Tucson Shop Owner & Employee Kill One Intruder, Wound Three

[DFWJC]

Gang members eh? I think I would be finding new employment after this. Gang members tend to be strong supporters of revenge.

I agree. This one is not over unfortunately.

 

[Doomsday101]

Hey Dooms, I did not know that, I travel 3 or 4 times a year to the US, and I always leave my passport and visa in the hotel or wherever I'm staying, I never carry them with me.

Good to know.

Don't feel bad most countries expect people outside of their own country to have some form of documentation with them. Heck even as a US citizen the 1st thing the police ask me if they pull me over is my Licenses and to get that licenses at the DMV I have to show prove of who I am as in birth certificate and another form of ID.

 

[Coy]

Hey Hos, look, I have read parts of the bill, and it does make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime, and it does give police officers the power to ask for those papers to anyone they think could be in the US illegaly.

I'm mexican, and illegal immigration is the result of dacades of corrupt mexican governments that can't provide it's citizens with basic living wages, I hate it when people here try to blame our ills on the US, it's all our doing and you guys have every right to protect your borders.

Having said that, I do thing this law crosses the line.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Typically those who don't mind 'a little' profiling are typically not the ones that would be subject to it.

If I ever need to go to Arizona, I will be sure to have everything from a Social Security Card, Photo IDs and Utility Bills in my name. I wouldn't want to risk getting deported.

+1

Those are willing to give up rights for alleged security usually are not ones who will lose rights in the name of security.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Don't feel bad most countries expect people outside of their own country to have some form of documentation with them. Heck even as a US citizen the 1st thing the police ask me if they pull me over is my Licenses and to get that licenses at the DMV I have to show prove of who I am as in birth certificate and another form of ID.

but they cannot just stop you just well because you look different right, you will have allegedly broken a traffic rule?

to say you can be stopped for no other reason than you might be illegal gives police a bit too much power.

I know I hate it when I am driving down the street and a cop is behind me and typing in his computer, he might be running my licence for no other reason than he can which is not a good reason.

We have 800+ years of freedoms in the English speaking world dating back to the Magna Carta in 1215, we should not allow them to be trampled on.

We face the same crap up here, oh if you have nothing to hide, why care if they ask stupid questions at airports, if you are stopped, asked to produce stuff etc. The whole thing is it is up to the govt to prove you are hiding, not you to prove you aren't hiding.

I suspect most here who have no problem with the law probably aren't hispanic so they have nothing to worry about.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I agree. This one is not over unfortunately.

yep, it is great to stand up for yourself as long as you don't end up dead because you did

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

She would show them her driver's license and that would be it. Most people carry that with them at all times.

I've heard of this extreme scenario before, and I doubt it would ever happen like that.

probably right but my dad used to go to work early in the morning, drove a nice expensive convertible, and was often pulled over just so a cop could ask why he was out at X time in the morning. That is bull. He wasn't swerving, he just happened to start work at 6:30 am.

 

[Doomsday101]

but they cannot just stop you just well because you look different right, you will have allegedly broken a traffic rule?

to say you can be stopped for no other reason than you might be illegal gives police a bit too much power.

I know I hate it when I am driving down the street and a cop is behind me and typing in his computer, he might be running my licence for no other reason than he can which is not a good reason.

We have 800+ years of freedoms in the English speaking world dating back to the Magna Carta in 1215, we should not allow them to be trampled on.

We face the same crap up here, oh if you have nothing to hide, why care if they ask stupid questions at airports, if you are stopped, asked to produce stuff etc. The whole thing is it is up to the govt to prove you are hiding, not you to prove you aren't hiding.

I suspect most here who have no problem with the law probably aren't hispanic so they have nothing to worry about.

The law that is written and passed does not allow them to stop because of how you look either that is total misrepresentation and the only thing critics have clung to which are fabricated lies. Can it happen? Sure but it can happen with any law on the books.

Bottom line the US can't continue to have our borders violated and if the Feds will not enforce the same laws that have been US law for over 30 years and the same law Arz law is patterned after then the states have to be able to do it themselves. It is funny it is a big issue to someone whose country is not getting 100's of thousands each year entering your country it is not costing you 1 damn cent it cost us Billions.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

oh bite me, I didn't say it was a big issue for me, frankly you can give up all your rights, I don't care one iota. Fact is though, you wouldn't be so in favour if you were someone who might get pulled over or who might suffer from the law. Then again, maybe you are someone who won't mind being pulled over just because.

 

[Doomsday101]

oh bite me, I didn't say it was a big issue for me, frankly you can give up all your rights, I don't care one iota. Fact is though, you wouldn't be so in favour if you were someone who might get pulled over or who might suffer from the law. Then again, maybe you are someone who won't mind being pulled over just because.

No one is giving up their rights. Because we choose to enforce a law that is already a Fed law to begin with is not giving up 1 thing. If you are a US citizen there is nothing to worry about if you illegal then yes you may have a concern. Strange thing is when I go to another country I abide by their laws I kind of expect others to do the same when they come here.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Personally I think the border needs to be secured before most of this stuff is pushed. I used to use the leaky boat analogy. If you are in a boat and it is leaking it is ok to bail out the water but as long as you don't fix the leak you are just going to be wasting your time bailing out the water that is going to keep replacing itself due to the leak.

I also think most, not all, Americans are A Ok with getting illegal aliens out of the US. Most Americans, not all, are ok with documented workers who go through the proper process to come in here to work. There are not that many who just don't want them at all. I think most are empathetic to hard working individuals who want to make money and a better life for their families...they just want them to do so in the proper way.

Heck I would even be for people getting fast tracked to us citizens if they go through the proper process, show they are working hard, doing what they can to assimilate into the American life. We could use more hard working people who do the right thing in this country.

The problem is those that don't want to go through the process or even try to go through the process. In the long run they help make it harder for those that do go through the proper process. Furthermore a good deal of the problem is those businesses and individuals who hire the illegal immigrants and I think a vast majority know they are illegal immigrants. You know if nobody would hire these guys, a good majority would quit coming in. If the people or businesses would only hire documented workers, than many of these guys would go through the process. But many of these people and businesses want cheap labor so they can pay them under the table and basically get away with tax evasion. They are just as guilty, actually I would say more guilty, of the problem.

Also it indeed is a cause to use racial profiling...I would applaud those that at least admit that much but I have talked to some people who refuse to say it is to which I say...so are they going to stop a blond haired blued eyed light skin person and ask them for documentation papers? I think we all know the answer to that one.

The problem is not the general idea of it all. We all realize that illegal immigration is a problem and we would all like to see it fixed. Most don't want them to be here without going through the process. However this new bill/law is vague in some of it's language which can be a slippery slope. Basically all an officer has to do is see a brown skinned individual and demand to see their papers and if not they can take them into custody. I mean it says reasonable suspicion so all an officer would have to think to himself is...this guy has dark skin and he is speaking spanish...I guess I can go up to him and demand I see his ID. I would hate to be a long standing American citizen in Arizona that has a hispanic ethnic pass only to be pulled to the side and asked to produce documentation or id to prove that they are an American citizen. It would further be infuriating to know that the only reason you were pulled to the side is because of the color of your skin. This is the type of thing that can happen and we all know that people are going to abuse the system especially when things are worded in a way that can be vague. I could go into several examples of abuses with a bill/law enacted some years ago but will leave it alone as it would get political in nature.

I wonder what would happen if a person is walking down the street and some police officer that might be known as a controversial individual when it comes to these matters sees this dark skin guy walking and decides to stop him and ask for id or documentation. Now what if this guy asks the officer why he should have to show him any id? What if the officer replies that he has a reasonable suspicion that the individual is an illegal alien. To which the guy asks, what reasonable suspicion I have done nothing wrong. Is the officer just going to say...um you have dark skin. What if this individual is an american citizen? What if this individual is an illegal alien but did nothing other than being dark skin and speaking spanish that would raise reasonable suspicion.

Where is that line drawn. When does an american citizen have the right to decide he does not want to give an officer ID because he has done nothing wrong and the officer can not provide a reason for reasonable suspicion?

Why is it that there are people of varying beliefs, some very different polar opposite beliefs, when it comes to law that seem to agree that this thing might not pass constitutional muster if it comes down to a case?

This is not all the same as federal as some would have us believe because if that were the case it would not be such a stink about it. What it wants to do is put those not in the federal system in charge of determining who should be pulled aside to look at ID/Documentation and then the idea that they can detain them off of nothing more than the idea of reasonable suspicion which could boil down to dark skin and language. Sure they have to eventually turn things over to federal authorities and cases but it still is a slippery slope.

Whether the best intentions by some are laid out there are also those that have the express idea to take advantage of it and abuse it.

I have a feeling, as I am sure many others do, that this law will eventually have to be changed. I think it will take one or two cases being brought against the state that will eventually wind up in a federal courts or SCOTUS that will wind up making this law change because it will be found that some people had their rights infringed upon. It will probably also lead to some town, county or state authorities paying out a good sum of money to some individuals.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

No one is giving up their rights. Because we choose to enforce a law that is already a Fed law to begin with is not giving up 1 thing. If you are a US citizen there is nothing to worry about if you illegal then yes you may have a concern. Strange thing is when I go to another country I abide by their laws I kind of expect others to do the same when they come here.

Here is the question that I have seen many struggle to answer when asking it.

If you are just choosing to enforce a law that is already a federal law...why make it a state law if nothing is different. I mean if it is already a law why do you need to make a separate state law to enforce it? Would that not be an example of wasting tax payers money and government time in just basically saying...hey we already got this federal law but instead of just enforcing it we will make a state law as well?

Kind of silly to think that they would do that if the Federal law was already there and everything in the state law is the same don't you think?

Furthermore the old line of if you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about seems to not always pan out. We have had cases of wire tapping people that had done nothing wrong so they had their privacy invaded even though they did nothing wrong.

 

[vta]

Everything gets abused, laws, rights, you name it. I think it's clear who is the abuser and who is the reactionary in this case, and maybe instead of fearing our own, we should start practicing a little more trust for them and more skepticism for the people obviously already abusing our laws.

In the face of our open society being used, Arizona is taking steps to stem the tide of this abuse. Out of fear of some other 'abuse' people are having a fit. A law can be instituted and it can be monitored.

Everyone states how much they'd like this, that or the other, but no one does squat. When a state does do something, they're the enemy all of sudden. Everyone talks about the catalyst for this problem, but no one does anything. Arizona does and the catalyst that everyone happily points to as the problem, (Mexico) joins the screams of our own countrymen to degrade it.

What can happen is nothing more than hypothesis. What is happening is all that matters. This country won't fall and our rights stolen because a state decides to tighten regulations and minimize a problem it's having.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

The Dallas Mourning News blog I subscribe too is all over this story. The comments by some of the citizens of this area are extremely interesting as well.

Dallas Mayor Leppert opposed to city protesting Arizona immigration law
12:59 PM CDT on Tuesday, May 18, 2010

By STEVE THOMPSON / The Dallas Morning News
stevethompson@***BANNED-URL***

Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert said Tuesday that he doesn’t think the city should get involved in protesting Arizona's controversial new immigration law.

"Through most of its recent history, the Dallas City Council has chosen not to get into divisive debates or take positions on issues that do not directly involve the city of Dallas," the mayor said in an e-mailed statement. "I believe that is a wise course to follow."

On Monday, council members Delia Jasso and Steve Salazar said they want the city to issue an official statement protesting Arizona's new law that allows officers to detain people they suspect are in the country illegally. Jasso stopped short of saying she would call for a city boycott of Arizona, as other cities across the country have done, but Salazar said he would support a boycott.

Leppert said the council should focus on key city issues like bringing in new business to Dallas, improving public safety and tackling budget challenges.

"That is what Dallas voters put us here to do, and I believe that is where our council’s energy should be focused," the mayor said.

Council member Dave Neumann agreed.

Protesting the Arizona law is not, Neumann said, "within the prerogative and the purview of the city of Dallas."

Plano-based Frito-Lay urged to drop sponsorship of Arizona sporting events
08:53 AM CDT on Tuesday, May 18, 2010

By KAREN ROBINSON-JACOBS and DIANNE SOLIS
krobinson@***BANNED-URL***
dsolis@***BANNED-URL***
Frito-Lay Inc. is among the “dozens of companies” nationwide being urged to drop sponsorship of sporting events in Arizona following that state’s passage of a controversial immigration bill.

Reports circulated Monday that Latino-activist groups — including the League of United Latin American Citizens — were calling for a boycott of products made by Frito-Lay if the Plano-based snack maker did not end its sponsorship of the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl in Glendale, Ariz.

A national spokesman for LULAC, one of the nation’s largest Latino activist groups, said LULAC is not calling for a boycott, though some local members might embrace such a move. He said he is making plans to meet with executives from a variety of companies to talk about their sponsorships.

“Let me be clear: There is no LULAC boycott of Frito-Lay or any other company,” said Brent Wilkes, executive director of the Washington-based group, which has its strongest presence in Texas.

He said Frito-Lay is among the “dozens of companies that we’ve reached out to, to ask them to pull their sponsorship of events in that state.” He did not say if he was meeting with any other Texas companies.

A spokeswoman for Frito-Lay said the snack maker “values its long-term relationship with the Fiesta Bowl, which has given college football fans some memorable games. Any decision that could impact the numerous employees we have in Arizona or the people associated with our partnerships must be seriously weighed.”

Accion America, a small Dallas-based group formed to protest restrictive laws proposed in Farmers Branch and Irving, said it is urging people who oppose the Arizona law to boycott Frito-Lay until it pulls out of the bowl game.

Carlos Quintanilla, president of Accion America, said Frito-Lay was singled out because of the “billions and billions” the Latino community spends on its products.

Arizona is believed to be the first state to demand that immigrants meet federal requirements to carry identity documents. It is already a federal requirement for noncitizen immigrants over 18 carry immigration documents showing they are in the U.S. lawfully, said Maria Elena Garcia-Upson, the Dallas spokeswoman for Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The controversial measure has sparked national calls for boycotts — but most have been aimed at encouraging people not to attend events in Arizona.

 

[tecolote]

Personally I think the border needs to be secured before most of this stuff is pushed. I used to use the leaky boat analogy. If you are in a boat and it is leaking it is ok to bail out the water but as long as you don't fix the leak you are just going to be wasting your time bailing out the water that is going to keep replacing itself due to the leak.

I also think most, not all, Americans are A Ok with getting illegal aliens out of the US. Most Americans, not all, are ok with documented workers who go through the proper process to come in here to work. There are not that many who just don't want them at all. I think most are empathetic to hard working individuals who want to make money and a better life for their families...they just want them to do so in the proper way.

Heck I would even be for people getting fast tracked to us citizens if they go through the proper process, show they are working hard, doing what they can to assimilate into the American life. We could use more hard working people who do the right thing in this country.

The problem is those that don't want to go through the process or even try to go through the process. In the long run they help make it harder for those that do go through the proper process. Furthermore a good deal of the problem is those businesses and individuals who hire the illegal immigrants and I think a vast majority know they are illegal immigrants. You know if nobody would hire these guys, a good majority would quit coming in. If the people or businesses would only hire documented workers, than many of these guys would go through the process. But many of these people and businesses want cheap labor so they can pay them under the table and basically get away with tax evasion. They are just as guilty, actually I would say more guilty, of the problem.

Also it indeed is a cause to use racial profiling...I would applaud those that at least admit that much but I have talked to some people who refuse to say it is to which I say...so are they going to stop a blond haired blued eyed light skin person and ask them for documentation papers? I think we all know the answer to that one.

The problem is not the general idea of it all. We all realize that illegal immigration is a problem and we would all like to see it fixed. Most don't want them to be here without going through the process. However this new bill/law is vague in some of it's language which can be a slippery slope. Basically all an officer has to do is see a brown skinned individual and demand to see their papers and if not they can take them into custody. I mean it says reasonable suspicion so all an officer would have to think to himself is...this guy has dark skin and he is speaking spanish...I guess I can go up to him and demand I see his ID. I would hate to be a long standing American citizen in Arizona that has a hispanic ethnic pass only to be pulled to the side and asked to produce documentation or id to prove that they are an American citizen. It would further be infuriating to know that the only reason you were pulled to the side is because of the color of your skin. This is the type of thing that can happen and we all know that people are going to abuse the system especially when things are worded in a way that can be vague. I could go into several examples of abuses with a bill/law enacted some years ago but will leave it alone as it would get political in nature.

I wonder what would happen if a person is walking down the street and some police officer that might be known as a controversial individual when it comes to these matters sees this dark skin guy walking and decides to stop him and ask for id or documentation. Now what if this guy asks the officer why he should have to show him any id? What if the officer replies that he has a reasonable suspicion that the individual is an illegal alien. To which the guy asks, what reasonable suspicion I have done nothing wrong. Is the officer just going to say...um you have dark skin. What if this individual is an american citizen? What if this individual is an illegal alien but did nothing other than being dark skin and speaking spanish that would raise reasonable suspicion.

Where is that line drawn. When does an american citizen have the right to decide he does not want to give an officer ID because he has done nothing wrong and the officer can not provide a reason for reasonable suspicion?

Why is it that there are people of varying beliefs, some very different polar opposite beliefs, when it comes to law that seem to agree that this thing might not pass constitutional muster if it comes down to a case?

This is not all the same as federal as some would have us believe because if that were the case it would not be such a stink about it. What it wants to do is put those not in the federal system in charge of determining who should be pulled aside to look at ID/Documentation and then the idea that they can detain them off of nothing more than the idea of reasonable suspicion which could boil down to dark skin and language. Sure they have to eventually turn things over to federal authorities and cases but it still is a slippery slope.

Whether the best intentions by some are laid out there are also those that have the express idea to take advantage of it and abuse it.

I have a feeling, as I am sure many others do, that this law will eventually have to be changed. I think it will take one or two cases being brought against the state that will eventually wind up in a federal courts or SCOTUS that will wind up making this law change because it will be found that some people had their rights infringed upon. It will probably also lead to some town, county or state authorities paying out a good sum of money to some individuals.

This post should be required reading on the subject, it is as unbiased, eloquent and without hidden agendas as I have read on this very complicated issue.

Great post BP.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

BTW, this is probably is the worst hijacking of a thread I have ever seen.

Arizona man defends himself against some thugs and somehow we are talking about immigration and Federal Legislation :laugh2: .

I think we should devote this thread to all things Arizona .

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Phoenix woman, 80, robbed of wedding ring

Authorities are seeking help to find a young woman who stole the wedding ring of an 80-year-old woman who was trying withdraw money so the suspect could have gas money.

About 1:30 p.m. Sunday, the 80-year-old woman was approached by the younger woman while at a Phoenix Safeway on East Bell Road near Seventh Street, Phoenix police spokesman Luis Samudio said.

The suspect said she was a hair stylist and offered hair-styling services to the older woman. The younger woman then said she needed money to purchase gas for her vehicle. The elderly woman told her she did not have any money with her, but offered to take her to a nearby ATM.

The elderly woman attempted to withdraw cash from the ATM but was unsuccessful. The younger woman became aggressive and reached for the elderly woman's hand. The suspect ripped the victim's wedding ring from her finger, got out of the vehicle and fled on foot, Samudio said.

According to the victim, the monetary value of the ring is minimal but the sentimental value is enormous. The suspect was described by Phoenix police as a white female between the age of 16 and 19, 5 foot 3 inches to 5 foot 6 inches tall, 130-140 pounds with long dark hair.

Police are concerned the young woman will commit other acts to vulnerable elderly victims.

Detectives are asking for assistance from the community by helping to identify her. If anyone recognizes the young woman in the attached photo, please call Detective Buvala at 602-534-0272.

If you wish to remain anonymous and have information regarding the suspect, please call "Silent Witness" at 480-W-I-T-N-E-S-S.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

BTW, this is probably is the worst hijacking of a thread I have ever seen.

Arizona man defends himself against some thugs and somehow we are talking about immigration and Federal Legislation :laugh2: .

I think we should devote this thread to all things Arizona .

Yes I thought about that as well. I came in expecting some political posts about the 2nd amend. and wound reading about the immigration law.:laugh2:

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Illegal migrant crossings rise in Arizona

NOGALES, Mexico - U.S. Border Patrol statistics indicate that illegal crossings from Mexico into Arizona are rising as the state prepares to enact the nation's toughest immigration law.

The Border Patrol says arrests there have increased 6 percent so far this fiscal year, while overall crossings to the U.S. are down 9 percent. The agency uses apprehensions to estimate the flow of migrants.

Smugglers are opting for easier routes in the southeastern and southwestern corners of the state as the main Arizona desert corridor becomes dangerous because of drug trafficking, migrant monitors said.

Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh said Tuesday the increase in arrests didn't spur the law taking effect in July, rather factors that mounted over several years.

 

[Doomsday101]

Here is the question that I have seen many struggle to answer when asking it.

If you are just choosing to enforce a law that is already a federal law...why make it a state law if nothing is different. I mean if it is already a law why do you need to make a separate state law to enforce it? Would that not be an example of wasting tax payers money and government time in just basically saying...hey we already got this federal law but instead of just enforcing it we will make a state law as well?

Kind of silly to think that they would do that if the Federal law was already there and everything in the state law is the same don't you think?

Furthermore the old line of if you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about seems to not always pan out. We have had cases of wire tapping people that had done nothing wrong so they had their privacy invaded even though they did nothing wrong.

Washington refuses to do it. Right now local law enforcement can't do anything only ICE can and they are completely out numbered. Local law enforcement right now if they pull over an illegal with no id all they can do is write a citation that is never paid because the person is never going to show up in court to begin with and there is no known location they do not exist.

Let me say right now if a cop sees a reason to pull you over he can do that right now and when he comes to your window he will ask you for your driver licenses if you produce it you have no problem. Face it you have to have ID for almost anything you do, get on a plane you need ID asking people any person for ID is not against the law nor does that violate anyone’s rights.

I would also like to say I agree with you 1st post I have nothing against any person who comes here be it on a work visa or to become a US citizen. I do expect those who come to this country to abide by our laws and if you are found here illegally then you need to be returned to your country of origin.