Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zifnab]

In Arizona, lawful contact is defined as being limitted to lawful stop, detention, or arrest.

And in the US, the major news agencies are highly politicized.  Frequently they will ignore facts to help support how they want the public to see an issue.  Fox usually supports the right wing.  Everyone else the left wing.  A lot of people I know will watch foreign news/read foreign news articles about American issues to try to figure out what is actually going on, and even then you never know what you are getting.

An example that has nothing to do with this thread.
I'm originally from the state of North Dakota.  One of the Congressmen from there is under investigation for ethics violations.  I heard about it on the news a few weeks ago where I currently live in New Mexico while watching NBC.  When I talked to my parents back in ND, they were getting no news coverage of the story.

[smjjames]

CNN is one of the better ones though. They really do nationwide and worldwide news rather than local and they tend to support the democrats.

FOX is probably one of the worse ones, I used to watch it, but got tired of the guy who pretty much bashes everybody and the 'faux news' thing that they started is just stupid, among other things.

Also, I don't completely get the left wing and the right wing stuff because the media makes it kind of abiguous and theres no clear meaning.

[fenrif]

In Arizona, lawful contact is defined as being limitted to lawful stop, detention, or arrest.

And in the US, the major news agencies are highly politicized.  Frequently they will ignore facts to help support how they want the public to see an issue.  Fox usually supports the right wing.  Everyone else the left wing.  A lot of people I know will watch foreign news/read foreign news articles about American issues to try to figure out what is actually going on, and even then you never know what you are getting.

An example that has nothing to do with this thread.
I'm originally from the state of North Dakota.  One of the Congressmen from there is under investigation for ethics violations.  I heard about it on the news a few weeks ago where I currently live in New Mexico while watching NBC.  When I talked to my parents back in ND, they were getting no news coverage of the story.

I'm aware of the US journalistic problems, I thought CNN was one of the better sources though.

As for the definition of lawful contact, It seems to be not as clear cut as that (though the concept of one state having differening legal terms from its neighbors is mind-boggling to say the least). I googled it before I made my last post, and Couldn't find anywhere that concretely said what the definition of "lawful contact" was. Though there were many many sites with people trying to find some clarification.

Did find this though. Which quotes the Arizona house majority research analyst as saying:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Lawful contact is definitely different than reasonable suspicion in terms of the initiation of the contact. So lawful contact is essentially any interaction a police officer may have with an individual through the normal legal, lawful course of the performance of their duties. So it wouldn't just be those suspected of crimes. It could be victims, witnesses or just people who are lawfully interacting with the police officer where through the course of that contact they are able to build reasonable suspicion and therefore inquire.

It also has a few other people, some in law enforcement, who basically say that it's an ill-defined term that could be interpreted a number of ways. If they wanted it to mean people who were suspected of an offense, or under arrest, they could've made it much clearer.

Then I found this which says that the wording is actually being (or has been) changed from "lawful contact" to "lawful stop, detention or arrest." To reduce confusion.

That said, I take all the stuff on those sites with a pinch of salt since I've never heard of them before. If you have any source on Arizona's definition of "lawful contact" please post it.

[C4lv1n]

I like it how it is here in Canada, we do have rules, but we have 3 ways of getting in:
Regular (Some point based system, anyone with half a brain can make the minimum)
Family (The family of people who get in the 'Regular' way)
Refugee (Pretty much everyone else)
So basicly we just let everyone in, I think that if the USA did the same thing, they'd be fine. They're only cracking down on illegal immigration because it's illegal. If it wasn't illegal (Or if it was easier to get in) there would be no problem.

Also mexico's economy sucks, which is part of the issue.

EDIT:: Also, the "They're stealing our jobs!" argument is stupid, and racist. Most jobs they do no one else wants, and that statement implies that they are different, and inferior to an American.

[smjjames]

Also mexico's economy sucks, which is part of the issue.

Theres the drug trafficing and the drug cartel violence.

[Realmfighter]

*Stuff*

Our economy basically runs off immigrants.

[smjjames]

Its really not just the economy thats the issue, but many other things especially national security and crime, what with the smuggling activity accross the border.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

It would be more accurate to say that fox news is outright schizophrenic, and everything else is moderate-rightist when there's opportunity for political bias, and all of them are sensationalist drivel whenever possible. Local news is the worst on all counts, and tends to be staffed with the absolute bottom of the barrel journalists.


I seem to recall the arizona law stating that anyone, immigrant or not, who couldn't produce papers proving they were a citizen/legal resident would be hauled off to jail while it was looked up, and then fined if they were a citizen/legal resident. Given that cops only need to say that someone was behaving suspiciously to harass them, at which point they can demand their papers, and haul them off if they don't have them, I don't think the "lawful contact" requirement is much of a barrier. Of course, that does require malice on the part of the cop, but then, any cop that's willing to bust someone for possession of pot certainly has plenty of that to go around...

[C4lv1n]

The bad economy is the cause of the smugling, they want to make money, it's easier to do selling coke than selling cars, or picking garbage.

[Zifnab]

CNN is one of the better ones, but US news as a whole is rather shit.  I believe that that quote you found from the research analyst is probably the whole source of the problem. 

Here are a few sources
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZjZmY3OThiZWJkYTNiMDI4NzM4MGZiOTNhOTMzMzU=
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2503970/posts
http://www.maricopagop.org/2010/05/27/the-truth-behind-arizonas-immigration-law/

The first article has a good explanation of the law, the other two have quotes from one of the draftees and one of Arizona's legislators.

A specific quote from the second linked article:
“It was the intent of the legislature for ‘lawful contact’ to mean arrests and stops, but people on the left mischaracterized it,” says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the law. “So that term is now defined.”

[kg333]

Of course, that does require malice on the part of the cop, but then, any cop that's willing to bust someone for possession of pot certainly has plenty of that to go around...

Enforcing the law because you would otherwise lose your job is malice?  Seriously?

KG

[Zifnab]

It would be more accurate to say that fox news is outright schizophrenic, and everything else is moderate-rightist when there's opportunity for political bias, and all of them are sensationalist drivel whenever possible. Local news is the worst on all counts, and tends to be staffed with the absolute bottom of the barrel journalists.

I meant left for america, where the mainstream "left" party, the Democrats, is still considered right-moderate by much of the rest of the world.

Given that cops only need to say that someone was behaving suspiciously to harass them, at which point they can demand their papers, and haul them off if they don't have them, I don't think the "lawful contact" requirement is much of a barrier.

If they are just going to go around making stuff up, its not very likely to stand up in court.  A cop gets charged with making stuff up to arrest someone a couple of times, and he's not going to be a cop anymore.

[fenrif]

Of course, that does require malice on the part of the cop, but then, any cop that's willing to bust someone for possession of pot certainly has plenty of that to go around...

Enforcing the law because you would otherwise lose your job is malice?  Seriously?

KG

Lol because every single police officer is monitored at all times when on-duty.

CNN is one of the better ones, but US news as a whole is rather shit.  I believe that that quote you found from the research analyst is probably the whole source of the problem. 

Here are a few sources
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZjZmY3OThiZWJkYTNiMDI4NzM4MGZiOTNhOTMzMzU=
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2503970/posts
http://www.maricopagop.org/2010/05/27/the-truth-behind-arizonas-immigration-law/

The first article has a good explanation of the law, the other two have quotes from one of the draftees and one of Arizona's legislators.

A specific quote from the second linked article:
“It was the intent of the legislature for ‘lawful contact’ to mean arrests and stops, but people on the left mischaracterized it,” says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the law. “So that term is now defined.”

So they defined the term after it was included in a legal document mandating police behaviour? That's pretty dangerous stuff.

I think the main contention with it was that it wasn't defined at the time. If they've sorted it out now, then thats good... But it's one of those slippery slope things, using ambiguous language in something like a law is really silly.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If they are just going to go around making stuff up, its not very likely to stand up in court.  A cop gets charged with making stuff up to arrest someone a couple of times, and he's not going to be a cop anymore.

You're joking, right? There are enough obscure and vagely worded laws to arrest you no matter what you're doing. Even if they do make somthing up, they only need to say they had "reasonable suspicion" that you were breaking the law.

Give a gift to your girlfriend and later have sex? Arrested for Prostitution.
Jokingly shove your friend? Arrested for Assault.
Say "I'll kill person X." out of anger? Arrested for Conspiracy to Commit Murder.
Stop moving on public property for a moment? Arrested for Loitering.
Protest any of the above? Arrested for Resisting Arrest.

All the police have to do is watch you, and they'll have a crime in miniutes. It might not stand up in court, but it will involve you being arrested. The cop certainly won't lose his job over it.

[Zangi]

EDIT:: Also, the "They're stealing our jobs!" argument is stupid, and racist. Most jobs they do no one else wants, and that statement implies that they are different, and inferior to an American.

I like to consider them superior workers in the field of manual labor.  Bar some exceptions.