[MMM]

Originally Posted by Paul11

Officers (professional ones) conduct thier investigations very carefully with a clear understanding of how to conduct an investigation to stand-up to legal scrutiny. I didn't say the cops were incompetent or immoral. the defense attorneys attempt to make it appear so. In court it is all about impeaching (discredit) a person's statement through many different means. we (cops and DAs) have more continuous training than most doctors and other professionals to keep up with the game. Our depatment has almost 700 pages of general orders. everything in law enforcement is geared toward your suggestion of "re-vamping.

The job is difficult and under a lot of scrutiny. I will not deny that. It should be, as the statements and decisions made by law officers can change people's lives forever. They should be looked at closely, and these decisions should be made carefully.

Originally Posted by Paul11

most bad guys do not get off on these technicallities because of the above described points. They just try. Sometimes they succeed. I had a bad guy get off because he was a good liar and the victim was wealthy. totally not fair, but that's part of the game.

I am sorry about this but this doesn't negate the point I am making.

Originally Posted by Paul11

reasonable suspicion is based on the 'reasonable man' theory. would the actions or conclusion appear reasonable to the average person. the facts and circumstances presenting reasonable suspicion must be articulatable facts.

I gave the example above of a driver stopped for a common traffic violation. It just so happenes the guy has no license, but has maintaned his residence inthe state for, oh, say, two years. Why no license? 'Cause he can't get one because he's illegal.

The guy also doesn't speak english. Not staggering evidence, but part of the overall picture.

Ok, again, the only reason someone can't get a license is because they can't pass the test or thier illegal.

So, they are in our in a border state, the dude has no license, he speaks no english and only possesses a mexican consulate ID card. The reasonable person would agree that there is reasonable suspicion he is illegal. He was not stopped or investigated for his ethnicity, although the ethnicity could also be a factor. If they are in AZ and 99.99% of the illegals are hispanic, well then it is part of the picture, but not the basis. If this were in idaho, well, close to the Canadian border, that ethnicity would probably not be a factor.

If they are in AZ and 99.99% of the illegals are hispanic, well then it is part of the picture, but not the basis.

This is exactly what I am talking about. If you want to make a law that says "reasonable suspicion" but "race" cannot be a factor and then you say 99.9% of illegals are "hispanic", well, then tell me what basis are the officers using this law going to use to enact it? I am being 100% serious and have asked this question at least a half dozen times. Is it plaid shirts? Hair styles? Lunch time meal choices?

Are you starting to see where the holes in the law are?

Originally Posted by Paul11

People are arrested when reasonable supicion is followed by an investigation in which probable cause for an arrest is developed. People are based on suspicion of a crime (innocent until proven guilty).

If people are enacting in major crimes, then arrest them like crazy. No one is saying no.

Originally Posted by Paul11

My main point is that people who yell and scream about laws like this automatically yell "racism." those same people have no clue about the laws and how thier administered. They only rely on thier own ignorance, assume we are as brutish and ignorant as themselves without realizing the legal system is deep. cops must be smart enough and educated enough to take on defense attorney's in court. Don't be fooled. this law was written to pass legal scrutiny. It expressly forbids profiling. Officer's must jump through hoops.

This is a forum. No one is "yelling" or "screaming". Let's talk to each other. I have not political agenda to promote...only my personal opinion. I disagree with your points, so let's talk through that one by one.

But let's talk about that. This law doesn't allow profiling for a law that is targeting 99.9% "hispanics" by your words.

Then what is this law designed to do? I am told this is specifically targeting south of the border aliens, and at the same time it is not profiling Latino and Hispanic people.

It can't be both.

Originally Posted by Paul11

How does any of this trmaple the rights of citizens? If you're stopped and have a valid driver's license it is assumed your a citizen and let go on your merry way.

Here is an example...again. I am a father of two. We are all American born citizens, but my parents and my wife's parents were born in Ecuador. I have a birth certificate and Social Security number. So do our kids. My wife never got a Driver's Licence. Our kids are minors. We get pulled over because I didn't signal at a turn. We are in Arizona visiting friends. I have an Oregon Driver's license. My minor children have no ID. My wife doesn't drive, and has no ID.

Tell me how it goes down.

Originally Posted by Paul11

Side note: Except in the state of Washington (your homestate?) where licenses are given to illegals. so they all go to WA state, fake and address, obtain WA state licenses and bring them to CA state. well, we know how to investigate and prove that falls, too.

Arizona doesn't like Oregon licenses either, from what I have read. So, can I travel freely in Arizona?