Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KingofBrown" data-source="post: 748715" data-attributes="member: 28771">My dear Texan, you finally are open to discussion without all the childish stuff. First, Cowboy, from the posts left open, and that we can’t ignore the fact of the racist roots and all that kind of stuff.  It's clear that you will not take anyone's word on what "reasonable suspicion" is or how it is determined, so I see no logic in wasting time trying to explain it to you.You've got your mind made up that anyone supporting this law is neo-nazi or other brands of white supremacists, which is so far from the truth it isn't even funny. The Cowboy. I would like you to really explain the “Reasonable Suspicion” in your terms. How you think it will be applied and all that kind of things. First don’t you think that the concept of “Reasonable Suspicion” is a very complex term to deal with, and even more if you put it in a law that targets people? History has showed that this term has to be applied mainly when the safety of the officers and others are at risk, in the search of weapons, without having “Probable Cause” or a Warrant, like in a car chase for example. Why? Because a term like that would let the officer use it as an excuse for whatever he pleases in any situation, thus a term like that is mainly used in extreme cases. And in this case, the “Reasonable Suspicion” is used to determine if the person is an illegal alien. It is not used if the person is a threat to the officer, or if it has weapons. It leaves it up to the officer. If the officer has “Reasonable Suspicion” that the person is an ilegal alien, the officer will detain that person. Now, some people claim that by not showing an ID, that would make a person to be “Reasonable Suspect of a crime.” And although that’s a situation explained by the law, reasonable suspicion can be applied even if the person showed an ID, since “Reasonable Suspicion” can be used as how the officer considers the person might get involved in criminal activity (In this case, the crime would be being illegaly present in the US or other type of illegal immigration violations, in other words many activities that they (the officers) would consider a crime. That’s one of the things I say the law is vague and ambiguous). in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, -  How, can the officer consider a person is an alien without racial profiling? And the people who claim about the ID thing, don’t know that now “Reasonable Suspicion” is used to detain a person even if he/she has not committed the crime of being here illegaly, or even if he/she has shown an ID. But do you really think that by not showing an ID makes you a criminal, or that you are required to identify yourself to what the officer considers a public offense? So that’s another complex debate there. Sheriff Dupnikk said: It requires law enforcement officials to demand papers from an individual when they have a "reasonable suspicion" that he is an illegal immigrant. When used in a law-enforcement context, "reasonable suspicion" is always understood to be subjective, but it must be capable of being articulated.” I don’t think the law articulates the use of “Reasonable Suspicion” just because it prohibits racial profiling in some of his sections, or because it says that A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following… THE ID. Why I say that? Because: A peace officer may, without a warrant, may arrest a person if he the officer has probable cause to believe A misdemeanor has been committed in his the officer's presence and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense.Do you really think the law articulates the term “Reasonable Suspicion?” That’s one of the aspects.</blockquote>

Verification