Arizona requires you to carry your papers

[Jenksismyhero]

I honestly hadn't heard about that - what's the deal?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/24...avesty-justice/

[NorthSideSox72]

The guy talked about how he was ordered NOT to testify inthe hearings that were against the NBPP in the voter intimidation case, and how one of the bosses outright said that they were not going to bring any case up that was against minorities because minorities could only be intimidated, not the other way around. Also about how he was transferred because he wanted to testify and kept asking why he wasn't allowed to. Essentially shows how racially politicized the Justice Dept has become.

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/24...avesty-justice/

 

Hm. Definitely seems fishy, I'll agree. I remember when that happened, it seemed like pretty blatant intimidation, and there was every reason to prosecute them.

 

[Balta1701]

Hm. Definitely seems fishy, I'll agree. I remember when that happened, it seemed like pretty blatant intimidation, and there was every reason to prosecute them.

There's a couple big problems with that. First and foremost...not a single voter from that site has filed a complaint about intimidation. Therefore...there's limited standing with which to bring the case. This is of course not surprising, because the polling place they were at was a largely African American polling place.

 

Furthermore, the part of the law that they'd have to have been charged under without actual intimidation complaints was written in a way so as to allow for prosecution of large scale voter intimidation efforts. There's actually a precedent issue here; the last time it was used to prosecute anyone was decades ago, and it was used to prosecute a large scale, state-wide voter caging effort. Without actual evidence of a conspiracy and without actual complaints of intimidation, it'd have been a nearly impossible case for the DOJ to bring and win.

 

The actual reality is that the armed black panthers at the site were probably doing what they actually said they were doing, trying to in some misguided fashion "protect the black voters at this site from the White man!" to paraphrase a quote. Had anything actually happened involving any of the voters at the site, prosecution probably would have happened. It didn't.

[EvilMonkey]

There's a couple big problems with that. First and foremost...not a single voter from that site has filed a complaint about intimidation. Therefore...there's limited standing with which to bring the case. This is of course not surprising, because the polling place they were at was a largely African American polling place.

 

Furthermore, the part of the law that they'd have to have been charged under without actual intimidation complaints was written in a way so as to allow for prosecution of large scale voter intimidation efforts. There's actually a precedent issue here; the last time it was used to prosecute anyone was decades ago, and it was used to prosecute a large scale, state-wide voter caging effort. Without actual evidence of a conspiracy and without actual complaints of intimidation, it'd have been a nearly impossible case for the DOJ to bring and win.

 

The actual reality is that the armed black panthers at the site were probably doing what they actually said they were doing, trying to in some misguided fashion "protect the black voters at this site from the White man!" to paraphrase a quote. Had anything actually happened involving any of the voters at the site, prosecution probably would have happened. It didn't.

Balta, prosecution DID happen, and a default judgement was entered, then Holder droppped it because he didn't want to deal with the case.

[NorthSideSox72]

There's a couple big problems with that. First and foremost...not a single voter from that site has filed a complaint about intimidation. Therefore...there's limited standing with which to bring the case. This is of course not surprising, because the polling place they were at was a largely African American polling place.

 

Furthermore, the part of the law that they'd have to have been charged under without actual intimidation complaints was written in a way so as to allow for prosecution of large scale voter intimidation efforts. There's actually a precedent issue here; the last time it was used to prosecute anyone was decades ago, and it was used to prosecute a large scale, state-wide voter caging effort. Without actual evidence of a conspiracy and without actual complaints of intimidation, it'd have been a nearly impossible case for the DOJ to bring and win.

 

The actual reality is that the armed black panthers at the site were probably doing what they actually said they were doing, trying to in some misguided fashion "protect the black voters at this site from the White man!" to paraphrase a quote. Had anything actually happened involving any of the voters at the site, prosecution probably would have happened. It didn't.

 

If the law is only to cover "large scale" voter intinidation, then...

 

1. The law should be changed

 

2. You prosecute for simple intimidation crimes

 

The laws for assault have changed in many states, and some types of assault (and intimidation is often classified under assault) can have the state be the complainant, instead of the victim. The change was intended for use in domestic violence situations, but it has a broader effect. The state should look into this and do their own prosecution.

 

And I'm sorry but, even if that lame excuse is actually true (which I have a hard time believing, but its possible), its still improper and, IMO, should be per se illegal if it isn't already.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Balta, prosecution DID happen, and a default judgement was entered, then Holder droppped it because he didn't want to deal with the case.

And that part is strange to me. If they were convicted in absentia, then what's the hold-up? At that point, all you have to do is find the guys, and sentence them. Why was that part dropped, if they were already prosecuted?

 

May have been a simple situation of priority. Justice may have decided they had bigger fish to fry. But if that is true, why did the prosecute at all?

 

[Balta1701]

Balta, prosecution DID happen, and a default judgement was entered, then Holder droppped it because he didn't want to deal with the case.

Now, let's not parse our words here...

 

It wasn't exactly "Prosecution". The idea of prosecuting the actual people involved for voting rights violations was considered by the DOJ and they decided not to prosecute. The date on that decision was early January, 2009. Read that date again and consider who made that decision.

 

The Bush administration left the Obama administration an active civil case against the NBPP, not a criminal case. Basically, there was a lawsuit outstanding. A preliminary injunction was issued again the one of them who was holding the nightstick, but not against the other 3. One of them had a license as a poll worker, in fact. The current DOJ dropped the lawsuit...before Basically, they got the court to say that the guy couldn't do it again, and that as long as he didn't do it again, there was no evidence of actual violence, there were no intimidation claims, and nothing that the local authorities could charge him with. Furthermore, the actual NBPP itself could not be a target of the suit, because there was no voting-rights act style evidence of widespread, systemic intimidation.

 

Basically...going forwards with that lawsuit would be spending government money to sue a guy for carrying a club to the place. The courts gave the first guy a slap on the wrist. Said "Don't do it again". If the civil case was expanded...the likely result was to be...slaps on the wrist for 2 of the other 3 guys. No one was going to jail. No one was even paying a fine despite the victory. It was literally as empty of a win as you could get.

[mr_genius]

Now, let's not parse our words here...

 

It wasn't exactly "Prosecution". The idea of prosecuting the actual people involved for voting rights violations was considered by the DOJ and they decided not to prosecute. The date on that decision was early January, 2009. Read that date again and consider who made that decision.

 

The Bush administration left the Obama administration an active civil case against the NBPP, not a criminal case. Basically, there was a lawsuit outstanding. A preliminary injunction was issued again the one of them who was holding the nightstick, but not against the other 3. One of them had a license as a poll worker, in fact. The current DOJ dropped the lawsuit...before Basically, they got the court to say that the guy couldn't do it again, and that as long as he didn't do it again, there was no evidence of actual violence, there were no intimidation claims, and nothing that the local authorities could charge him with. Furthermore, the actual NBPP itself could not be a target of the suit, because there was no voting-rights act style evidence of widespread, systemic intimidation.

 

Basically...going forwards with that lawsuit would be spending government money to sue a guy for carrying a club to the place. The courts gave the first guy a slap on the wrist. Said "Don't do it again". If the civil case was expanded...the likely result was to be...slaps on the wrist for 2 of the other 3 guys. No one was going to jail. No one was even paying a fine despite the victory. It was literally as empty of a win as you could get.

 

those honorable social club members should be given cabinet positions with Obama.

Edited September 25, 2010 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

NBC has a new TV show "Outlaw" where the basic idea behind it is an uber-conservative Supreme Court justice steps down for various reasons and becomes a trial lawyer. Anyway it had a "ripped from the headlines" case on it on Friday's episode where a cop gets involved with a Hispanic suspect that he was required by law to stop, he asks the guy for ID and he gets belligerent because he is a US citizen and the cop ends up shooting (but not killling) him 3 times. I don't want to summarize the whole plot though in case you watch it.

[CrimsonWeltall]

NBC has a new TV show "Outlaw" where the basic idea behind it is an uber-conservative Supreme Court justice steps down for various reasons and becomes a trial lawyer. Anyway it had a "ripped from the headlines" case on it on Friday's episode where a cop gets involved with a Hispanic suspect that he was required by law to stop, he asks the guy for ID and he gets belligerent because he is a US citizen and the cop ends up shooting (but not killling) him 3 times. I don't want to summarize the whole plot though in case you watch it.

 

This is one of the worst show premises ever.

[lostfan]

This is one of the worst show premises ever.

If you can get past the utter ridiculousness of Sam Alito stepping down because he had a personal revelation about the American legal system and that he was also about to get impeached for getting in gambling trouble, and that the main character seems to randomly pick liberal and conservative views, the show isn't really that bad.

[CrimsonWeltall]

If you can get past the utter ridiculousness of Sam Alito stepping down because he had a personal revelation about the American legal system and that he was also about to get impeached for getting in gambling trouble, and that the main character seems to randomly pick liberal and conservative views, the show isn't really that bad.

 

Ah, I was not aware of the impeachment angle. From what I heard it was a guy who completely changes his worldview at the drop of a hat and decides that the best way for him to enact change is to leave his position as *most powerful judge in the country*.

 

[lostfan]

Ah, I was not aware of the impeachment angle. From what I heard it was a guy who completely changes his worldview at the drop of a hat and decides that the best way for him to enact change is to leave his position as *most powerful judge in the country*.

Nah they go into it, they at least tried to explain it instead of just making it random. It's still kinda silly though.

[Balta1701]

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/local...-shot-4-30-2010

 

More fuel for the fire.....................

 

but i thought only tea party protesters used guns to shot people?

Link

Two nationally known forensic pathologists are questioning a sheriff deputy's version of how he was shot in the remote desert south of Phoenix, adding to theories that the incident was a hoax timed to enflame the debate over illegal immigration.

 

Pinal County Deputy Louie Puroll told investigators he was following a group of smugglers carrying bales of marijuana on April 30 when he was ambushed by men firing AK-47 rifles. In what Puroll described as a running gunbattle, he said he was grazed by a bullet in the back.

 

The pathologists, Dr. Michael Baden of New York and Dr. Werner Spitz of suburban Detroit, examined photos of the wound released by the sheriff's office. They told The Associated Press on Friday they concluded the bullet was fired from inches away, not at least 25 yards as Puroll said.

 

Their opinion was first reported by the Phoenix New Times.

 

It's "a close wound, not a distant wound, based on the appearance of the skin around the wound, which is normally what we forensic pathologists look at," said Baden, a former New York City chief medical examiner currently working for the New York State Police. "We're talking inches, not yards."

 

Dr. Werner Spitz, former chief medical examiner of Detroit's Wayne County and author of a death investigation textbook, held the same opinion.

 

"There's almost no doubt that this is a muzzle contact-type injury, with the muzzle flame singeing the skin right where the bullet went by," Spitz said.

 

When asked if the bullet could have been from 25 yards away, he said: "No, it was not (even) from 1 yard away."

 

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu was out of town in meetings Friday, but his spokesman released a statement saying the sheriff's office stands behind the official investigation, and physical evidence supports the deputy's account.

 

There were no burn marks on Puroll's shirt and his wound had no stippling, which is caused from burnt gun powder coming from the barrel of a gun when fired at a close distance, the statement said.

 

"The article that is critical of the investigation was written by a reporter who was able to solicit opinions of those with differing views," the statement said. "After a review all of the evidence in this case, the Pinal County Sheriff's Office has closed this criminal investigation and concluded that it occurred as Deputy Puroll reported it."

 

Baden said it appeared that Puroll's shirt did have what appeared to be powder burns. The New Times reported that it was not sent to the state police lab for examination.

 

Puroll's shooting fueled an already blazing debate in Arizona and the nation about the dangers of immigrant and drug smugglers in southern Arizona. It came just days after Arizona Gov. Janet Brewer signed a sweeping law giving law enforcement powers to question suspected illegal immigrants and arrest them. The major parts of that law have been put on hold by a federal judge on constitutional grounds.

[EvilMonkey]

Link

So they saw photos, not the real thing, and decided it was a hoax. OK.

[Texsox]

So they saw photos, not the real thing, and decided it was a hoax. OK.

 

 

That happens all the time. Wounds heal, yet both sides have the right to an expert witness. So the second or third expert has to rely on the reports and the photos. That has been an established method for a hundred years.

[Balta1701]

So they saw photos, not the real thing, and decided it was a hoax. OK.

Just posting this as reporting.

The Pinal County, Arizona Sheriff's Office has announced that it is reopening the case of a sheriff's deputy who was shot on April 30, after an article last week raised questions about the deputy's story that he'd been involved in a shoot-out with drug smugglers -- and just hours after telling TPM that the department stood by the original investigation.

[EvilMonkey]

Just posting this as reporting.

Knowing how the Justice department works these days, they probably threatened him with some sort of investigation himself if he didn't.

[StrangeSox]

Fantastic "heads I win, tails you lose" argument

[Balta1701]

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the state of Arizona on Monday and let stand a lower court decision blocking the most contentious parts of the state’s immigration law from going into effect.

 

The decision calling the provisions unconstitutional was a victory for the Obama administration, which sued to challenge the law, known as Senate Bill 1070, because it interfered with the federal government’s authority over immigration.

 

Last July, just days before the law was set to take effect, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton issued an injunction blocking parts of it. Gov. Jan Brewer, a supporter of the crackdown, had filed an appeal seeking to have the injunction lifted.

 

After the appeals court rejected the state’s request on Monday and issued a lengthy decision indicating it believed the state had overstepped its authority, State Senator Russell Pearce, the principal sponsor of the law, remained defiant, saying the issue would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.

Link

[Texsox]

Remember, this was a law written by the private prison industry.

[MexSoxFan#1]

I´m a Hispanic and if a cop in Arizona asks me for my papers, I will tell him to go f*** himself in Spanish and in English.

Edited April 25, 2011 by MexSoxFan#1

[NorthSideSox72]

I´m a Hispanic and if a cop in Arizona asks me for my papers, I will tell him to go f*** himself in Spanish and in English.

Much as I despise this stupid law... I wouldn't recommend that reaction on your part, unless you want to spend some time in the police lock-up.

 

[Texsox]

Much as I despise this stupid law... I wouldn't recommend that reaction on your part, unless you want to spend some time in the police lock-up.

Of course that would also make him sound more "American" and less like an illegal

[StrangeSox]

SCOTUS upholds AZ law that punishes employers

 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/26/scotus.arizona.law/?hpt=T2