of whether you have a real reason or not.

He crossed a double yellow? Yes that's enough reason to get pulled over. And no doubt the first thing he did was start shouting about racism, and THAT pisses cops off and so then they make an arrest where otherwise they may not have. Is that right? No, not really, but it's reality, and something that anyone should realize. Don't piss a cop off, it's stupid. No matter the color of your skin.

BTW I SERIOUSLY doubt that a jury came back with a "not guilty because the cop is a fucking racist" verdict either. THat is supposition on your part.

You're a racist KRB. It's ugly and pathetic.

[J.T]

He "crossed" a double yellow line
so you admit he was guilty of a traffic violation, making it a legitimate traffic stop...


I tried to suppress all the evidence of the alleged DUI
and you admit there's evidence he was intoxicated (you can't suppress non-existent evidence)...

but it's all the evil white cracker honkey Man trying to oppress the innocent negroe you just admitted is guilty... :rolleyes:

[J.T]

Why was the guy pulled over? For all the BS reasons cops pull over someone. He "crossed" a double yellow line

lol bullshit reasons like obvious guilt and committing a violation in front of the cop :lol:

[ConHog]

so you admit he was guilty of a traffic violation, making it a legitimate traffic stop...

and you admit there's evidence he was intoxicated (you can't suppress non-existent evidence)...

but it's all the evil white cracker honkey Man trying to oppress the innocent negroe you just admitted is guilty... :rolleyes:

It's quite clear what he did. He tried to suppress the very fact that the man had committed a traffic violation which precipitated the stop to begin with.

Dollars to donuts says that the driver was out of his car screaming about racism before the LEO even had a chance to say boo. Triggering the entire arrest himself. Otherwise he probably would have received a ticket for crossing the double yellow, at most, and sent on his way.

BTW you really don't help JT when you act like such a racist yourself.

[ConHog]

lol bullshit reasons like obvious guilt and committing a violation in front of the cop :lol:

Traffic laws don't apply when the driver is black and willing to scream racism don't you know.


KRB is reeking of "the police behaved badly" here.

[J.T]

It's quite clear what he did. He tried to suppress the very fact that the man had committed a traffic violation which precipitated the stop to begin with.
Of course. The entire obfuscation (offered in place of a defense) was that the evil nazi cracker pulled him over because he's a racist kkk nazi who was out lynchin' him some niggers.



Traffic laws don't apply when the driver is black and willing to scream racism don't you know.


Negroes are never responsible for anything they do- traffic violation, mass shoplifting, brutal attacks on Whites at the fair... It's all due to racism on the part of the evil White man

[ConHog]

Of course. The entire obfuscation (offered in place of a defense) was that the evil nazi cracker pulled him over because he's a racist kkk nazi who was out lynchin' him some niggers.




Negroes are never responsible for anything they do- traffic violation, mass shoplifting, brutal attacks on Whites at the fair... It's all due to racism on the part of the evil White man

See now, knock that shit off, there are plenty of black people who take responsibility and behave correctly. You do nothing but feed into KRB type bullshit when you say otherwise.

[J.T]

KRB, are you a liberal Jew? Because if so, then I'm liable to die laughing because you're a total caricature of yourself.

[Gaffer]

How ironic.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/was-obamas-illegal-immigrant-uncle-arrested-for-dui/


President Barack Obama’s illegal immigrant uncle was arrested in Massachusetts last week for allegedly driving under the influence after nearly ramming a police car, the Washington Times reported (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/aug/28/picket-obamas-illegal-uncle-arrested-uncle-omar-hi/) Sunday.

According to the Times, Onyango Obama, 67, is the “Uncle Omar” mentioned in the president’s book, “Dreams From My Father.” He is an illegal immigrant from Kenya and the brother of Obama’s aunt Zeituni Oyango (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-aunt-in-new-vid-despite-living-off-govt-she-doesnt-owe-u-s-anything/), who has been granted asylum (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obamas-aunt-says-us-obligated-to-make-her-citizen/) to stay in the U.S.
The Metrowest Daily News reported (http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/police_and_fire/x865770299/Cops-Illegal-immigrant-drove-drunk-in-Framingham) Obama failed a field sobriety test after almost running his SUV into a police car in Framingham, Mass, near Boston. According to a police report, he rolled through a stop sign and then made a quick left turn, requiring the squad car and another vehicle to slam on their breaks to avoid hitting him.
According to the Washington Times, Framingham Public Information Officer Lieutenant Delaney said when Onyango Obama was asked at the station if he wanted to make a telephone call to arrange for bail, he replied: “I think I will call the White House.”



KRB I found some work for ya.

[J.T]

See now, knock that shit off, there are plenty of black people who take responsibility and behave correctly.
Not if you ask a self-proclaimed 'liberal'. Then any Negroes who misbehave are the victims of White racism.

And if you ask the Negroes, those blacks with any self-control are 'acting White' and are 'selling out' their race, kinda like any Hispanics who insist people come here legally and not hop the damn fence.

Sure, there are honest black folk. There are also pitbulls who would never so much and mouth a human. Statistically speaking, however, one breed is much more problematic and difficult to control than other breeds. That's just thew way it is.

[ConHog]

How ironic.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/was-obamas-illegal-immigrant-uncle-arrested-for-dui/



KRB I found some work for ya.

I think I will call the White House? They should take him out back and shoot him. I have NO sympathy for drunk drivers.

[KartRacerBoy]

Yes I of course know all about how it works, you try to get ALL evidence tossed regardless of whether you have a real reason or not.

He crossed a double yellow? Yes that's enough reason to get pulled over. And no doubt the first thing he did was start shouting about racism, and THAT pisses cops off and so then they make an arrest where otherwise they may not have. Is that right? No, not really, but it's reality, and something that anyone should realize. Don't piss a cop off, it's stupid. No matter the color of your skin.

BTW I SERIOUSLY doubt that a jury came back with a "not guilty because the cop is a fucking racist" verdict either. THat is supposition on your part.

You're a racist KRB. It's ugly and pathetic.

The letter of the law certainly supports the stop, but I will bet you that a white guy in a Corolla wouildn't have been stopped. And reread my description of what happened. The guy was FARTHER from oncoming cars when he touched the yellow line than he was when the tape of the tailing police car started taping him. And my client was angling for the left turn lane. Yeah, he was a raving drunk black guy weaving all over the road. That's why the all whte jury found him NOT GUILTY. :rolleyes:

Where did I say the jury found the defendant not guilty becz they thought the cops were racist? Jesus, your head is deep in your ass in this thread. The jury found the defendant not guilty becz the proof didn't rise to the evidentiary standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." After the verdict was given and the trial was done, the judge, prosecutor, and I met with the jury to answer any questions they had and thank them for their service. Standard procedure in my county. The jury immediately made the comment upon being asked if they had any questions.

Go to work with your wife since your years as a military cop obviously taught you jack shit about the how the law works in the real world.

Your'e an idiot on this issue, ConHog. It's just pathetic.

[ConHog]

Not if you ask a self-proclaimed 'liberal'. Then any Negroes who misbehave are the victims of White racism.

And if you ask the Negroes, those blacks with any self-control are 'acting White' and are 'selling out' their race, kinda like any Hispanics who insist people come here legally and not hop the damn fence.

Sure, there are honest black folk. There are also pitbulls who would never so much and mouth a human. Statistically speaking, however, one breed is much more problematic and difficult to control than other breeds. That's just thew way it is.

Just keep your racism somewhere else okay. I don't like it from KRB and I don't like it from you.

You made some good points in this thread , but spouting off about niggers all blame whitey isn't helping anything, it just makes you look stupid. SOME niggers indeed do act like niggers, but some white people act like white trash to, neither one is better than the other,, and in neither case do a small minority represent the entire race.

[KartRacerBoy]

so you admit he was guilty of a traffic violation, making it a legitimate traffic stop...

and you admit there's evidence he was intoxicated (you can't suppress non-existent evidence)...

but it's all the evil white cracker honkey Man trying to oppress the innocent negroe you just admitted is guilty... :rolleyes:


I don't admit he was guilty of a traffic violation. I said he touched a double yellow line but IMO the law didn't intend to cover that particular situation. That's why I filed a motion to suppress. Illegal stop. And guess what, asshole? When a stop is illegal, all evidence resulting from the illegal search/arrest is suppressed.

Dear god, you're stupid. Go back to high school.

[J.T]

Just keep your racism somewhere else okay. I don't like it from KRB and I don't like it from you.

Is that why you used the word 'niggers' to describe black people twice in the same post you said that in?

:laugh:

[ConHog]

The letter of the law certainly supports the stop, but I will bet you that a white guy in a Corolla wouildn't have been stopped. And reread my description of what happened. The guy was FARTHER from oncoming cars when he touched the yellow line than he was when the tape of the tailing police car started taping him. And my client was angling for the left turn lane. Yeah, he was a raving drunk black guy weaving all over the road. :rolleyes:

Where did I say the jury found the defendant not guilty becz they thought the cops were racist? Jesus, your head is deep in your ass in this thread. The jury found the defendant not guilty becz the proof didn't rise to the evidentiary standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." After the verdict was given and the trial was done, the judge, prosecutor, and I met with the jury to answer any questions they had and thank them for their service. Standard procedure in my county. The jury immediately made the comment upon being asked if they had any questions.

Go to work with your wife since your years as a military cop obviously taught you jack shit about the how the law works in the real world.

Your'e an idiot on this issue, ConHog. It's just pathetic.


My wife says that if your country routinely questions juries after trial that you have several lawyers who deserve to be disbarred and likely some judges who deserve to be removed from the bench.

Rule 12(f) Secrecy of Jury Deliberations

1. No party, and no attorney, employee, representative or agent of any party or attorney, shall contact, communicate with or interview any grand or petit juror, or any relative, friend or associate of any grand or petit juror concerning the deliberations or verdict of the jury or of any individual juror in any action before, during or after trial, except upon leave of Court, which shall be granted only upon the showing of good cause. No juror shall respond to any inquiry as to the deliberations or vote of the jury or of any other individual juror except on leave of Court which shall be granted only upon the showing of good cause. No person may make repeated requests for interviews of a juror after the juror has expressed a desire not to be interviewed. This Rule contemplates that the Court communications with jurors, even after a trial has been completed. A violation of this Rule may be treated as a contempt of Court, and may be punished accordingly. 2. The Clerk shall not provide information concerning the petit or grand jurors to any person, other than a judicial officer, except that the Clerk shall make available petit juror questionnaires to counsel or pro se parties participating in jury selection. Applications for exceptions to this Rule 12(f) 2 shall be made in writing to the Chief Judge and shall set forth the information sought and the reason for the request.


Or possibly you're a liar, she says either is possible at this point after reading this thread.

[ConHog]

Is that why you used the word 'niggers' to describe black people twice in the same post you said that in?

:laugh:

As you well know JT I use that word to describe SOME blacks because they themselves use it. My opinion is that if they found it offensive they wouldn't use it themselves. I certainly have never seen my wife call any of her Hispanic friends a beaner for instance.

[J.T]

I don't admit he was guilty of a traffic violation. I said he touched a double yellow line
Why can't you keep your story straight, if you're not lying? In post 61, you said he crossed the line. Now it's 'touched'.


but IMO the law didn't intend to cover that particular situation
You admitted he crossed the line. the law says you're not allowed to cross a double yellow.

Illegal stop.

Because the guilty party was black and therefore immune from the Law and personal responsibility? You already admitted he broke the law as written. You can argue over whether the cop should have let him slide based on what you think the 'intent' of the law was (the same language we always hear from people who want to rewrite the law on a whim to suit their own ends), but you already admitted he broke the letter of the law, thereby meaning not only is the stop legal, but the officer would have been in violation of his duty if he hadn't made the stop.

So, since you've already admitted that your client broke the law, what's left other than for you to go back to screaming 'racism' at the top of your lungs and stamping your feet like a child?

[KartRacerBoy]

My wife says that if your country routinely questions juries after trial that you have several lawyers who deserve to be disbarred and likely some judges who deserve to be removed from the bench.

Rule 12(f) Secrecy of Jury Deliberations

1. No party, and no attorney, employee, representative or agent of any party or attorney, shall contact, communicate with or interview any grand or petit juror, or any relative, friend or associate of any grand or petit juror concerning the deliberations or verdict of the jury or of any individual juror in any action before, during or after trial, except upon leave of Court, which shall be granted only upon the showing of good cause. No juror shall respond to any inquiry as to the deliberations or vote of the jury or of any other individual juror except on leave of Court which shall be granted only upon the showing of good cause. No person may make repeated requests for interviews of a juror after the juror has expressed a desire not to be interviewed. This Rule contemplates that the Court communications with jurors, even after a trial has been completed. A violation of this Rule may be treated as a contempt of Court, and may be punished accordingly. 2. The Clerk shall not provide information concerning the petit or grand jurors to any person, other than a judicial officer, except that the Clerk shall make available petit juror questionnaires to counsel or pro se parties participating in jury selection. Applications for exceptions to this Rule 12(f) 2 shall be made in writing to the Chief Judge and shall set forth the information sought and the reason for the request.


Or possibly you're a liar, she says either is possible at this point after reading this thread.



I give up on this thread and I give up on this forum. I have tried to be civil in the face of stupidity but I give up.

Asking a jury if they have any questions after deliberations are done does nothing to violate the rule you cited, ConHog. REad the fucking rule. "Except upon leave of the court." WTF do you think a judge asking a jury if they have any questions is? Your wife is either a fucking idiot or you misrepresented the facts to her.

I frankly give up. Be a bigoted or just stupid ex-cop. But own it, ConHog. Admit what you are, asshole. I'm done here.

[ConHog]

Why can't you keep your story straight, if you're not lying? In post 61, you said he crossed the line. Now it's 'touched'.

You admitted he crossed the line. the law says you're not allowed to cross a double yellow.


Because the guilty party was black and therefore immune from the Law and personal responsibility? You already admitted he broke the law as written. You can argue over whether the cop should have let him slide based on what you think the 'intent' of the law was (the same language we always hear from people who want to rewrite the law on a whim to suit their own ends), but you already admitted he broke the letter of the law, thereby meaning not only is the stop legal, but the officer would have been in violation of his duty if he hadn't made the stop.

So, since you've already admitted that your client broke the law, what's left other than for you to go back to screaming 'racism' at the top of your lungs and stamping your feet like a child?

See, now there is the kind of post that would make JT a better poster to read more from. I agree with every bit of it.

When it comes to DUI the police are , and have been for years, told to err on the side of caution. I have absolutely ZERO doubt that his client absolutely jumped out of his vehicle screaming racism as soon as he realized the LEO was white. I know this because that is the kind of guy who would allow his attorney to scream racism in court.

No doubt that as soon as that happened the cop switched into defensive mode and chose to discretionarily arrest the guy for DUI and let a jury figure it out, which is exactly what happened. Again, that isn't right, but it's a fact of life. First thing I taught my son when he was learning to drive. IF you get pulled over for ANYTHING do NOT antagonize the cop, no matter if you are right or wrong, just be polite , accept a ticket if given and then we'll deal with it. I 100% believe that if this guy would have done so he would have drove away with a warning.

[ConHog]

I give up on this thread and I give up on this forum. I have tried to be civil in the face of stupidity but I give up.

Asking a jury if they have any questions after deliberations are done does nothing to violate the rule you cited, ConHog. REad the fucking rule. "Except upon leave of the court." WTF do you think a judge asking a jury if they have any questions is? Your wife is either a fucking idiot or you misrepresented the facts to her.

I frankly give up. Be a bigoted or just stupid ex-cop. But own it, ConHog. Admit what you are, asshole. I'm done here.

You read the rule. There is no reason for you to be so fucking nasty just because your own racism has been pointed out. I have been civil to you in thread after thread, including this one, YOU are the one calling names and such.

If you wish to run , then run, but don't blame others for your running (gee there is some irony right there)

The rule clearly says that they may only interview the jurors if they have permission from the court to ask for just cause. YOU said your county does it as a matter of routine, meaning they just ignore the rule about needing cause or you're lying. One or the other.

[ConHog]

I give up on this thread and I give up on this forum. I have tried to be civil in the face of stupidity but I give up.

Asking a jury if they have any questions after deliberations are done does nothing to violate the rule you cited, ConHog. REad the fucking rule. "Except upon leave of the court." WTF do you think a judge asking a jury if they have any questions is? Your wife is either a fucking idiot or you misrepresented the facts to her.

I frankly give up. Be a bigoted or just stupid ex-cop. But own it, ConHog. Admit what you are, asshole. I'm done here.

By the way fat boy, I don't appreciate you saying my wife might be an idiot. I won't even bother reporting it because supposedly you're done here anyway; but I find it odd that YOU are the one calling people names and crying about civility all at the same time.

[Gaffer]

All I can say krb is buh bye.

[ConHog]

All I can say krb is buh bye.

In honor of KRB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReYfu5E-hOE

[fj1200]

Put a little thought into it, please. Who do you think the cops are going to ask this question to? The white 50ish guy?

AFAIK they're asking guys that they have stopped for some other reason. Because the white 50ish guy will easily produce his ID has nothing to do with it right?

[fj1200]

I had a 20ish black guy as a criminal client once stopped for DWB (driving while black) in his BMW 3 series.

That's an actual law on the books in IN? :wtf:

[Gaffer]

That's an actual law on the books in IN? :wtf:

Your too late FJ he's already run off.

[ConHog]

Your too late FJ he's already run off.

Yep, apparently he left the board because he got tired of Gaffer and I trying to speak rationally to him while he insulted us. :slap:

[fj1200]

Yes, you guys were full of ration and non-insults too. :rolleyes:

[Gaffer]

Yes, you guys were full of ration and non-insults too. :rolleyes:

I'm only guilty of snide remarks.

[fj1200]

I'm ... guilty.

;)

Can't we just get along disagree respectfully?

[fj1200]

... all you did was manage to get a bunch of idiot leftists to find the cop guilty of being White after you already said you siled to suppress the evidence regarding the defendant's behavior and the reason for the the stop.

You're a racist and a race baiter. Everyone sees it now. You knew the nigger was guilty and so you tried the police with being White and turned the whole thing into a race-baiting circus in order to protect the guilty party. We get it. That's your job. Well, it was- evidently, you're not so good since you haven't been working in some time.

So he's not a good lawyer but he managed to pack the jury pool with "idiot leftists"? :no:

And racism coming from you? I think you protest to much. I'm not sure why you think that a certain group of citizens should have zero protection against the state except that your a statist when the state approves of your ilk.

[fj1200]

After the verdict was given and the trial was done, the judge, prosecutor, and I met with the jury to answer any questions they had and thank them for their service. Standard procedure in my county.


My wife says that if your country routinely questions juries after trial that you have several lawyers who deserve to be disbarred and likely some judges who deserve to be removed from the bench.

Kind of two different things there.

[gabosaurus]

This happened in Alabama. How can anyone take it seriously. :cool:

[ConHog]

I really hope KRB didn't leave the board over this thread.

[logroller]

I really hope KRB didn't leave the board over this thread.

Hope springs eternal!!! There's hope for the Obama admin yet....well that's taking it a little too far, but thankfully KRB is posting again.:2up:

[ConHog]

Hope springs eternal!!! There's hope for the Obama admin yet....well that's taking it a little too far, but thankfully KRB is posting again.:2up:

Yep, turns out KRB is a liar, but that's a good thing in this case since it means he didn't leave the board. :laugh2:


Sorry KRB but you deserve that for the jealous bitch remark earlier.

Who says flaming isn't fun?

[KartRacerBoy]

Yep, turns out KRB is a liar, but that's a good thing in this case since it means he didn't leave the board. :laugh2:


Sorry KRB but you deserve that for the jealous bitch remark earlier.

Who says flaming isn't fun?

You're right. I should've left out the jealous part. :laugh:

[logroller]

Yep, turns out KRB is a liar, but that's a good thing in this case since it means he didn't leave the board. :laugh2:


Sorry KRB but you deserve that for the jealous bitch remark earlier.

Who says flaming isn't fun?


You're right. I should've left out the jealous part. :laugh:

You guys are cute! Catty, but cute!
2405

[ConHog]

You guys are cute! Catty, but cute!
2405

I'm more of a lion, and KRB is more of a tabby cat.

[gabosaurus]

No one can leave this board without permission. It's written in the dang rules! :cheers2:

[KartRacerBoy]

No one can leave this board without permission. It's written in the dang rules! :cheers2:

Dear god...

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes, heaven forbid we make any attempt to make sure our tax dollars are only being used to educate citizens.

It would be much easier to control that problem if the gubt handed out vouchers.

[LuvRPgrl]

A judge doing her job. Yay.

And ConHog, lets create as many juvenile delinquents as possible by not letting kids that have done nothing wrong not go to school. More gang members. Yeah!!! :rolleyes:


hahahhah,
yea, like our current schools are keeping kids out of gangs...

[LuvRPgrl]

yes of course federal law already requires that. But the idiots are trying to get around that by claiming that police are profiling when they decide who they are asking for id. First of all, duh profiling works, second of all, police should be asking everyone for id when they detain them.

yavolt herr commandante !!!

Heil hitler !!

[ConHog]

It would be much easier to control that problem if the gubt handed out vouchers.

I'm not opposed to vouchers, but you gotta realize that in MOST of the country the public school is the only viable option. And I DO think that certain of our public services should be reserved for citizens and legal residents only. I'd never deny medical care to an illegal alien , for example, but if you want your kid to be educated follow the law.

[LuvRPgrl]

you're being a full of shit crybaby in this thread krb.

no one said race equaled criminal. I.

you did

[fj1200]

I'm not opposed to vouchers, but you gotta realize that in MOST of the country the public school is the only viable option.

Why does one exclude the other?

[LuvRPgrl]

Omg !! Who kidnapped jt and is posting under his name????


:laugh:
That's all you talked about. You literally said nothing else about any actual evidence in the case.

-you screamed racism when he was pulled over ('he was pulled over for being black!')
-you screamed that the jury was racist ('they're all white- they must be racists because whites are all racists!!!1!!!!')
-you claimed the same evil white racist jury was 'outraged' over the 'racism' you accused the cop of

you said literally nothing that wasn't about race. That was the entire narrative.


:laugh:


Really, you told us all those racist crackers on the jury were all 'appalled' about a white cop pulling over a black guy. You said it was all about the profiling. Now all of a sudden you want to claim it was all about the sobriety tests- the same sobriety tests you never saw fit to even mention, let alone contest, until now.
Let me guess... He was a racist kkk skinhead nazi who stopped your negroe client for 'driving while black'? :laugh:

You filed a motion to suppress evidence regarding the behavior that led the officer to believe your client was intoxicated? That nigger must've been guilty as hell- no wonder you opted to turn the whole trial into a giant race-baiting session!

Sounds to me like there was no trial at all. Rather, you knew your client was guilty as hell and you instead turned the whole thing around and tried the cop with being white. You managed to trick a bunch of idiot leftists to convict the cop of being white and now the blood will be on your hands when that same client gets drunk and runs down an innocent child.

But the cop couldn't answer, because you sought to suppress the evidence that showed that anything other than race was a factor..

:laugh:you're the one who made it a race issue
:laugh::laugh:


:lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[ConHog]

you did

Sir, I most certainly did not. I said that illegal immigrants equal criminal. An illegal immigrant can be of any race, and certainly not all Hispanics are here illegally.

That's the picture you guys like to try to paint of those who oppose illegal aliens, we're all mean nasty racists. but it isn't true. Guess what, my wife's family is Mexican, here parents immigrated here legally, she was born in Arkansas, her family opposes Hispanics who are here illegally, are they racists to?

[ConHog]

Why does one exclude the other?

They don't , I'm just saying that the reality is that in most of the country there really is only one school, the public school. So sure vouchers could theoretically be handed out, but what good would they do if the public school was the only place you had to send your child anyway?

[LuvRPgrl]

Sir, I most certainly did not. I said that illegal immigrants equal criminal. An illegal immigrant can be of any race, and certainly not all Hispanics are here illegally. ?

Oh contrar my fellow poster, you said MUCH MORE than that. You did make one very racist statement, even though you tried VERY CAREFULLY to diguise your racism, and cover up your tracks, but your racism shone through quite brilliantly to anyone making a good observation of your posts.




That's the picture you guys like to try to paint of those who oppose illegal aliens, we're all mean nasty racists. but it isn't true.?
YOU GUYS? Well, your profiling really missed the mark there. Please point out anything I posted , ever, that indicates in the slightest, that I try to paint those who oppose.....as mean nasty racists.


Guess what, my wife's family is Mexican, here parents immigrated here legally, she was born in Arkansas, her family opposes Hispanics who are here illegally, are they racists to?
Oh my, your wife is Mexican? Well that ends the debate right there. Guess what, my wife is white,, errr, no, she is Filipino, first wifey was white...

I dont know, I dont have enough info. they might be, might not.

AND CALLING KRB A LIAR IS TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR AND WRONG.

But dont worry, Im an equal opportunity basher, and I will bash KRB's posts later, for now I just want to say, other than gaffman, JT is actually leading this race :)

[ConHog]

Oh contrar my fellow poster, you said MUCH MORE than that. You did make one very racist statement, even though you tried VERY CAREFULLY to diguise your racism, and cover up your tracks, but your racism shone through quite brilliantly to anyone making a good observation of your posts.




YOU GUYS? Well, your profiling really missed the mark there. Please point out anything I posted , ever, that indicates in the slightest, that I try to paint those who oppose.....as mean nasty racists.


I dont know, I dont have enough info. they might be, might not.

AND CALLING KRB A LIAR IS TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR AND WRONG.

But dont worry, Im an equal opportunity basher, and I will bash KRB's posts later, for now I just want to say, other than gaffman, JT is actually leading this race :)



Yes, I'm racist against Hispanics, that's precisely why I married one.:lame2:


BTW what transpired between KRB and I is in fact between KRB and I.

[KartRacerBoy]

hahahhah,
yea, like our current schools are keeping kids out of gangs...

True, but imagine if even the kids that wanted an education were kicked out of school? Lots more kids with nothing to do and no money to recruit from.

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes, I'm racist against Hispanics, that's precisely why I married one.:lame2:.

HAHHA, You think that pre emps you from being a racist? DOUBLE :lame2::lame2:
Do you really want to get into this??:laugh::lol:



BTW what transpired between KRB and I is in fact between KRB and I.
Oh, so that was all in PM?

[ConHog]

True, but imagine if even the kids that wanted an education were kicked out of school? Lots more kids with nothing to do and no money to recruit from.

KRB what you say makes sense in a perfect world, but we do not live in a perfect world. Our government is broke, we don't even have enough money to provide quality essential services to our citizens.

Let's say I broke into your home and demanded dinner, would you just gladly feed me and my children, or would you be "what the fuck this dude just broke in here, and now he wants me to support him" , but on the other hand I'm sure if I knocked on the door and asked you to feed me you would do so no problem.

[ConHog]

HAHHA, You think that pre emps you from being a racist? DOUBLE :lame2::lame2:
Do you really want to get into this??:laugh::lol:



Oh, so that was all in PM?

Dude present some evidence that I'm a racist or shut the fuck up.

[KartRacerBoy]

Thanks for the defense LuvRPgrl, but let it rest between ConHog and I on this thread.

He got bad legal advice from his wife (:hides: ) as fj1200 noted regarding questioning juries. :slap: and :poke:(I couldn't decide which icon was more appropriate). ;)

[ConHog]

Thanks for the defense LuvRPgrl, but let it rest between ConHog and I on this thread.

He got bad legal advice from his wife (:hide:) as fj1200 noted regarding questioning juries. :slap: and :poke:(I couldn't decide which icon was more appropriate). ;)

No, you were wrong. I'm NEVER wrong. Just ask me.


For real though, bygones are bygones, and I don't know why this guy is calling me a racist for not agreeing with you LOL

[KartRacerBoy]

KRB what you say makes sense in a perfect world, but we do not live in a perfect world. Our government is broke, we don't even have enough money to provide quality essential services to our citizens.

Let's say I broke into your home and demanded dinner, would you just gladly feed me and my children, or would you be "what the fuck this dude just broke in here, and now he wants me to support him" , but on the other hand I'm sure if I knocked on the door and asked you to feed me you would do so no problem.


My overall solution would be to put more $$$ in border enforcement to close it down. Right now, the crappy economy seems to be doing that without more enforcement. Then I'd offer an amnesty program for pure pragmatic reasons: the cost of deportation if our govt agressively sought out illegal workers/immigrants would be tremendous. Like it or not, people alleged to be illegal immigrants are entitled to constitutional protections (due process), and the wait and expense for deportation proceedings can take years if they don't waive those rights. We will have to hire a lot more immigration officials and build a lot more holding facilities. All the small govt types will then scream with a new round of outrage, but it's the cost of doing business, so to speak.

[ConHog]

My overall solution would be to put more $$$ in border enforcement to close it down. Right now, the crappy economy seems to be doing that without more enforcement. Then I'd offer an amnesty program for pure pragmatic reasons: the cost of deportation if our govt agressively sought out illegal workers/immigrants would be tremendous. Like it or not, people alleged to be illegal immigrants are entitled to constitutional protections (due process), and the wait and expense for deportation proceedings can take years if they don't waive those rights. We will have to hire a lot more immigration officials and build a lot more holding facilities. All the small govt types will then scream with a new round of outrage, but it's the cost of doing business, so to speak.

I have said the EXACT same thing KRG, deporting them all isn't the answer, it isn't even feasible. That leaves one option, some sort of amnesty. AFTER closing the border completely down. You can feel free to ask those who I've posted with in the past or do a search on USMB for that. I think it would cost more to hunt them all down and send them back then it would to get them on the path to citizenship. I am merely talking about the ones who come over here with NO intent to become citizens, and yes there are lots of them, we should have NO obligation to educate or feed their children. We simply can NOT afford it.It's simple economics, if you have money and your neighbor is hungry you help them out, but if you yourself are broke you can't let your family go under by trying to help others.

[LuvRPgrl]

Dude present some evidence that I'm a racist or shut the fuck up.

STFU?? NOW that was totally uncalled for
henceforth, evidence is on its way, forthwith

As for staying "out of it", I may or may not, depending on.......

[ConHog]

STFU?? NOW that was totally uncalled for :laugh:
evidence is on its way, henceforth

As for staying "out of it", I may or may not, depending on.......

Good post away, I would love to see your evidence that suggests a man who married a Mexican is in fact racist against Mexicans. Especially given that in this very thread I am admonishing JT for being a racist.

[fj1200]

They don't , I'm just saying that the reality is that in most of the country there really is only one school, the public school. So sure vouchers could theoretically be handed out, but what good would they do if the public school was the only place you had to send your child anyway?

I daresay that the vast majority of the population has the option of more than one school. :slap: So by "not bothering" you condemn them to a, possibly, underperforming school.

[ConHog]

I daresay that the vast majority of the population has the option of more than one school. :slap: So by "not bothering" you condemn them to a, possibly, unMayderperforming school.

Maybe I'm just thinking about something that applies to Arkansas then , because where I live there are 4 schools within 50 miles of us, they are all public schools. Now Arkansas does have Freedom of choice in schools meaning you can choose to send your child to any public school you want and they can't turn you down, provided you enroll early, but that can be done without a voucher.

[ConHog]

STFU?? NOW that was totally uncalled for
henceforth, evidence is on its way, forthwith

As for staying "out of it", I may or may not, depending on.......

Still waiting...............

[DragonStryk72]

Asking for ID isn't the same as asking for proof of citizenship or immigration status. And many of my public defender clients of whatever race had no picture ID if they didn't have a license so they couldn't produce picture ID.

Profiling is unconstitutional. Discrimination based on race.

Um, yes it is. If you have an ID, then you've done your part over at the DMV getting either a license, or at least a State ID (That's right, you can have ID other than a license for those that can't or just don't drive. costs about $10 in VA and NY). This means producing things like your green card, birth certificate, proof of residence, etc.. Showing it to a police officer assures them that yes, you are supposed to be here. there is no excuse, if you have all the documentation on your citizenship, for not having some sort of picture ID, or at least some of the documentation on you. This is already required by law, and has been for years, so what exactly is the issue with enforcing it?

They're not talking about stopping everyone with an accent. Again, this is a law aimed at folks that are already being detained for something, whether it be a speeding ticket, or whatnot. It is not that much to ask.

[DragonStryk72]

I have said the EXACT same thing KRG, deporting them all isn't the answer, it isn't even feasible. That leaves one option, some sort of amnesty. AFTER closing the border completely down. You can feel free to ask those who I've posted with in the past or do a search on USMB for that. I think it would cost more to hunt them all down and send them back then it would to get them on the path to citizenship. I am merely talking about the ones who come over here with NO intent to become citizens, and yes there are lots of them, we should have NO obligation to educate or feed their children. We simply can NOT afford it.It's simple economics, if you have money and your neighbor is hungry you help them out, but if you yourself are broke you can't let your family go under by trying to help others.

Actually I have a solution for getting back all, or at least some, of the money that would have been paid for the paperwork for citizenship. You grant the amnesty as a one-shit deal, but the money still has to be repaid. Now, if you don't have the money on you, what happens is this: You are required to give over your tax returns each year until the debt is erased, and you have to file for returns each year. An exemption for this amount will be allowed if at least one member of the family signs into the US military (I'm more than willing to let you and your family stay if you're willing to take bullets/missiles for us).

But of course, we also have to stop the influx. Better border security is a must, and I think it's about time we started having National Guardsmen do rotations along our own border, so that they can guard our nation there. This way you have a permanent guard force along the border, and they get refreshed at regular intervals. However, the biggest thing we need to do is to go after the businesses that are hiring the illegals, because it is them who are creating the opportunities for them here.

[LuvRPgrl]

Still waiting...............

wait for it.............

[LuvRPgrl]

Um, yes it is. If you have an ID, then you've done your part over at the DMV getting either a license, or at least a State ID (That's right, you can have ID other than a license for those that can't or just don't drive. costs about $10 in VA and NY). This means producing things like your green card, birth certificate, proof of residence, etc.. Showing it to a police officer assures them that yes, you are supposed to be here. there is no excuse, if you have all the documentation on your citizenship, for not having some sort of picture ID, or at least some of the documentation on you. This is already required by law, and has been for years, so what exactly is the issue with enforcing it?

They're not talking about stopping everyone with an accent. Again, this is a law aimed at folks that are already being detained for something, whether it be a speeding ticket, or whatnot. It is not that much to ask.
You can get a DL without being a citizen.

[KartRacerBoy]

Um, yes it is. If you have an ID, then you've done your part over at the DMV getting either a license, or at least a State ID (That's right, you can have ID other than a license for those that can't or just don't drive. costs about $10 in VA and NY). This means producing things like your green card, birth certificate, proof of residence, etc.. Showing it to a police officer assures them that yes, you are supposed to be here. there is no excuse, if you have all the documentation on your citizenship, for not having some sort of picture ID, or at least some of the documentation on you. This is already required by law, and has been for years, so what exactly is the issue with enforcing it?

They're not talking about stopping everyone with an accent. Again, this is a law aimed at folks that are already being detained for something, whether it be a speeding ticket, or whatnot. It is not that much to ask.

Um, I disagree, although I have no idea what you were "um, yessing."

What our county did here in Indiana was to check immigration status of the hispanics ONCE THEY HAD BEEN ARRESTED. If they were illegal immigrants, the feds were notified and an immigration hold was put on the defendant. If the case was resolved (not guilty or sentence served), the defendant was held for some fixed amount of time so the INS or its successor could come and pick the illegal/immigrant up. If the feds didn't pick them up by the deadline (which was often extended), the illegal immigrant was released.

I just wonder what will be "reasonable suspicion" requiring one to provide proof of immigration status or citizenship. Foreign accent? Can't produce a license? What? That is the REAL problem. Enforcement will of course be arbitrary. Who hear thinks a white Canadian illegal without an accent will be asked for proof of status? Not me.

[KartRacerBoy]

You can get a DL without being a citizen.

I don't think you can in most states. Legally, that is. I think that is short-sighted, as they will drive anyway and do it uninsured. Now some will drive with a license uninsured anyway, but not all by any means.

[KartRacerBoy]

Actually I have a solution for getting back all, or at least some, of the money that would have been paid for the paperwork for citizenship. You grant the amnesty as a one-shit deal, but the money still has to be repaid. Now, if you don't have the money on you, what happens is this: You are required to give over your tax returns each year until the debt is erased, and you have to file for returns each year. An exemption for this amount will be allowed if at least one member of the family signs into the US military (I'm more than willing to let you and your family stay if you're willing to take bullets/missiles for us).

But of course, we also have to stop the influx. Better border security is a must, and I think it's about time we started having National Guardsmen do rotations along our own border, so that they can guard our nation there. This way you have a permanent guard force along the border, and they get refreshed at regular intervals. However, the biggest thing we need to do is to go after the businesses that are hiring the illegals, because it is them who are creating the opportunities for them here.




There is one manufacturer in the county I used to be a public defender in that always seem to come up with my illegal immigrant clients. Over a period of years, I and other PDs had many such people claim that this company indeed HELPED the worker they knew to be illegal immigrants get social security numbers. Sooooo much smoke you wondered if there was an actual fire, too. The company also had the lowest pay for comparable work in the area, at least by reputation, and they went through a lot of workers.

[ConHog]

Actually I have a solution for getting back all, or at least some, of the money that would have been paid for the paperwork for citizenship. You grant the amnesty as a one-shit deal, but the money still has to be repaid. Now, if you don't have the money on you, what happens is this: You are required to give over your tax returns each year until the debt is erased, and you have to file for returns each year. An exemption for this amount will be allowed if at least one member of the family signs into the US military (I'm more than willing to let you and your family stay if you're willing to take bullets/missiles for us).

But of course, we also have to stop the influx. Better border security is a must, and I think it's about time we started having National Guardsmen do rotations along our own border, so that they can guard our nation there. This way you have a permanent guard force along the border, and they get refreshed at regular intervals. However, the biggest thing we need to do is to go after the businesses that are hiring the illegals, because it is them who are creating the opportunities for them here.

I can get with all of this.

[ConHog]

I don't think you can in most states. Legally, that is. I think that is short-sighted, as they will drive anyway and do it uninsured. Now some will drive with a license uninsured anyway, but not all by any means.

No, what is short sighted is not hammering people hard enough when they get caught driving without license and insurance. I'd like to see it be a MINIMUM of 1 year in prison for either. Not a measly fine.

And yes, I'm serious.

[ConHog]

I don't think you can in most states. Legally, that is. I think that is short-sighted, as they will drive anyway and do it uninsured. Now some will drive with a license uninsured anyway, but not all by any means.

Oh PS - Read ID Act, check it out, there are still 12 states that haven't complied. In those 12 states you do NOT have to be a citizen to obtain a DL, nor even a legal resident, all you have to provide is an address.

As of right now the Real ID Act is set to go into full effect next year and ALL states will have to comply whether they want to or not, but Obama could easily roll back the date on this one again.

[KartRacerBoy]

No, what is short sighted is not hammering people hard enough when they get caught driving without license and insurance. I'd like to see it be a MINIMUM of 1 year in prison for either. Not a measly fine.

And yes, I'm serious.

IIRC, in Indiana, the first time you are caught without having a valid license (ie, never having had the state issue you a license), it is a A misdemeanor with up to a year in jail. The second time you are caught it is a D felony (lowest felony) with up to a 3 yr sentence. The third and all subsequent times it is a C felony with a sentence range of 2-8 yrs.

That is a distinct offense from having a been issued a license but not having it on your possession (fine only).

[KartRacerBoy]

Oh PS - Read ID Act, check it out, there are still 12 states that haven't complied. In those 12 states you do NOT have to be a citizen to obtain a DL, nor even a legal resident, all you have to provide is an address.

As of right now the Real ID Act is set to go into full effect next year and ALL states will have to comply whether they want to or not, but Obama could easily roll back the date on this one again.

Did you mean "BS"?

And if I remember my math 12 out of 50 isn't "most states." So I don't stand corrected. :dance:

[ConHog]

Did you mean "BS"?

And if I remember my math 12 out of 50 isn't "most states." So I don't stand corrected. :dance:

In Arkansas if they catch you driving without a license it's a $300 fine and they impound your vehicle, which of course adds another $80 or so to the expense. There is no graduating penalty for additional charges.

And I wasn't correcting you, merely adding stating the facts.

[LuvRPgrl]

Thanks for the defense LuvRPgrl, but let it rest between ConHog and I on this thread.

He got bad legal advice from his wife (:hides: ) as fj1200 noted regarding questioning juries. :slap: and :poke:(I couldn't decide which icon was more appropriate). ;)

Alot of people dont like to use the term "liar", so they say "untruth" or "not completely honest", I say horsecrap. If someone lies, then they are a liar.

But If he is calling you a liar for the reason I thinik he is, it simply isnt true. Saying you are going to do something, and then later changing your mind, does not make one a liar.
AND I HATE IT JUST AS MUCH WHEN SOMEONE IS FALSLEY ACCUSSED OF BEING A LIAR, AS I DO THOSE WHO WONT CALL REAL LIARS, LIARS.

[fj1200]

I have said the EXACT same thing KRG, deporting them all isn't the answer, it isn't even feasible. That leaves one option, some sort of amnesty. AFTER closing the border completely down.

I disagree, I think it could easily be done without being too expensive either. We just need to get them to self deport by closing the border, tightening restrictions on employers, having the political will to deport them when they are found, etc. That's the stick but the carrot is to offer them employment through some sort of agency process that starts in their home country. An employer can request to import some labor and have the state department/commerce? register the employees and make sure that all the necessary information is kept on them and their whereabouts are tracked. If it's lucrative enough to become legitimate then they will get themselves back to their home country for the opportunity.

[ConHog]

Alot of people dont like to use the term "liar", so they say "untruth" or "not completely honest", I say horsecrap. If someone lies, then they are a liar.

But If he is calling you a liar for the reason I thinik he is, it simply isnt true. Saying you are going to do something, and then later changing your mind, does not make one a liar.
AND I HATE IT JUST AS MUCH WHEN SOMEONE IS FALSLEY ACCUSSED OF BEING A LIAR, AS I DO THOSE WHO WONT CALL REAL LIARS, LIARS.

Oh get over it, I was jerking KRB's chain when I called him a liar.

[TheShadowKNows]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0824/Alabama-judge-casts-doubt-on-harsh-new-illegal-immigration-law

Thanx for the heads up Chloe. This type of info generally doesn't get by me, but thanx to you neither did this one. BTW Have you noticed lately a very gradual change in attitude within our Judiciary, including state, local, and Fed..
I believe that the "Guilt Trip" that the electorate has been on since 08' has turned the corner, allowing Conservative Judges the confidence that comes with citizenry support ( not unlike our politicos ), that reinforces their core beliefs so manifesting in their jurisprudence.

[KartRacerBoy]

Oh get over it, I was jerking KRB's chain when I called him a liar.

I don't think you are being truthful, sir, but I'm over it.:poke:

There. I've called you a liar. We're equal.

[KartRacerBoy]

I disagree, I think it could easily be done without being too expensive either. We just need to get them to self deport by closing the border, tightening restrictions on employers, having the political will to deport them when they are found, etc. That's the stick but the carrot is to offer them employment through some sort of agency process that starts in their home country. An employer can request to import some labor and have the state department/commerce? register the employees and make sure that all the necessary information is kept on them and their whereabouts are tracked. If it's lucrative enough to become legitimate then they will get themselves back to their home country for the opportunity.

Interesting perspective, but the question again turns on spending more money on enforcement. Good luck with that. :laugh:

As for whether it would be worthwhile for business that hires illegals to herd them through some work permit process, I doubt that would work. The business that hire these people do so knowing they can pay them crap, treat them like crap, and they can't complain. If those same business can't do that by hiring them legally, why hire them? It won't be "lucrative" at all.

[DragonStryk72]

You can get a DL without being a citizen.

Well, that depends on the state you live in. In NY, as well as VA, you have to have a birth certificate as part of the deal. Can't speak for the other states, but yeah, we should definitely not be handing out licenses to people who do not have the documentation to prove their citizenship. Even an up to date work visa would be fine, but the ID should expire at the same time as the visa does.

[DragonStryk72]

Um, I disagree, although I have no idea what you were "um, yessing."

What our county did here in Indiana was to check immigration status of the hispanics ONCE THEY HAD BEEN ARRESTED. If they were illegal immigrants, the feds were notified and an immigration hold was put on the defendant. If the case was resolved (not guilty or sentence served), the defendant was held for some fixed amount of time so the INS or its successor could come and pick the illegal/immigrant up. If the feds didn't pick them up by the deadline (which was often extended), the illegal immigrant was released.

I just wonder what will be "reasonable suspicion" requiring one to provide proof of immigration status or citizenship. Foreign accent? Can't produce a license? What? That is the REAL problem. Enforcement will of course be arbitrary. Who hear thinks a white Canadian illegal without an accent will be asked for proof of status? Not me.

And people should be getting asked for ID whenever they are detained by the cops in the first place. It's pretty much the first question that the police ask you when you get pulled over.

[DragonStryk72]

There is one manufacturer in the county I used to be a public defender in that always seem to come up with my illegal immigrant clients. Over a period of years, I and other PDs had many such people claim that this company indeed HELPED the worker they knew to be illegal immigrants get social security numbers. Sooooo much smoke you wondered if there was an actual fire, too. The company also had the lowest pay for comparable work in the area, at least by reputation, and they went through a lot of workers.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You have companies that are actively doing this stuff, and everyone knows they're doing it, but no one is moving to take them down. All it takes is a few business to get put out of business for the other to straighten up their act. It doesn't matter how many individual illegals you bust when companies like that are committing conspiracy in order to hire more.

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh get over it, I was jerking KRB's chain when I called him a liar.

Is that all you were jerking ??

[fj1200]

Interesting perspective, but the question again turns on spending more money on enforcement. Good luck with that. :laugh:

As for whether it would be worthwhile for business that hires illegals to herd them through some work permit process, I doubt that would work. The business that hire these people do so knowing they can pay them crap, treat them like crap, and they can't complain. If those same business can't do that by hiring them legally, why hire them? It won't be "lucrative" at all.

Are you kidding? The states are dying to spend more on enforcement. Make the whole experience unfriendly but provide a legal means of businesses hiring "illegals" and you'll hardly notice the cost.

Would you like to solve the problem or not? Offering a solution that legitimizes the whole process including giving our guest workers a way to make an honest, safe, and more visible position that allows them some protection is just crazy I guess. :rolleyes: We can just let the market (good for me), with some regulation(good for you), decide on what's "lucrative."

[LuvRPgrl]

No, what is short sighted is not hammering people hard enough when they get caught driving without license and insurance. I'd like to see it be a MINIMUM of 1 year in prison for either. Not a measly fine.

And yes, I'm serious.

yea, no doubt you were military police for 20 years.
I suppose you also support taking away a drivers license for not paying child support?

[KartRacerBoy]

yea, no doubt you were military police for 20 years.
I suppose you also support taking away a drivers license for not paying child support?

Actually, taking the license away has been a pretty successful support enforcement mechanism here in Indiana. Kind of a non-sequitor though.

[ConHog]

yea, no doubt you were military police for 20 years.
I suppose you also support taking away a drivers license for not paying child support?

I support CSE doing whatever is necessary to help collect child support from parents who won't meet their financial obligation. Has nothing to do with THIS thread though.

[LuvRPgrl]

Actually, taking the license away has been a pretty successful support enforcement mechanism here in Indiana. Kind of a non-sequitor though.

Kinda? Can you tell me one thing that links the two, other than conhog telling us its effective?

[LuvRPgrl]

I support CSE doing whatever is necessary to help collect child support from parents who won't meet their financial obligation. Has nothing to do with THIS thread though.

I suppose you also support check points for sobriety checks and immigration status?

[ConHog]

Kinda? Can you tell me one thing that links the two, other than conhog telling us its effective?


Sure I can tell you. According to the most recent study I read 90% of parents who are in arrears on the their child support obligations start making payments within 2 weeks of their drivers license being suspended. That's a MUCH more successful rate than keeping criminals from committing further crimes by throwing them in prison, so why are you against something that works to get parents to pay their child support?

[ConHog]

I suppose you also support check points for sobriety checks and immigration status?

For sobriety checks? Yes. Would I support check points set up solely to check immigration status? No, and in fact those are not legal as far as I'm aware.

[KartRacerBoy]

Kinda? Can you tell me one thing that links the two, other than conhog telling us its effective?

I meant it's irrelevant to the thread topic. A logical link between support payments and loss of license? None really other than enforcement.

I just asked my lawyer wife who has done far more work in enforcement of child support about the license/support thing. She says it's only really effective as an enforcement device if someone's job depends on them having a valid license. A commercial driver license holder, for example. Otherwise, if they are deadbeat support payors (usually dads), it doesn't help she says becz the deadbeats are usually "casual" about following the law in the other areas of their life.

I would guess it would be effective for those that thought of themselves as otherwise law abiding aside their non-payment of support. As a public defender, I represented a (very) few of those.

[ConHog]

I meant it's irrelevant to the thread topic. A logical link between support payments and loss of license? None really other than enforcement.

I just asked my lawyer wife who has done far more work in enforcement of child support about the license/support thing. She says it's only really effective as an enforcement device if someone's job depends on them having a valid license. A commercial driver license holder, for example. Otherwise, if they are deadbeat support payors (usually dads), it doesn't help she says becz the deadbeats are usually "casual" about following the law in the other areas of their life.

I would guess it would be effective for those that thought of themselves as otherwise law abiding aside their non-payment of support. As a public defender, I represented a (very) few of those.

Actually, the best thing they have done is to start confiscating tax returns of dead beats.

Oh by the way, more mothers that owe child support are behind than fathers. Now more fathers are behind because there are more , many more, non custodial fathers than mothers, but by percentage mothers are actually more likely to get behind on child support.

[KartRacerBoy]

Actually, the best thing they have done is to start confiscating tax returns of dead beats.

Oh by the way, more mothers that owe child support are behind than fathers. Now more fathers are behind because there are more , many more, non custodial fathers than mothers, but by percentage mothers are actually more likely to get behind on child support.


I think the tax thing is good, but those folks rarely had tax refunds when I represented them as a public defender. Now that may not mean much becz I was appointed to represent the guys that were thousands or tens of thousands of dollars behind. Usually it was becz they were in jail (and the support obligation won't stop) or they simply couldn't get any job becz their criminal history was so bad. I imagine for the noncustodials that do work but are just deadbeats, tax refund confiscation would be effective.

My wife agrees with you on the percentage of noncustodial men vs women who don't pay support. Where I live, it is pretty conservative. All else equal, women are more likely to get custody than a man is despite the law. So if a woman doesn't get custody, she's probably in a pretty bad place. That would make her less likely to pay support.

[Gunny]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0824/Alabama-judge-casts-doubt-on-harsh-new-illegal-immigration-law

Where's the doubt? Harsh new immigration laws? Sounds more like enforcing the old laws to me.

There's some doubt to being in this country illegally? Seems rather straightforward. You are or you aren't and if you are, you get deported. This just isn't this hard.

[LuvRPgrl]

Sure I can tell you. According to the most recent study I read 90% of parents who are in arrears on the their child support obligations start making payments within 2 weeks of their drivers license being suspended. That's a MUCH more successful rate than keeping criminals from committing further crimes by throwing them in prison, so why are you against something that works to get parents to pay their child support?ur

Thats not a link, its a cause and effect, course, I wouldnt expect a poliz.a state nazi supporter to understand the difference.

[LuvRPgrl]

Sure I can tell you. According to the most recent study I read 90% of parents who are in arrears on the their child support obligations start making payments within 2 weeks of their drivers license being suspended. That's a MUCH more successful rate than keeping criminals from committing further crimes by throwing them in prison, so why are you against something that works to get parents to pay their child support?

Link,, cuz I dont believe it. At least HogTrash was honest about who he was/is.

In fact, you cant even have such a stat because the issue is handled by the states, so you would have up to 50 different stats

[ConHog]

Link,, cuz I dont believe it. At least HogTrash was honest about who he was/is.

In fact, you cant even have such a stat because the issue is handled by the states, so you would have up to 50 different stats

Actually , you are sort of correct. Each state has a CSE which works in CONJUNCTION with federal officials and under federal guidelines to collect child support.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/archive/child_support_02.shtml


As far as a link the study I cited, I can't because not everything I read or study is in fact online. Some people do read actual paper reports sometimes.

[LuvRPgrl]

Actually , you are sort of correct. Each state has a CSE which works in CONJUNCTION with federal officials and under federal guidelines to collect child support.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/archive/child_support_02.shtml


As far as a link the study I cited, I can't because not everything I read or study is in fact online. Some people do read actual paper reports sometimes.

Yes, but w/o supporting evidence or a link, then what you said is nothing more than gossip and speculation.

In fact, the info I have read is not close to what you said the % is.

[ConHog]

Yes, but w/o supporting evidence or a link, then what you said is nothing more than gossip and speculation.

In fact, the info I have read is not close to what you said the % is.

I'm just telling you what I have read. The fact is that in actuality all I can do is speak from personal experience. Any my own ex wife just didn't care. Her DL has been suspended for about 10 years now and she hasn't made one penny in child support payments. In fact now the state isn't even trying to collect because the child is 19. I don't know how that affects her DL. She gets around the income tax collection to , simply by not ever getting a refund that can be confiscated.


Meaning of course that if dead beat parents are determined , they will NEVER pay child support owed, BUT for those who just need a nudge to make them do the right thing, these sorts of things work. No different than saying those who REALLY want to speed don't care about tickets, but for those who just need a reminder not to speed, tickets are very effective.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm just telling you what I have read. The fact is that in actuality all I can do is speak from personal experience. Any my own ex wife just didn't care. Her DL has been suspended for about 10 years now and she hasn't made one penny in child support payments. In fact now the state isn't even trying to collect because the child is 19. I don't know how that affects her DL. She gets around the income tax collection to , simply by not ever getting a refund that can be confiscated.


Meaning of course that if dead beat parents are determined , they will NEVER pay child support owed, BUT for those who just need a nudge to make them do the right thing, these sorts of things work. No different than saying those who REALLY want to speed don't care about tickets, but for those who just need a reminder not to speed, tickets are very effective.

But if its merely something you read, we have no way on checking its accuracy or validity.

Even if your kid turned 19, the arrearages dont go away. Child support agencies are much more aggressive than the IRS in collecting arrearages, and the debt is NEVER forgiven.

Speeding, tickets and a Drivers license, of course go hand in hand. They are directly connected.What does a DL have to do with Child support? If it is legitimate, then why not take away their license to marry another? It would have more relevance.
In fact, taking away ones license would make it harder, if not impossible for some to pay the child support. And the marriage license being revoked would prevent them from having more kids they need to support.

Do you think all cops, da's, and agency employees are honest?
Do you think innocent people are charged, and or convicted of things they didnt do?
Dont you think cops often commit the same acts that they say is reprehensable if "civilians" do it?
What police tactics and tools do you think is "going to far" , if any?

[KartRacerBoy]

I'm just telling you what I have read. The fact is that in actuality all I can do is speak from personal experience. Any my own ex wife just didn't care. Her DL has been suspended for about 10 years now and she hasn't made one penny in child support payments. In fact now the state isn't even trying to collect because the child is 19. I don't know how that affects her DL. She gets around the income tax collection to , simply by not ever getting a refund that can be confiscated.


Meaning of course that if dead beat parents are determined , they will NEVER pay child support owed, BUT for those who just need a nudge to make them do the right thing, these sorts of things work. No different than saying those who REALLY want to speed don't care about tickets, but for those who just need a reminder not to speed, tickets are very effective.

I think I made the same point in an earlier post when I translated what my wife said about license suspension. As for your 1st wife ConHog, that's what the jails are for and when it's appropriate. Of course, that may bring the mom back into the kid's life, and that is always a factor to be considered for good or ill. Do you even know where your son's mother is?

[ConHog]

Do you think all cops, da's, and agency employees are honest?

No of course not


Do you think innocent people are charged, and or convicted of things they didnt do?

Of course they sometimes are, that is what juries are for.


Dont you think cops often commit the same acts that they say is reprehensable if "civilians" do it?

Of course they do, I have regularly said the LEOs are just humans and of course are going to sometimes do the very things they are charged with preventing others from doing.


What police tactics and tools do you think is "going to far" , if any?

Tough question because I would be afraid to try to think of every single tactic and render an opinion and then have someone spring an "aha so you approve of __________" on me when in fact I may not I just didn't happen to think about it.

I will say this though, I have no problem with police lying to suspects about evidence and such when investigating a crime. I would however draw the line at coercion. That is NOT an acceptable tactic. If that gives you some idea of where I stand.

[ConHog]

I think I made the same point in an earlier post when I translated what my wife said about license suspension. As for your 1st wife ConHog, that's what the jails are for and when it's appropriate. Of course, that may bring the mom back into the kid's life, and that is always a factor to be considered for good or ill. Do you even know where your son's mother is?

Yes, she lives in Cape Girardeau , MO. Which of course means that we have to deal with an out of state CES, which makes things a mess. If she were in Arkansas of course my wife knows the ADAs who deal with child support. But since she's in another state. And honestly I asked them about that, because she is over $10K behind which is WELL over the $5K amount that makes being behind a felony by federal law and I was told that in today's economy they simply weren't going to arrest people for being behind in child support. Personally, I think it's beccause she's a woman.

But at this point, I'm over it. His mom is out a great kid. I'm out some money that I frankly have already went without. I win, she loses. He doesn't lose because he has a great mom.

[LuvRPgrl]

[QUOTE=ConHog;490393]No of course not


Of course they sometimes are, that is what juries are for.


Of course they do, I have regularly said the LEOs are just humans and of course are going to sometimes do the very things they are charged with preventing others from doing.


Tough question because I would be afraid to try to think of every single tactic and render an opinion and then have someone spring an "aha so you approve of __________" on me when in fact I may not I just didn't happen to think about it.

I will say this though, I have no problem with police lying to suspects about evidence and such when investigating a crime. I would however draw the line at coercion. That is NOT an acceptable tactic. If that gives you some idea of where I stand[QUOTE=Gunny;487808]
RIGHT NOW, ON DATELINE ID, IS A STORY RE: CHILD CUSTODY

[Gunny]

[QUOTE=ConHog;490393]No of course not


Of course they sometimes are, that is what juries are for.


Of course they do, I have regularly said the LEOs are just humans and of course are going to sometimes do the very things they are charged with preventing others from doing.


Tough question because I would be afraid to try to think of every single tactic and render an opinion and then have someone spring an "aha so you approve of __________" on me when in fact I may not I just didn't happen to think about it.

I will say this though, I have no problem with police lying to suspects about evidence and such when investigating a crime. I would however draw the line at coercion. That is NOT an acceptable tactic. If that gives you some idea of where I stand[QUOTE=Gunny;487808]
RIGHT NOW, ON DATELINE ID, IS A STORY RE: CHILD CUSTODY

Aren't you the one that accused ME of messing up the quotes in another thread? Only common denominator I'm seeing is YOU.

So what does enforcing immigration laws have to do with deadbeat parents? Sounds like a deflection from the topic with a non sequitur .

[LuvRPgrl]

Just keep your racism salllomewhere else okay. I don't like it from KRB and I don't like it from you.

You made some good points in this thread , but spouting off about niggers all blame whitey isn't helping anything, it just makes you look stupid. SOME niggers indeed do act like niggers, but some white people act like white trash to, neither one is better than the other,, and in neither case do a small minority represent the entire race.

You insisted on highlighting NIGGERS. And that term in that sentence is what highlights your racism.
Think about it, really hard if you need to.

We all have racist thoughts once in a while, and we ALL profile on a daily basis, there is nothing wrong with either.

[ConHog]

You insisted on highlighting NIGGERS. And that term in that sentence is what highlights your racism.
Think about it, really hard if you need to.

We all have racist thoughts once in a while, and we ALL profile on a daily basis, there is nothing wrong with either.



I'm a proponent of profiling.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm a proponent of profiling.But, saying SOME niggers act like niggers means, NOT IMPLIES, BUT MEANS, some niggers dont act like niggers, which MEANS, NOT IMPLIES, that some blacks who dont act like niggers are still niggers. So, on what basis do you see them as niggers?
Th

[ConHog]

But, saying SOME niggers act like niggers means, NOT IMPLIES, BUT MEANS, some niggers dont act like niggers, which MEANS, NOT IMPLIES, that some blacks who dont act like niggers are still niggers. So, on what basis do you see them as niggers?
Th

On reflection, you are right. I should have wrote " Some blacks act like niggers" it was simply an error on my part not to word it that way since clearly that is what I meant.

[J.T]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4

[LuvRPgrl]

On reflection, you are right. I should have wrote " Some blacks act like niggers" it was simply an error on my part not to word it that way since clearly that is what I meant.

Im not understanding though, if you didnt put much thought into it, then why did you highlight it by capatilizing it. I mean, you wanted to make sure everyone saw that term.

[ConHog]

Im not understanding though, if you didnt put much thought into it, then why did you highlight it by capatilizing it. I mean, you wanted to make sure everyone saw that term.

I looked for the OP of mine and couldn't find it, I honestly don't remember highlighting what I was saying though. I THINK I bolded something that JT had said, but I honestly am just confused as to what your point is here.

[LuvRPgrl]

I looked for the OP of mine and couldn't find it, I honestly don't remember highlighting what I was saying though. I THINK I bolded something that JT had said, but I honestly am just confused as to what your point is here.

Highlighting is not constrained to colors. I will be more specific. You typed it as such "SOME niggers..."

[logroller]

On reflection, you are right. I should have wrote " Some blacks act like niggers" it was simply an error on my part not to word it that way since clearly that is what I meant.


I looked for the OP of mine and couldn't find it, I honestly don't remember highlighting what I was saying though. I THINK I bolded something that JT had said, but I honestly am just confused as to what your point is here.

I think he's just pointing out the unnecessary racial attribution. It could better be said "Some people are pieces of shit". That pretty much sums it up, no need to specify race.

[ConHog]

I think he's just pointing out the unnecessary racial attribution. It could better be said "Some people are pieces of shit". That pretty much sums it up, no need to specify race.

I think he knows very well what I was saying and is just doing his best to imitate JT the King of Obtuse.

[LuvRPgrl]

I think he's just pointing out the unnecessary racial attribution. It could better be said "Some people are pieces of shit". That pretty much sums it up, no need to specify race.


It was beyond unnecessary, considering he capitalized the word SOME means he meant what he said, by capitalizing within the statement certainly shows he put time into the thought and passion about it.


CH,,,COMPARING ME TO JT,,,,,,,I DIDNT THINK YOU WERE CAPABLE OF GOING THAT LOW

CK post 74

[ConHog]

It was beyond unnecessary, considering he capitalized the word SOME means he meant what he said, by capitalizing within the statement certainly shows he put time into the thought and passion about it.


CH,,,COMPARING ME TO JT,,,,,,,I DIDNT THINK YOU WERE CAPABLE OF GOING THAT LOW

CK post 74

You're right I WAS emphasizing the word I capitalized. That word IF you remember correctly was some. Indicating that I was putting the emphasis on SOME to indicate that not ALL blacks should be lumped in with the niggers , just the same that not ALL whites should be lumped in with the white trash. YOU are clearly blowing it out of proportion.

[DragonStryk72]

You're right I WAS emphasizing the word I capitalized. That word IF you remember correctly was some. Indicating that I was putting the emphasis on SOME to indicate that not ALL blacks should be lumped in with the niggers , just the same that not ALL whites should be lumped in with the white trash. YOU are clearly blowing it out of proportion.
Unfortunately, what you wrote is SOME niggers act like niggers. You used the word twice.

[ConHog]

Unfortunately, what you wrote is SOME niggers act like niggers. You used the word twice.

Honestly the original quote was so long ago I don't recall that; BUT nonetheless I have since stated exactly what I meant, even though I believe MOST already knew what I meant. I stand by my claim that a few are blowing it out of proportion.

[LuvRPgrl]

You're right I WAS emphasizing the word I capitalized. That word IF you remember correctly was some. Indicating that I was putting the emphasis on SOME to indicate that not ALL blacks should be lumped in with the niggers , just the same that not ALL whites should be lumped in with the white trash. YOU are clearly blowing it out of proportion.

Sounds like you dont have any problem interchanging the terms "nigger" and "blacks"

Of course I recall which word you emphasized, I posted it right above.

"Nigger" is one of the, if not the, nastiest words in our language today. I do not allow people in my company to use it cavilarally (Is that a word?), nor as a derogatory remark. I do not dance around it by referring it as the "N" word, I do however, make very sure when I do use it, it is completely appropriate. Apparently you didnt, dont. I hope you never make that mistake around a group of hostile blacks... :)

[ConHog]

Sounds like you dont have any problem interchanging the terms "nigger" and "blacks"

Of course I recall which word you emphasized, I posted it right above.

"Nigger" is one of the, if not the, nastiest words in our language today. I do not allow people in my company to use it cavilarally (Is that a word?), nor as a derogatory remark. I do not dance around it by referring it as the "N" word, I do however, make very sure when I do use it, it is completely appropriate. Apparently you didnt, dont. I hope you never make that mistake around a group of hostile blacks... :)

I say again you are making far too much out of it. I freely use the word because I think that if they were truly offended by it they wouldn't call each other by it, but that doesn't make me a racist.

With that, I've made my feelings clear on the matter and am done discussing it.

[LuvRPgrl]

You're right I WAS emphasizing the word I capitalized. That word IF you remember correctly was some. Indicating that I was putting the emphasis on SOME to indicate that not ALL blacks should be lumped in with the niggers , just the same that not ALL whites should be lumped in with the white trash. YOU are clearly blowing it out of proportion.

Its precisely the term "SOME" that makes it into a racist comment.

[LuvRPgrl]

FIRST THIS:

On reflection, you are right. I should have wrote " Some blacks act like niggers" it was simply an error on my part not to word it that way since clearly that is what I meant. .

THEN THIS:


I say again you are making far too much out of it. I freely use the word because I think that if they were truly offended by it they wouldn't call each other by it, but that doesn't make me a racist.

With that, I've made my feelings clear on the matter and am done discussing it.

Should you have used a different term, or do you "freely" use the term "niggers"?
Blowing it out of proportion?? RU kidding me? Its an issue that millions of people have given their lives to having it resolved.

Would you think it rather disturbing if someone would be caviliar when referring to your mom as a "bitch" (NOTE TO MODS, I AM NOT CALLING HIS MOM A BITCH)

Cuz blacks call each other niggers is not an excuse. Its kinda like Poles can tell polish jokes, Italians can make Italian remarks....
I dont think its productive or a good idea for blacks to do that, but it doesnt give me license to use the term in a derogatory manner.

Best way to avoid the truth, cover it up and run.

[ConHog]

FIRST THIS:


THEN THIS:



Should you have used a different term, or do you "freely" use the term "niggers"?
Blowing it out of proportion?? RU kidding me? Its an issue that millions of people have given their lives to having it resolved.

Would you think it rather disturbing if someone would be caviliar when referring to your mom as a "bitch" (NOTE TO MODS, I AM NOT CALLING HIS MOM A BITCH)

Cuz blacks call each other niggers is not an excuse. Its kinda like Poles can tell polish jokes, Italians can make Italian remarks....
I dont think its productive or a good idea for blacks to do that, but it doesnt give me license to use the term in a derogatory manner.

Best way to avoid the truth, cover it up and run.



Yes , I do use the term nigger freely. For one thing, I rarely encounter black people in my everyday life so it's not as if I'm running around calling blacks niggers, for another IF it were truly an offensive term, they wouldn't be using it towards each other PERIOD. So I use it to in protest of their false outrage over non blacks using it.


Deal with it.

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes , I do use the term nigger freely. For one thing, I rarely encounter black people in my everyday life so it's not as if I'm running around calling blacks niggers, for another IF it were truly an offensive term, they wouldn't be using it towards each other PERIOD. So I use it to in protest of their false outrage over non blacks using it.


Deal with it.

Nothing for me to deal with.

So, all blacks call each other nigger?

[J.T]

Yes , I do use the term nigger freely. For one thing, I rarely encounter black people in my everyday life

So you freely use it when no blacks are around to kick your ass?

[ConHog]

So you freely use it when no blacks are around to kick your ass?

Well I'm not going to roll into West Memphis and start screaming "Nigger" at the top of my lungs. Duh.

[LuvRPgrl]

Well I'm not going to roll into West Memphis and start screaming "Nigger" at the top of my lungs. Duh.

So why use it at all?

[ConHog]

So why use it at all?


Oh I don't know perhaps because I have the right to do so?

[J.T]

Well I'm not going to roll into West Memphis and start screaming "Nigger" at the top of my lungs. Duh.I thought you said you openly use it in protest?

But you'll only state that 'some niggers act like niggers' (using 'niggers to refer to all blacks)- or speak your mind about blacks (or 'niggers', as you prefer to call them) when there aren't any around. Then you just mutter it under your breath when you see you see a black person?

Do you get dizzy going around in circles trying to talk your way out of the box you've put yourself in?

[J.T]

Oh I don't know perhaps because I have the right to do so?
You also have the right to have sex with another man. Why don't you do so?

[ConHog]

You also have the right to have sex with another man. Why don't you do so?

Ummm because I CHOOSE not to. I KNOW that choice breaks your heart JT , but I just don't like you that way.:laugh2:

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh I don't know perhaps because I have the right to do so?

U have that right in W memphis too, but you admitted you wont use it there.
There is absolutely NOTHING I would say in public that I wouldnt say to any selected groups.

[ConHog]

U have that right in W memphis too, but you admitted you wont use it there.
There is absolutely NOTHING I would say in public that I wouldnt say to any selected groups.

How wonderful for you .

[J.T]

Ummm because I CHOOSE not to.

So you don't call blacks niggers because you have the right to (as you claim in post 197), but because you choose to?

So, what is that choice based on?

[LuvRPgrl]

How wonderful for you .

YEP !
But even more I dont have to let fear take away some of my freedoms of speech.

[ConHog]

YEP !
But even more I dont have to let fear take away some of my freedoms of speech.

A person's freedoms aren't taken away if they just choose not to exercise them.

[LuvRPgrl]

A person's freedoms aren't taken away if they just choose not to exercise them.

We always choose, for every action we take. Question is, whats the reason behind the choice.?