Thread: "Arizona" style Immigration crackdwon in Indiana (senate bill 0590) Get's approval

Wicked, I answered your question 3 pages ago...

Death. I never ONCE said that every single person has to present ID. This is exactly my point of you guys not listening. I said you do not have to commit a CRIME in order to show ID.

In Terry V Ohio leo's witnessed 2 individuals walking back and forth infront of a store. Looking in, walkin away, coming back, looking in, walking away. The cops decided to stop them, do a brief frisk, and Identify them. You can be stopped and frisked, and ASKED TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF based on a suspicion that you HAVE COMMITTED, or MIGHT BE committting a crime. It's called a Terry Stop. Those guys were not breaking the law, but they were acting suspicious. Turns out they were casing the store (imagine that, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck) and had illegally possesed firearms on them. That is the point I'm arguing with you death.

Wicked, If you were to look up probable cause v Reasonable suspicious, you should be able to see the difference. Everyone here thinks cops got to have hard, indecisive evidence to arrest someone or talk to someone or search someone or ask someone for ID. This simply is not the case. What did you guys say earlier? Cops are not lawyers. And you are 100 percent correct. Lawyers need to have BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT in order to be right.

Pertaining to the OP, reasonable suspicous is the lowest form of legal burden of proof. All it is, is simply would a reasonable person believe its true, or warrants an investigation. Would a reasonable person, stoping a white, black, brown, green, yellow, purple kid, who speaks plain english, wearing clothes in fasion, travelin with 3 other buddies, with a "Go local highschool" sticker on thier car believe that that person is FOB and in this country illegally? Of course not, and there would be no reason to ask that. (proponderence of the evidence, write that one down, I will use it again)

Now, in my situation, where I stopped the 1990 Dodge Spirit, beat up, nothing in it, including no radio, seats ripped, muffler loud, with a hispanic male, who does not speak english, has no form of ID, wearing ripped clothes, and can not tell me where he is, only where he is going. Would that make a reasonable person want to inquire whether or not they are in this country legally? Would you say, considering the proponderence of the evidence, that it is more likely than not true that there is a reasonable suspicion to ask this man if he has a work visa, passport, proof of residency? Think REASONABLY people.

That is all I'm saying. Wicked, I know you reading this, your question is popping up again. Like I said, I answered that a few pages back. Of course we can not prevent bad situations like that one in AZ of the american citizen held. That was obviously a bad judment call on the officers part. Just like no one can prevent false imprisonment, or that every warrant we serve is 100 percent up to date and accurate. Many times we recieve a warrant to be served, show up at the persons house, they say "man I just got out of jail yesterday, this is takin care of" and we have to jump through hoops tryin to credit his stories.

Cops are NOT out there to arrest every single person we see. In fact, 90 percent of us would LOVE for people NOT to go to jail. 1 because jail, in some situations, is the appropiate action, and 2, because...lets face it...its alot more fucking paper work lol. Most cops you met are REASONABLE people, and as long as you are not being UNREASONABLE, you should be fine.

Originally Posted by Kraker Jak

Now, in my situation, where I stopped the 1990 Dodge Spirit, beat up, nothing in it, including no radio, seats ripped, muffler loud, with a hispanic male, who does not speak english, has no form of ID, wearing ripped clothes, and can not tell me where he is, only where he is going. Would that make a reasonable person want to inquire whether or not they are in this country legally? Would you say, considering the proponderence of the evidence, that it is more likely than not true that there is a reasonable suspicion to ask this man if he has a work visa, passport, proof of residency? Think REASONABLY people.

Reasonably, would you ask for proof of citizenship if everything were the same except the driver was black or white instead of brown?

Yep, sure would. Black or white guy that cant speak english, has only an ID from another country, and doesnt know where he is....absoluetly....

Civil, as much as you would like it to be, its not about race...ITs about EVERYTHING else that can add up...the proponderence of the evidence!!

Originally Posted by Kraker Jak

Wicked, If you were to look up probable cause v Reasonable suspicious, you should be able to see the difference. Everyone here thinks cops got to have hard, indecisive evidence to arrest someone or talk to someone or search someone or ask someone for ID. This simply is not the case. What did you guys say earlier? Cops are not lawyers. And you are 100 percent correct. Lawyers need to have BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT in order to be right.

Pertaining to the OP, reasonable suspicous is the lowest form of legal burden of proof. All it is, is simply would a reasonable person believe its true, or warrants an investigation. Would a reasonable person, stoping a white, black, brown, green, yellow, purple kid, who speaks plain english, wearing clothes in fasion, travelin with 3 other buddies, with a "Go local highschool" sticker on thier car believe that that person is FOB and in this country illegally? Of course not, and there would be no reason to ask that. (proponderence of the evidence, write that one down, I will use it again)

To last part, so if a Canadian is here illegally (or British or w.e.) they will get away with it pretty easily. One of the experiments I've wanted to see someone try is, in a traffic stop, speak french or really broken english and see if they will get asked about their citizenship or not (be interesting to see the difference if a white person did it and a black person did it as well).

As to the first part, to arrest someone you do have to have probable cause, and further if you don't have at least SOME hard evidence, or a confession, the person you arrested will be released most likely (as a DA couldn't try that case without getting laughed out of court).

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Reasonably, would you ask for proof of citizenship if everything were the same except the driver was black or white instead of brown?

I've heard people say they would, but maybe its just me being a cynic, I would bet what they say they do and what they would do is much difference (similar to the "stranger in the house" hypothetical)