Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Crime Statistics Do not support Arizona Law >

Crime Statistics Do not support Arizona Law

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Crime Statistics Do not support Arizona Law

Old 05-05-2010, 07:53 AM
  #41  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

Originally Posted by burniegoeasily View Post
Heck, ive been stopped without my drivers license. All I did was provide my drivers license number and social security number. No problem.
Ok....but let's presume that the law of the land as it stands, was written a number of years ago...certainly before PC speak was invented. Let's also presume this was prior to the so-called racial-profiling furor. This allows any LEO to pull over ANYBODY and ask 'em for their papers. This is, I believe, how the law stands currently, hence the furor over an LEO's ability to stop someone based on morphology rather than behavior.

What the question is, (depending on what the word "IS" is....), is what specific set of circumstances would allow for an LEO stop of a citizen with a demand for ID ?
bergall is offline  
Old 05-05-2010, 07:58 AM
  #42  
Boone & Crockett
 
Lanse couche couche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Southwest Ohio
Posts: 10,277
Default

This case dealt with someone who refused to identify themself even when they were a suspect. But it does have some interesting insights relevant to this dicussion.

http://epic.org/privacy/hiibel/
Lanse couche couche is offline  
Old 05-05-2010, 08:04 AM
  #43  
Boone & Crockett
 
Lanse couche couche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Southwest Ohio
Posts: 10,277
Default

This case seems to demonstrate that police cannot simply stop someone and ask that they identify themself.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...3_0047_ZS.html
Lanse couche couche is offline  
Old 05-05-2010, 08:08 AM
  #44  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

Originally Posted by Lanse couche couche View Post
This case dealt with someone who refused to identify themself even when they were a suspect. But it does have some interesting insights relevant to this dicussion.

http://epic.org/privacy/hiibel/
I'm going to say that the Supreme court decision is pretty much how most states' LEOs apply the law. My brother was just 18 and one of a crowd of somewhat unruly 'kids' hanging around in a city park. He had no id, so when the cops rolled up, while the kids were not doing anything specific, the fact they were loud and congregated in a large group was seen as 'disorderly conduct'. To break up the crowd, the cops demanded ID from everyone and my dopey brother left his wallet home and so ended up in the precinct house until I could produce his ID later on. He was not under arrest, he was detained until his ID could be established. I think this is basically the way the Az law is to be applied...people congregating and milling about, while legal, can constitute a violation if seen from a particular viewpoint. They can be seen as unruly, threatening, loud, whatever. Sometimes just 'horsing around' can be seen as other than what it is. This is where the cops can come in and in an attempt to 'keep 'em moving', ask for ID, and here is where illegal aliens (Mexicans & S.Americans specifically) have their problem with the law, IMO. They gather in groups on street corners as a 'shape up' for contractors (farmers, construction, etc.) waiting to be picked up by someone who will pay them for a day's labor. As they may appear to be an unruly crowd, they can be accosted by the cops and detained and possibly get 'caught up' in the system. I don't see anything wrong with it, because if they had legal status, they would be able to 'shape up' on any corner they want. Not so with 'undocumented immigrants'...
bergall is offline  
Old 05-05-2010, 08:13 AM
  #45  
Boone & Crockett
 
Lanse couche couche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Southwest Ohio
Posts: 10,277
Default

Berg,

I think that in your brother's instance there would be a somewhat clear case of disorderly conduct. On the other hand in other instances where groups of people are gathered it may be covered under the right to assemble. Not sure what the standards are for establishing disorderly conduct, but would imagine they would have to be well established before asking for I.D.s and detaining those who dont have them.
Lanse couche couche is offline  
Old 05-05-2010, 08:21 AM
  #46  
Boone & Crockett
 
Lanse couche couche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Southwest Ohio
Posts: 10,277
Default

Some info on establishing disorderly conduct. If a cop detained a group of guys for simply congregating on a street corner waiting for their ride to the lettuce fields, i would assume that they would be leaving themselves open to the ACLU.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part8/8.4-8.htm
Lanse couche couche is offline  
Old 05-05-2010, 09:20 AM
  #47  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

hmm....according to the COnnecticut regs which you posted:

a person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: <insert appropriate subsection:>

§ 53a-182 (a) (1): engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior.

§ 53a-182 (a) (2): by offensive or disorderly conduct, annoys or interferes with another person.

§ 53a-182 (a) (3): makes unreasonable noise.

§ 53a-182 (a) (4): without lawful authority, disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons.

§ 53a-182 (a) (5): obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic.

§ 53a-182 (a) (6): congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a reasonable official request or order to disperse.

§ 53a-182 (a) (7): commits simple trespass and observes, in other than a casual or cursory manner, another person (A) without the knowledge of consent of such other person, (B) while such other person is inside a dwelling and not in plain view, and (C) under circumstances where such other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.


any of the above indications can result in a DISCON charge...simply congregating in an area where you obstruct other pedestrian traffic is DISCON and most groups of more than 4 or 5 can be called on the carpet for that. It's a broad brush we're painting with, and the discretion of the officer will play a large part in all interpretations of the law, as far as enforcement goes. I'm not advocating for the invaders, just attempting to see their point, and it all just comes down to the single issue of being able to present valid id upon request.

Last edited by bergall; 05-05-2010 at 09:23 AM.
bergall is offline  
Old 05-05-2010, 09:30 AM
  #48  
Boone & Crockett
 
Lanse couche couche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Southwest Ohio
Posts: 10,277
Default

Berg,

I agree that portions of that indicate that significant discretion is left to the police officer. However, much of the material pertains to an intent to interfere or disturb others as well as giving officer sufficient cause to detain them by first refusing requests to disperse. If one goes by single provisions of the code, then people engaged in a peaceful protest could be arrested for DC simply on the basis of inconveniencing or angering people with contrary views in the general vicinity.

So, in light of the overtones of racial profiling in regar to the new law in AZ, I think that the ACLU would be licking its chops for the first case of a group of Latinos being detained for disorderly conduct simply for standing on a street corner, even if a broad interpretation of the laws could construe their action as somehow creating an inconvenience.

But, like i said, we really need some firsthand LEO perspectives on this.
Lanse couche couche is offline  
Old 05-05-2010, 09:56 AM
  #49  
Dominant Buck
 
burniegoeasily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 26,274
Default

Here is a story that pertains to this thread.

My brother, who was divorced just before 9-11, decided to up his pilot’s license to instrument and multi engine. He was taking at a local school ran and owned by a man from Spain, who was here on a work visa. While doing so, he meet the instructors sister, who is also in America teaching college on a work visa. My brother dated this women for about three months which ended because her work visa was up. The government did not allow her or her brother to reapply (or the government refused their application, not real sure which). So, they went back to Spain. I guess if they had not been part of the work force, and snuck in illegally, the government would have allowed them to stay. I am tired of the double standard going on. You do it right, and you get punished. You do it the wrong way and you get sympathy and liberal cuddling.


I guess it all boils down to the fact they looked white.
burniegoeasily is offline  
Old 05-05-2010, 11:30 AM
  #50  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

Originally Posted by Lanse couche couche View Post
Berg,

I agree that portions of that indicate that significant discretion is left to the police officer. However, much of the material pertains to an intent to interfere or disturb others as well as giving officer sufficient cause to detain them by first refusing requests to disperse. If one goes by single provisions of the code, then people engaged in a peaceful protest could be arrested for DC simply on the basis of inconveniencing or angering people with contrary views in the general vicinity.

So, in light of the overtones of racial profiling in regar to the new law in AZ, I think that the ACLU would be licking its chops for the first case of a group of Latinos being detained for disorderly conduct simply for standing on a street corner, even if a broad interpretation of the laws could construe their action as somehow creating an inconvenience.

But, like i said, we really need some firsthand LEO perspectives on this.


agreed.... I will put in my last 2-cents worth by saying some of the provisions do not include INTENT as part of the violation. That's first off, and lastly, it all boils down to ID...if ya got it, ya walk. If ya don't, ya whistle Dixie all the way to the klink.
bergall is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.