Slashdot Mirror

But surely you aren't claiming that we should all be able to erratically stop for no reason whenever we want on any public road

Yes I am claiming this 100% and the law will claim it too.

You should reconsider your position.

28-793. Crossing at other than crosswalk

A. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.

28-794. Drivers to exercise due care

Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter every driver of a vehicle shall:

1. Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway.

Is overdriving your headlights considered "due care"?

The highway has plenty of landscaping (trees, shrubs, etc) and if It was dark, there may have been obstructions...

So you're saying the car may have been violating the Basic Speed Law by driving "at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing."

How did HB2 help people get left alone?

HB2 addresses men imposing their presence on women in bathrooms;

No, it doesn't. It actually contains zero content relevant to criminal harassment, though as North Carolina already had such laws, it had no need to impose further upon people by forcing them to undergo genital inspections before entering a bathroom facility. Why lie? Did you think I hadn't read them?

SB 1070 and HB 56 addresses foreigners coercing Americans to support them financially and associate with them;

Nope. SB 1070 did nothing for that, as its provisions were directed at Law Enforcement, instructing them to impose themselves on individuals to determine their immigration status REGARDLESS of any other status. It had nothing to do with welfare.

Now HB 56did impact public benefits, however, that was not its exclusive content, sorry. By some arguments, it even criminalized giving an illegal immigrant a cup of coffee. It was very broadly written. It also forbade contracts and agreements, in some cases.

And in fact, some of the individuals investigated under the law had valid passports, international driver's licenses, and work permits.

I'm going to suspect that neither of those individuals was on welfare.

Prop 8 addresses gay men and women being able to coerce other Americans to do business with them against their moral conviction.

No, it didn't. It denied people's right to marry. Marriage is inherently a sanctioned practice by the state, and yes, it is coercive. Given the vast majority of marriages that remained in effect, its only result was discriminatory upon a particular group.

How exactly does that serve in the interests stated above? I might respect such an argument if it were repudiating all marriage as a state-practice, but nope, that's not going to happen.

All these laws were in response to coercive laws and practices in the US. Now, they were flawed responses, but they were the best people could do under the circumstances.

Seems they did poorly. All of them were almost completely overturned. Others were heavily challenged. And their effectiveness was less than salutary.

Did you want to discuss that, instead of the actual character and behavior of the professed conservatives as exemplified by their patterns and practices?

On the whole, I have no complaint with the character or behavior of conservatives. I do have a big problem with the bigotry, intolerance, and greed of progressives and Democrats, which is why I left the Democratic party recently.

Oh? Well, I suggest you examine the character and behavior of conservatives, or self-proclaimed conservatives, especially the ones claiming Republican Party membership.

Wasn't what we we discussing before, though.

A person commits indecent exposure if he or she exposes his or her genitals or anus or she exposes the areola or nipple of her breast or breasts and another person is present, and the defendant is reckless about whether the other person, as a reasonable person, would be offended or alarmed by the act.

A person commits indecent exposure if he or she exposes his or her genitals or anus or she exposes the areola or nipple of her breast or breasts and another person is present, and the defendant is reckless about whether the other person, as a reasonable person, would be offended or alarmed by the act.

I narrowly avoided getting T-boned by a car that had come from several positions behind me, driving in the generously wide lane/shoulder, to make a right turn. He didn't see my signal and was assuming we were all going straight, and had reached my bind spot at just the moment I was starting my turn.

That means either the other car drove off the road, or you weren't far enough to the right. In California, what you did would be a violation of CVC 22100(a):

Both the approach for a right-hand turn and a right-hand turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway

Also in Arizona:

Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

The two are almost word for word identical. Your state probably has the same law. If I were the judge, you would both be charged, you for violating the above law, and the other driver for reckless driving or unsafe pass.

Similar crimes exist in many American states. In Arizona, the definition of "without consent" includes:

(c) The victim is intentionally deceived as to the nature of the act.

(d) The victim is intentionally deceived to erroneously believe that the person is the victim's spouse.

"the girl told me she was 18 and even showed me her driver's license with the age" will see no mercy as statutory rape generally has strict liability rules.

Depends on the state. Some states that's a valid excuse depending on the age of the minor. For instance, Arizona 13-1407 Section B:

B. It is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to sections 13-1404 and 13-1405 in which the victim's lack of consent is based on incapacity to consent because the victim was fifteen, sixteen or seventeen years of age if at the time the defendant engaged in the conduct constituting the offense the defendant did not know and could not reasonably have known the age of the victim.

Sections 1404 and 1405 are the ones defining sexual abuse/assault of a minor.

This one of the problems with arguing about rape laws on the internet. Every state is different, and states have wildly different laws. I'd say it comes up most often when talking about consent while drunk. People will argue that having sex with a drunk person who later claims rape is bullshit, because they still said "yes" and others will argue that it's not bullshit. Depends on where you are. For instance, to mention Arizona again, yes, you can be mentally unable to provide meaningful consent due to intoxication, even if the intoxication is self-administered. DO NOT FUCK DRUNKS IN ARIZONA. Oh, and since "but your honor, I was drunk" is never an allowed defense, for anything, you can be "too drunk to give consent" in Arizona, but never "too drunk to rape." So, just getting drunk and fucking in Arizona is a terrible idea.

However, in Florida, fuck, you can be blitzed to the moon, unable to stand, but if you're conscious and don't mumble the word "no," go to town! Unless the intoxicate was administered against your will or without your knowledge.

Just sayin', everywhere's different.

Looks like I missed North Dakota, Hawaii, Arizona, New Mexico, Connecticut and one from Minnesota, that's just mentioned in their journal.

The woman on the school board who decided this was a great idea is trying to use a law that addresses preference to childbirth and adoption over abortion (not by means of censorship mind you) to enforce her ideals on contraception but the law (A.R.S. 15-115) itself does not address contraception at all. In fact the state department of education said the pages in question do not endorse abortion but merely present information about contraception and related drugs as plain fact.

So long story short this woman with a power complex seems to think the law applies to contraception when the law itself in fact says nothing about it, and even if it did the law doesn't enforce censorship but mandates an alternative as a preferred option.
Local school boards are full of these types of people regardless of where you go.

While my example was to illustrate my point about the expectation of privacy, you're not allowed to surreptitiously film nude people, or people using the restroom in Arizona already.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDoc...

This is simply based on AZ misdemeanor sentencing maximums.

ARS 13-707 says that a Class 1 Misdemeanor (the highest class before a felony) has a maximum sentence of six months. 13-802 has the maximum fine: $2500. What the actual possible sentence for this particular crime would be is entirely different. [Also, it's unlikely that someone guilty of a this crime, unless the AG's office wanted to make an example of someone, wouldn't plead guilty to a lesser charge, which happens, like, always.]

It's worth noting that court costs can add nearly $1000 to small things. I think the going rate is $800 or so now in surcharges, depending on what municipality and court you happen to be in.

Regardless, 6mo/$2500 is just the maximum limit on a Misdemeanor-1 in AZ.

---

Surreptitious photographing, videotaping, filming or digitally recording or viewing is already illegal in Arizona, by the way, and is already up to a Felony-4.

So, drones, schmones.

This is simply based on AZ misdemeanor sentencing maximums.

ARS 13-707 says that a Class 1 Misdemeanor (the highest class before a felony) has a maximum sentence of six months. 13-802 has the maximum fine: $2500. What the actual possible sentence for this particular crime would be is entirely different. [Also, it's unlikely that someone guilty of a this crime, unless the AG's office wanted to make an example of someone, wouldn't plead guilty to a lesser charge, which happens, like, always.]

It's worth noting that court costs can add nearly $1000 to small things. I think the going rate is $800 or so now in surcharges, depending on what municipality and court you happen to be in.

Regardless, 6mo/$2500 is just the maximum limit on a Misdemeanor-1 in AZ.

---

Surreptitious photographing, videotaping, filming or digitally recording or viewing is already illegal in Arizona, by the way, and is already up to a Felony-4.

So, drones, schmones.

This is simply based on AZ misdemeanor sentencing maximums.

ARS 13-707 says that a Class 1 Misdemeanor (the highest class before a felony) has a maximum sentence of six months. 13-802 has the maximum fine: $2500. What the actual possible sentence for this particular crime would be is entirely different. [Also, it's unlikely that someone guilty of a this crime, unless the AG's office wanted to make an example of someone, wouldn't plead guilty to a lesser charge, which happens, like, always.]

It's worth noting that court costs can add nearly $1000 to small things. I think the going rate is $800 or so now in surcharges, depending on what municipality and court you happen to be in.

Regardless, 6mo/$2500 is just the maximum limit on a Misdemeanor-1 in AZ.

---

Surreptitious photographing, videotaping, filming or digitally recording or viewing is already illegal in Arizona, by the way, and is already up to a Felony-4.

So, drones, schmones.

SB 1062 does not legalize discrimination based on sexual preference (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf) because it already is legal to do so (https://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/lgbt-inclusive-public-accommodations-laws1). I am not saying such discrimination should be legal. Anyone saying otherwise, however, is either ignorant or perpetrating the political equivalent of a fraud.

Full stop on yellow is the law in pretty much every state.

Not California. Not Arizona. So when you say "pretty much every state," which states are you referring to? I think you made that up.

This only applies to Arizona, but we have a state law that was passed here in 2007 that specifically bans HOAs from saying a word about installing solar energy devices on roofs. That includes solar panels, solar tubes (for indoor lighting), solar fans, etc. (Note: They can reasonably stipulate WHERE you can place them as long as their rules don't interfere with or reasonably impede their operation, but that's about it.)

This kind of state law (fit for each state's unique circumstances, if necessary) would be a good idea for other states as well.

Sorry bub. But Arizona doesn't get to overrule federal immigration law. That's what the recent SCOTUS bitchslap was about.

Obviously, you don't have a very good grasp of the ruling from the Supreme Court, nor the law on which it ruled. First of all, nothing in the Arizona law "overruled" anything in Federal law. They merely copied bits from Federal law so they could enforce them. The Supreme Court decided that doing so violated the Federal government's sovereign authority since it effectively was setting immigration policy at the state level.

*NO* state-issed driver's license establishes both both identity and immigration status! Did you even bother to read my link? It's right there in black-and -white. Have you ever had a legitimate job? You would have had to fill out an I-9 and provide appropriate identification if you had.

Go ahead... shred your passport and social security card and take your precious arizona driver's license and try to use it to show citizenship on an I-9 or at a border crossing. I'll bring the popcorn, watch, and laugh.

You people may think you're a law unto yourselves. But you're not.

You really just aren't paying attention at all. For the purposes of the Arizona law, any Federal, state, or local government identification document which requires proof of legal residence as a prerequisite for issuance acts as proof of legal residence. Have you read the Arizona law? It's available for free right on the Internet. Would you like me to quote it for you?

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:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED
STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB1070-HB2162.PDF

Does that help? Do you understand yet?

Are you of the opinion that it's proper to comment on provisions of a law you haven't read and obviously know nothing about? I don't.

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:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED
STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB1070-HB2162.PDF

Please educate yourself before commenting further. And no, listening to Rachel Maddow spew liberal talking points while flailing her little Kermit arms around doesn't count.

For those of you curious about the bill you can find it here.
The sponsors where:
VOGT
WILLIAMS
CAMPBELL
FANN
FARLEY
GOWAN
PROUD
SMITH D
TOVAR

Also you can find the vote record here and here, but it looks like it was passed unanimously by one of the chambers with the other having only one no vote and one not voting.

For those of you curious about the bill you can find it here.
The sponsors where:
VOGT
WILLIAMS
CAMPBELL
FANN
FARLEY
GOWAN
PROUD
SMITH D
TOVAR

Also you can find the vote record here and here, but it looks like it was passed unanimously by one of the chambers with the other having only one no vote and one not voting.

For those of you curious about the bill you can find it here.
The sponsors where:
VOGT
WILLIAMS
CAMPBELL
FANN
FARLEY
GOWAN
PROUD
SMITH D
TOVAR

Also you can find the vote record here and here, but it looks like it was passed unanimously by one of the chambers with the other having only one no vote and one not voting.

For those of you curious about the bill you can find it here.
The sponsors where:
VOGT
WILLIAMS
CAMPBELL
FANN
FARLEY
GOWAN
PROUD
SMITH D
TOVAR

Also you can find the vote record here and here, but it looks like it was passed unanimously by one of the chambers with the other having only one no vote and one not voting.

For those of you curious about the bill you can find it here.
The sponsors where:
VOGT
WILLIAMS
CAMPBELL
FANN
FARLEY
GOWAN
PROUD
SMITH D
TOVAR

Also you can find the vote record here and here, but it looks like it was passed unanimously by one of the chambers with the other having only one no vote and one not voting.

For those of you curious about the bill you can find it here.
The sponsors where:
VOGT
WILLIAMS
CAMPBELL
FANN
FARLEY
GOWAN
PROUD
SMITH D
TOVAR

Also you can find the vote record here and here, but it looks like it was passed unanimously by one of the chambers with the other having only one no vote and one not voting.

For those of you curious about the bill you can find it here.
The sponsors where:
VOGT
WILLIAMS
CAMPBELL
FANN
FARLEY
GOWAN
PROUD
SMITH D
TOVAR

Also you can find the vote record here and here, but it looks like it was passed unanimously by one of the chambers with the other having only one no vote and one not voting.

For those of you curious about the bill you can find it here.
The sponsors where:
VOGT
WILLIAMS
CAMPBELL
FANN
FARLEY
GOWAN
PROUD
SMITH D
TOVAR

Also you can find the vote record here and here, but it looks like it was passed unanimously by one of the chambers with the other having only one no vote and one not voting.

For those of you curious about the bill you can find it here.
The sponsors where:
VOGT
WILLIAMS
CAMPBELL
FANN
FARLEY
GOWAN
PROUD
SMITH D
TOVAR

Also you can find the vote record here and here, but it looks like it was passed unanimously by one of the chambers with the other having only one no vote and one not voting.

For those of you curious about the bill you can find it here.
The sponsors where:
VOGT
WILLIAMS
CAMPBELL
FANN
FARLEY
GOWAN
PROUD
SMITH D
TOVAR

Also you can find the vote record here and here, but it looks like it was passed unanimously by one of the chambers with the other having only one no vote and one not voting.

For those of you curious about the bill you can find it here.
The sponsors where:
VOGT
WILLIAMS
CAMPBELL
FANN
FARLEY
GOWAN
PROUD
SMITH D
TOVAR

Also you can find the vote record here and here, but it looks like it was passed unanimously by one of the chambers with the other having only one no vote and one not voting.

For those of you curious about the bill you can find it here.
The sponsors where:
VOGT
WILLIAMS
CAMPBELL
FANN
FARLEY
GOWAN
PROUD
SMITH D
TOVAR

Also you can find the vote record here and here, but it looks like it was passed unanimously by one of the chambers with the other having only one no vote and one not voting.

Granted that English isn't my first language but it really seems to be "It is unlawful for any person with intent to (LIST OF INTENTS), to (LIST OF THINGS YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO DO WITH THE SAID INTENT)".

Note that they're just amending this by essentially search-and-replacing "phonecall" with "communication".

If we read it like you suggest, that old law has already meant that using profane words in a phone call has been illegal for ages... which I find extremely unlikely if that hasn't been challenged in a court.

http://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00645.htm

You can barely make a living.

When you begin arguing in this fashion you've pretty much lost. You have no idea who I am or what kind of living I make, that is just an insult that is not relevant to the discussion. I have helped this country in numerous ways, including paying taxes, teaching students, and writing code that is exported to other countries as well as helps with our medical and IT infrastructure. Yeah, it's not much but it's something. However none of that is as important as the fact that I am here, I've lived here all my life, my parents lived here all of their lives, and their parents. What they have accomplished, the things they fought for, the programs they funded, and the charity they've given were important to them and are important to me. The social and justice systems and the rights we want to protect are products of their beliefs and their work. We can not just simply give those things away or the system will break down under its own weight. You seem to acknowledge that, why are you being so fucking aggressive and insulting?

Now lets get to the real meat here. Arizona is their own state and should be able to enforce their border. I firmly believe that a state has the right to choose their own destiny and define the community they want. There is room in this country for states like California, and states like Arizona, states like Connecticut and states like Georgia. Different cultures, different beliefs, different ideas, different laws.

Now go to this link and tell me which line is the "show-me-your-papers-because-you-look-brown" part: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf. Don't give me this bullshit where you are assuming "probable cause" means "brown". Because you and I both know that isn't true and has never been true. Show me the wording in the law you object to, otherwise just shut the hell up and stop running your ignorant little mouth.

"Yes ma'am, I know you were murdered, but it's not like your attacker raped you."

See how stupid that sounds?

Moral equivalency is not the issue. Felony is felony and there's a large range of things within that classification.

For instance, this may be a class-6 or 7 felony, while murder is a class-1 felony and rape is class-2. The class number is an index into the table of punishments.

And no, it's not going to be rational all the way through. On the first list that Google returns, we see that altering a lottery ticket is a class-3 felony, while setting an occupied jail on fire is a class-4 felony, in Arizona. Likely they're using the UCC, so it's possible it's that way in a lot of places. And no, I don't know what you'd get for setting an occupied jail on fire with a burning lottery ticket.

Yes, they call it Reasonable Suspicion, but suspicious behavior is unrelated to suspicion, right? A police officer can't satisfy Reasonable Suspicion by saying "he was suspicious" with nothing else. However, when the officer breaks down the suspicion to a number of discrete suspicions, it is allowable. "He acted suspiciously by asking for directions to a well known street, speaking with an accent, acting nervously, etc." is acceptable for Reasonable Suspicion. Additionally, you are referring specifically to a warrantless search. Requesting ID as directed by state law is not a warrantless search, so even if you were correct in the spirit of what was said, it is still 100% not applicable to this situation. But I guess making up things that aren't applicable is the best you can do.

Hogwash. You are making crap up here. In order for the police to use the specific events of someone acting suspiciously or to make that suspicious behavior cause for a search, the police officer has to connect the suspicious behavior to a crime he is lawfully pursuing. In other words, saying he acted suspiciously has to connect to a crime within the cop's jurisdiction in which makes the suspicious behavior notable more so then an ordinary person. Someone being taking off running when the cop rounds the corner is not enough for a search. But if they were investigating a mugging in which the runner match at least in part, the description of the mugger, then it's enough to focus on that individual. Try to learn about a Terry stop, and perhaps learn a little about the law outside of watching an episode of cops on your Friday night.

hose were the first three, picked because they are obviously popular, and they agree 100% with my statements. Perhaps I'm wrong, but you are wrong about me not reading about it and being an ass about it by accusing me of things I obviously am not guilty of. Perhaps you should read what's being written before claiming it would all agree with you.

Everyone knows that I have had several heated discussions in the past with the parent poster so it's not likely I'm coming to his defense out of love. But you have to at least read his damn post before going off. He said you need to "at least READ the law before you opine". I mean you even quoted that but you failed to link to anywhere in the law at all. So I have to ask, are you being willfully ignorant in order to maintain your incorrect opinion or is there something physically wrong with you that handicaps your judgment and we should make minor allowances for? Here are two separate links to the actual bill that was signed into law.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm

Nowhere in those bills (the law) does it say what you are attempting to make out. Furthermore, anyone with a valid ID is automatically presumed to be legal regardless of any other indication given by the person.

I picked those as the first three, not because they are better or worse than any others, but because they were the top three. Anyone else doing the same search would read those and get the impression I have.

What was the search terms you used? I mean if you searched for something like AZ law allows racial profiling, then sure, the first results are going to be by people who think the same. If you searched for Arizona immigration law, it would be different.

I'd like you to point out where in the Arizona Constitution where the power to make a signing statement is enumerated. Do so for the US Constitution as well, just for a comparison. I don't know the AZ Constitution as well, but I know that signing statements aren't in the US Constitution,

Yes, they call it Reasonable Suspicion, but suspicious behavior is unrelated to suspicion, right? A police officer can't satisfy Reasonable Suspicion by saying "he was suspicious" with nothing else. However, when the officer breaks down the suspicion to a number of discrete suspicions, it is allowable. "He acted suspiciously by asking for directions to a well known street, speaking with an accent, acting nervously, etc." is acceptable for Reasonable Suspicion. Additionally, you are referring specifically to a warrantless search. Requesting ID as directed by state law is not a warrantless search, so even if you were correct in the spirit of what was said, it is still 100% not applicable to this situation. But I guess making up things that aren't applicable is the best you can do.

Hogwash. You are making crap up here. In order for the police to use the specific events of someone acting suspiciously or to make that suspicious behavior cause for a search, the police officer has to connect the suspicious behavior to a crime he is lawfully pursuing. In other words, saying he acted suspiciously has to connect to a crime within the cop's jurisdiction in which makes the suspicious behavior notable more so then an ordinary person. Someone being taking off running when the cop rounds the corner is not enough for a search. But if they were investigating a mugging in which the runner match at least in part, the description of the mugger, then it's enough to focus on that individual. Try to learn about a Terry stop, and perhaps learn a little about the law outside of watching an episode of cops on your Friday night.

hose were the first three, picked because they are obviously popular, and they agree 100% with my statements. Perhaps I'm wrong, but you are wrong about me not reading about it and being an ass about it by accusing me of things I obviously am not guilty of. Perhaps you should read what's being written before claiming it would all agree with you.

Everyone knows that I have had several heated discussions in the past with the parent poster so it's not likely I'm coming to his defense out of love. But you have to at least read his damn post before going off. He said you need to "at least READ the law before you opine". I mean you even quoted that but you failed to link to anywhere in the law at all. So I have to ask, are you being willfully ignorant in order to maintain your incorrect opinion or is there something physically wrong with you that handicaps your judgment and we should make minor allowances for? Here are two separate links to the actual bill that was signed into law.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm

Nowhere in those bills (the law) does it say what you are attempting to make out. Furthermore, anyone with a valid ID is automatically presumed to be legal regardless of any other indication given by the person.

I picked those as the first three, not because they are better or worse than any others, but because they were the top three. Anyone else doing the same search would read those and get the impression I have.

What was the search terms you used? I mean if you searched for something like AZ law allows racial profiling, then sure, the first results are going to be by people who think the same. If you searched for Arizona immigration law, it would be different.

I'd like you to point out where in the Arizona Constitution where the power to make a signing statement is enumerated. Do so for the US Constitution as well, just for a comparison. I don't know the AZ Constitution as well, but I know that signing statements aren't in the US Constitution,

Are you unable or unwilling to do a simple Google search?

I am. Are you unable to read? There is nowhere in the law where the "reasonable suspicion" required to hold someone until immigration status states race can't be used. For the trespass law, there is such a thing, but I have so far kept my comments as narrowly focused on the ID portion as possible, and there is absolutely no such constraint.

I'd love for you to post the source article for that. I searched and found this: In 1994, more than half of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers [...]

Ah,so I'm right, and you are wrong, and you don't like that I was right. Are you asserting that in 1994 that more than half of illegal immigrants were not visa overstayers? Otherwise, you've proven me right. And asserted that I'm a bad person for being right. You are wrong. You've never stated anything correct. You don't understand how laws work (if in a trespassing law they aren't allowed to use race, that doesn't mean that clause applies to all other laws ever passed). And yet you sit there lecturing me based on whatever blog happens to say something you agree with, rather than learning for yourself and forming an opinion. Life's much easier when you form your opinion and force it on everything you see, rather than go through life with an open mind.

The law states that the officer can only do this in conjunction with a legal stop, detention, or arrest.

The law passed states "lawful contact." If you are going to say what the law states, then say what it says. I have the law http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf as passed, and it doesn't use what you say. However, it does appear that the law was so crappy that between the time it was passed and before enforced, they've already changed it again. So your statements may be correct for AZ law, but are 100% incorrect to the question of SB1070. But then, you state that appearances have nothing to do with legal stops, and that shows that you know nothing about how the law is enforced.

I looked it up myself. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

"B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."

Aside from the fact that the second conviction of not carrying ID is a felony (that seem extreme, was it calculated to claim that the committed a felony to kick out more legal aliens for just not carrying ID?), it doesn't seem different from the US law. Except that this law has the lowest legal standard "reasonable suspicion" for holding citizens for unstated periods of time until their citizenship can be determined. And it's not a "may" wording, but essentially requires that a cop that suspects someone is an illegal alien is required to check. But wait, isn't this about making sure people are following the law, and the federal law requires *all* aliens have ID. And to specifically state illegal aliens in the law explicitly differs from the federal law of the same type. And the punishment is more harsh. And the enforcement is more permissive (in that the cops have more power to hold people to check, even when there is no probable cause or other "real" cause, just "reasonable suspicion" which could exist for anyone that doesn't speak English like a native.

So, for all they claim, this is nothing like the US law and seems crafted for political purposes other than having the AZ police enforce federal law.

None of what you've said has anything to do with Arizona.

Read the bill. The OP made an ignorant comment implying that Arizona SB-1070h (House Engrossed) has something to do with looking Latino. You've furthered that ignorance by giving out misinformation in regard to identity. To be honest, it took me a while to figure out why everyone was so riled up about this. As it turns out, the people inciting the masses were pointing to a draft bill, Arizona SB-1070s (Senate Engrossed). Further evidence of that is given by simply googling SB-1070. You won't find the actual bill -- you'll just find the draft bill. The draft bill was an egregious violation of anything anyone, other than perhaps a Latino dictator, might want to think of as civil liberties. I would tag it "POS". As such, it wasn't passed into law. The House version of the bill did pass. It had extension revisions to ensure that Gestapo tactics weren't being passed into law. Since then, it has had additional revisions to clarify "legal contact" because people weren't satisfied that the Supreme Court's decisions regarding "Terry Stops" were being spelled out. Well, that's probably not true: in all likelihood, they hadn't read the correct bill, but I digress. The main point is that any ambiguity was (hopefully) clarified.

Again. Read the bill. ANY government issued identification is proof of citizenship in the eyes of Arizona. Don't mix the US Federal Government in with this -- they're the ones with the onerous requirements. If you want to criticize, put it where it belongs: the Federal Government. Attacking Arizona for having a more lenient law than the Feds is silly.

Finally, if after having read the actual bill, you're still not convinced, consider this: the Obama administration is fighting Arizona on two fronts.

1. They're challenging Arizona's ability to prevent employers from hiring illegals. This law was signed by the current Secretary of Homeland Security. Yes, I know. It's an "untrusted source" in these parts (the evil Fox News), but find a link telling me they aren't challenging the law before you bitch about the source.
2. The Justice Department is challenging the law "because it impinges on the federal government's authority to police the nation's borders..."

Now, where in the Obama Administration's attacks does the Bill of Rights appear? Answer: nowhere. That's pretty much the proof in the pudding. If the law had any conflict with the Bill of Rights, they'd be all over it. It would be the easy path. Instead, they "acted stupidly" by reacting to this without any facts and, in the light of day, are finding any path they can to attack, regardless of how thin that path may be.

None of what you've said has anything to do with Arizona.

Read the bill. The OP made an ignorant comment implying that Arizona SB-1070h (House Engrossed) has something to do with looking Latino. You've furthered that ignorance by giving out misinformation in regard to identity. To be honest, it took me a while to figure out why everyone was so riled up about this. As it turns out, the people inciting the masses were pointing to a draft bill, Arizona SB-1070s (Senate Engrossed). Further evidence of that is given by simply googling SB-1070. You won't find the actual bill -- you'll just find the draft bill. The draft bill was an egregious violation of anything anyone, other than perhaps a Latino dictator, might want to think of as civil liberties. I would tag it "POS". As such, it wasn't passed into law. The House version of the bill did pass. It had extension revisions to ensure that Gestapo tactics weren't being passed into law. Since then, it has had additional revisions to clarify "legal contact" because people weren't satisfied that the Supreme Court's decisions regarding "Terry Stops" were being spelled out. Well, that's probably not true: in all likelihood, they hadn't read the correct bill, but I digress. The main point is that any ambiguity was (hopefully) clarified.

Again. Read the bill. ANY government issued identification is proof of citizenship in the eyes of Arizona. Don't mix the US Federal Government in with this -- they're the ones with the onerous requirements. If you want to criticize, put it where it belongs: the Federal Government. Attacking Arizona for having a more lenient law than the Feds is silly.

Finally, if after having read the actual bill, you're still not convinced, consider this: the Obama administration is fighting Arizona on two fronts.

1. They're challenging Arizona's ability to prevent employers from hiring illegals. This law was signed by the current Secretary of Homeland Security. Yes, I know. It's an "untrusted source" in these parts (the evil Fox News), but find a link telling me they aren't challenging the law before you bitch about the source.
2. The Justice Department is challenging the law "because it impinges on the federal government's authority to police the nation's borders..."

Now, where in the Obama Administration's attacks does the Bill of Rights appear? Answer: nowhere. That's pretty much the proof in the pudding. If the law had any conflict with the Bill of Rights, they'd be all over it. It would be the easy path. Instead, they "acted stupidly" by reacting to this without any facts and, in the light of day, are finding any path they can to attack, regardless of how thin that path may be.

By the way, the bill specifically states that such rare and difficult-to-obtain forms of identification like A DRIVER'S LICENSE is acceptable evidence that you're here legally. Actually read the bill for yourself and stop relying on biases "news" sources to feed you twisted summaries and you might actually learn the truth.

[Citation needed]

I'll help you out. Here's the full text of the law: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

I couldn't find any mention of a driver's license being sufficient proof of legality.

What Obama is saying, is that in this day and age of massive media coverage you shouldn't always believe what you read.

The point that I think you're missing, and the point that I saw a lot of these "spouting" posts make, is that President Obama doesn't appear to realize that the media was less trustworthy prior to there being a lot of alternatives. In the past, many people only had one source for their non-local print news: AP feeds regurgitated in their local newspapers. There were at most 4 television networks (only three of which people relied upon for national news broadcasts) which also frequently sourced the same material. So, in many ways, there was absolutely no redundancy in the system. This was a single-point-of-failure system, therefore it was prone to massive failure. From that standpoint, it was far less reliable.

Granted, the newer system certainly has more noise in it, so we're actually required to think rather than being told what to think. I see that as a good thing. But the probability of completely false information being propagated and accepted as the truth is slowly diminishing as more people become trained to be skeptical. Perhaps this was exactly what the President was trying to point out, however, the AFP article says this:

He bemoaned the fact that "some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction," in the clamor of certain blogs and talk radio outlets.
"All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy."

Now, is the AFP article wrong? Or did the President specifically target "certain" blogs and talk radio? Given his attempts to control and censor talk radio (and, to be honest, I'm surprised as hell he didn't pop a Fox News reference in there, given his obsession with them), I'd say it's likely to be an accurate paraphrase. However I can't be sure due to the dearth of alternate original sources for this material. Thus a lack of information could be the issue here.

The current controversy that's a fine example of the dangers of not thinking critically and of trusting mainstream sources is the AZ illegal alien enforcement bill. I have yet to find a single mainstream source that has read the correct bill. And googling for the actual bill didn't, until recently, return any results to the correct bill (likely due to all the links to the wrong bill). And so, here we have an instance of "some of the craziest claims" quickly gaining traction due to reliance on the "trusted" sources. The best way to educated yourself about this bill is to go to the AZ Legislature for SB 1070. However, that's going to require reading and thinking, which most people aren't going to bother doing. I have yet to see any of these wonderfully trustworthy sources address huge sections of their time and space to retracting their mistake nor attempting to educate people about the error of their previous assertions. And, given that this misinformation and subsequent spooling up of the populace was originated and propagated by the mainstream media, the lack of alternate information sources would most assuredly have resulted in nearly 100% of the population being uneducated about the realities of this bill in the past -- prior to the current information explosion.

So, in summary, I think you're partially right: you shouldn't always believe what you read. However, where I disagree is in the implication that this is a recent phenomenon, and in the President's implication that it's an issue with "certain" blogs and talk radio. The information age has finally given us the ability to ferret out credible sources on our own, which I think scares politicians.

As a recently passed example, example: the full-text of SB-1070.

Some laws already are passed as if they were diffs. Although, we do a poor job of keeping version histories navigable such as they are on Wikipedia, but a recording agency could conceivably keep track of the legal text that way.

Common forms are to underline text that is being added, and strike-through indicating text that will be deleted.

For instance, scroll down to "Sec 4. Section 13-2319": the original bullet "E." has been struck through, and replaced with "F."

I see that now.. When I first read it, I inserted some of the crap that the law required in my state

Anyways, the law gives the AZ police the ability to stop or detain people only when there is reasonable suspicion of a crime that has, is or is about to occur. That's only the foot in the door, they ask for identity, Juan refuses to give them anything but his name- now what would give them the right to ask for or question his immigration status based on that much interaction? Remember, the law says they may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.

So what happens is that the cops run the name through the computer and find either no record of the name at all, or more likely, they find multiple records of the name from several different states and perhaps another country. So the cop asks Juan to verify who he is because that name is so common, there are 40 different people or aliases in the system with it and 5 of them matching similar descriptions have warrants for parole violations or other felonies. Now, even though Juan doesn't have to say any more, his detention and potential arrest is solely on him at this point in time as the cop can't reasonable distinguish between the guy standing in front of him and half of the names that returned on the computer. The courts have already said that mistaken identity in arrests isn't a violation of a right when reasonable attempts to properly identify the person have been taken and it still fails. (yea, I know, it's still ohio but the exception liability is implied from a federal level known as color of law).

Juan says nothing but his name so the cop goes before a magistrate and asks for a 3905 order and the judge allows them to take finger prints. Or the cop could simply arrest the guy as one of the people with an outstanding warrant, do the normal finger printing process, find out he isn't the same guy, then release him without penalty.

For the purposes of the Arizona law, a driver's license works just fine so long as the issuing state isn't handing them out to illegals. Maybe you'd prefer to read the text of the law itself before spreading yet more misinformation?

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

You're incorrect. Please read the actual text of the law prior to further comments to avoid confusing others.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

ANY form of government-issued ID (from any local or state government OR the Federal government) which checks legal residency as part of getting it exempts you from further checks to your immigration status under the new Arizona law. It doesn't have to "prove" that you're a citizen or here legally; it merely has to satisfy the law. The law is satisfied when you show any government issued ID where legal residency was a requirement of issuance.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf