Sheriff Joe

[Da_man]

In my local newspaper (I live in AZ, FYI), the opinions page was always filled with how Joe was being a total rascist jerk. One of the raids a couple of months ago was on a library, with something like 20 or so armed policemen. I'm not talking like sidearms and tasers. I mean shotguns and the like. I think he has gone overboard.

 

However, most of that has been overshadowed by the masses of people who think that the new speed cameras are evil and are against the law.

 

@ Astor: Tent City (its what we locals call it, ask Shem) has been around for about 15-16 years, it's just that Joe has been filling it up faster. It is just an extentsion of The local county jail.

[EnderWiggin]

Now, with that out of the way, I don't think we should force the government so much as try to -establish- a government within Mexico.

 

Jesus. When will America learn that they're not the end-all-be-all when it comes to international politics?

 

Didn't we learn our lesson in Iraq?

 

We have no right to do anything to Mexico. We also don't have the economy to fund such an endeavor. In fact, the entire suggestion is foolhardy.

 

_EW_

[Tommycat]

Racial profiling is not illegal, but it sure as hell is unethical.

Won't get any argument from me on that point.

 

Hmmm, you'll have to refresh my memory on this one. Pretty sure a cop needs probable cause in order to be able to search a vehicle without a warrant.

 

Sure they ask, and yeah it's a good idea to say "yes", but you can also say "no" and be within your rights. Of course don't expect to get away with a warning if you jerk the officer around just to "flex" your rights.

An officer can find a way to get probable cause. but that's one of my beefs with law enforcement altogether, and kinda sideways to the topic.

 

I guess I'm still not convinced. Illegal immigrants come in all shapes, colors, and sizes. As do U.S. citizens. I'm not buying that it's okay that Sheriff Joe drives into Avondale, pulls over a dozen latin americans (who are all citizens) for "broken windshields", but lets a dozen vehicles driven by caucasians (who are canadians with expired visas) with broken windshields go on their merry way.

In AZ though by and large the illegal immigrants do tend to originate from Mexico. Just like serial killers are majority white men, with a few exceptions. It makes sense to go fishing where you know you're going to catch fish.

 

You're saying that police officers are within their rights to pull over anyone with "broken windshield" and I agree. However I think once you start discriminating between which "broken windshields" justify a stop and which ones don't (and the basis is race), then you have a problem. I'm not asking you to clarify what is currently legal. I'm asking your to distinguish between right and wrong.

Let me be clear then. While not illegal, it is unethical and therefore wrong. I do not agree with how he is conducting business.

 

Emphasis on "all persons pulled over".

Guess I should also add "so long as those pulled over are not pulled over based on ethnicity." Heck I'm Japanese. It wouldn't hurt my feelings any if, while being stopped, I'm asked to produce proof of citizenship.

[Achilles]

An officer can find a way to get probable cause. but that's one of my beefs with law enforcement altogether, and kinda sideways to the topic.

Police officers are not the only component to the judicial system. Lawyers would have a field day going to before judges and making a case that officers are abusing probable cause for routine traffic stops.

 

In AZ though by and large the illegal immigrants do tend to originate from Mexico. Just like serial killers are majority white men, with a few exceptions. It makes sense to go fishing where you know you're going to catch fish.

I don't see where this negates my point.

 

Guess I should also add "so long as those pulled over are not pulled over based on ethnicity." Heck I'm Japanese. It wouldn't hurt my feelings any if, while being stopped, I'm asked to produce proof of citizenship.

I was wondering how long it would be before you divulged your minority status.

[Tommycat]

Police officers are not the only component to the judicial system. Lawyers would have a field day going to before judges and making a case that officers are abusing probable cause for routine traffic stops.

Getting it to stick is the hard part.

I don't see where this negates my point.

Didn't think I was trying to negate the point.

I was wondering how long it would be before you divulged your minority status.

Japanese, Caucasian, African American, and Native American. I don't really associate with any ethnicity. I fit mostly with those(in that order). But having grown up in Texas, and having several Hispanic friends both there and here, I can understand the issues better haha.

 

One thing I find rather funny is that Texas is way tougher on their illegal immigrants. But AZ gets all the media attention.

[True_Avery]

Jesus. When will America learn that they're not the end-all-be-all when it comes to international politics?

 

Didn't we learn our lesson in Iraq?

 

We have no right to do anything to Mexico. We also don't have the economy to fund such an endeavor. In fact, the entire suggestion is foolhardy.

 

_EW_

Never said America should do it, but frankly if we want them to stop coming here for better living conditions and jobs the "easiest" (this being relative) thing to do is... have Mexico be a less ****ty place to live.

 

Should we do it? It is our job?

 

You know, with all the money we spend trying to keep people out it makes me wonder how well that could be spent elsewhere.

 

And, frankly, despite the Iraq failure it is not an inherently bad thing to try to help a country run by drug money. It is certainly a better idea than Iraq considering it is our border country and Iraq is half way around the world.

 

Why not the UN? Why just America? How about Canada helps them?

 

I could give a **** who does it, but our current failing attempts to keep them out have been failing. We -could- keep our hand and money out of Mexico, but Mexico is still sending its drugs and immigrants up here. Their little gang war has made it into our country as well, and by then I think it is our damn business whether the country below us is a third world ****hole or not that has no government to enforce any laws of any kind.

[Totenkopf]

Doing nothing is equally stupid, actually more. They are a major trading partner. Also, b/c the border is soo damn porous, their problems have a way of metastasizing into ours as well. We also don't have the economy to fund many of the president's ambitions, or hadn't you noticed that?

 

@TA--unfortunately, the UN is more useless than tits on a bull and the rest of the world isn't much better, for that matter.

[Darth Avlectus]

Can someone justifiably break the law to catch law breakers?

 

Well since you put it into such a generalized question but such a specific point, forgive me if it becomes supposition. It depends on the situation and individual.

 

If you knew someone that the judge was going to let go and you are not convinced of his innocence...I'd think that by this point you'd see arrest, prosecution and imprisonment has failed.

 

If it was letting a child molester go, I would not blame the parent for taking out a gun and shooting the mother****er point blank the first chance he/she got. Deserves to die and I hope he burns in hell.

 

I would frankly not blame an officer for stalking someone for awhile and hiding any evidence of their being an officer of the law if it were going to catch the criminal in question. Surveillance isn't illegal. If the person isn't breaking laws or hanging around children...I'd say for the time being let the person go. If the person is breaking laws and the cop caught that person in question...Hell, beat the slimball's ass. So in this specific case, yes.

If you indeed do believe this individual's intent to be mallicious, you are only doing a favor to your community. Where this might cross the line is possibly as a s***ty justification.

 

Every case? It depends on the specifics. That's as specific as we can get, hyper specific. Specific in a general sense, we cannot.

 

While Canadians coming south doesn't happen that often, the problem mostly resides with Mexico.

OK. Then how do you propose (in some method OTHER than letting them go) we find out illegal status?

 

And we should probably force Mexico to deal with their emigration problem, but... what government do we contact? Mexico pretty much has a staple government. It is there to look pretty and say "we're organized" while not necessarily doing anything at all.

A barrel of oil for every illegal we accept? Just a suggestion. It might encourage them from an economic standpoint to work with us.

 

I know this is not new information, but people leave Mexico because it is a terrible place to live. Sure, you have people waving the Mexican flag and saying "we love mexico!" but it is more of in concept than actual practice.

Concept is one thing, blatantly doing it because you want wherever you go to be your Mexico (in contempt of and insullt to the country you are now in) is completely another.

 

In Reno NV a vet got pissed off that a mexican restaurant flew their mexican flag over ours. So he took it down, kept the US flag and shredded and cut the Mexico flag. I don't blame him. He fought for this country. Not only is it contempt and insult to the country, it's illegal to do.

 

If we can get Mexico stable again and boost the quality of life, your immigration problem should slow down. It should also make them a better trading partner and increase relations with South America, which would be better investments than a lot we're doing nowadays.

With what money?

 

 

Hmmm, you'll have to refresh my memory on this one. Pretty sure a cop needs probable cause in order to be able to search a vehicle without a warrant.

Thank you. Sort of gives credibility to my above answer "depends on the situation".

 

I guess I'm still not convinced. Illegal immigrants come in all shapes, colors, and sizes. As do U.S. citizens. I'm not buying that it's okay that Sheriff Joe drives into Avondale, pulls over a dozen latin americans (who are all citizens) for "broken windshields", but lets a dozen vehicles driven by caucasians (who are canadians with expired visas) with broken windshields go on their merry way.

 

True, there should be more enforcement to catch the Canadians.

 

Never said America should do it, but frankly if we want them to stop coming here for better living conditions and jobs the "easiest" (this being relative) thing to do is... have Mexico be a less ****ty place to live.

Which I do believe busting the drug cartels to be a major step in that direction. It's a start.

 

 

You know, with all the money we spend trying to keep people out it makes me wonder how well that could be spent elsewhere.

 

I'd think eVerify would rectify many problems. A gov't. database website where you could check to see if an applicant really is who they claimed to be?

Sounds good to me.

 

SO, Why are we trying to enact the realID act (basically to track and monitor you whatever you do, wherever you go all the time) when we have not even given eVerify a chance? It would be rather effective at screening for illegals at jobs. Lou Dobbs even had a thing on about it. But the current admin just turned it down claiming it would be "too costly and make too much bureaucracy". Yet it wants to spy on its own people, making just as much bureaucracy and probably costing just as much if not more than running a database website where it could just be discretionary at the employer's hands? That's pretty F***ed up. Doing nothing is stupid, we have problems and they won't solve themselves.

[Totenkopf]

I guess I'm still not convinced. Illegal immigrants come in all shapes, colors, and sizes. As do U.S. citizens. I'm not buying that it's okay that Sheriff Joe drives into Avondale, pulls over a dozen latin americans (who are all citizens) for "broken windshields", but lets a dozen vehicles driven by caucasians (who are canadians with expired visas) with broken windshields go on their merry way.

 

There's enough straw in that argument to make a scarecrow. One, no one here has said otherwise, but unless you know this (your wildly exagerated scenario) to be the case, it's also a giant red herring. It's obvious that the whole point of this thread is nothing more than going "ZOMG! Arpaio is a racist 111!!!111!!!." Big whup.. If he's found guilty, he'll face the music.

[Achilles]

Thank you. Sort of gives credibility to my above answer "depends on the situation".

I don't see how. If the law states that an officer can search a vehicle if they can show probable cause, then searching a vehicle after establishing probable cause is within the law. Not the same thing as breaking the law to catch a lawbreaker.

 

The problem with using the ends to justify the means is that it puts things on a very shaky foundation. Kinda like dating a guy/girl that broke up with his/her boy/girlfriend to be with you. Sure you're getting some now, but you're a fool if you think that person is loyal or can be trusted. I may decide that I want to be on the Sheriff Joe bandwagon and cheer him on as he uses questionable methods to bust illegals, but how do I know that he won't use similarly questionable methods to violate my rights later?

 

True, there should be more enforcement to catch the Canadians.

White people not from here come in more flavors that just "Canadian". If we want to make immigration status standard operating procedure for every stop, that's one thing. If we want to harass brown people on the basis of their being brown, then that's another. If I was a 3rd generation citizen and I got pulled over on a "immigration round-up" you'd better believe I would be pissed off. And I'm willing to bet that if you really thought about it, you would be too.

[Darth Avlectus]

I don't see how. If the law states that an officer can search a vehicle if they can show probable cause, then searching a vehicle after establishing probable cause is within the law. Not the same thing as breaking the law to catch a lawbreaker.

 

The problem with using the ends to justify the means is that it puts things on a very shaky foundation. Kinda like dating a guy/girl that broke up with his/her boy/girlfriend to be with you. Sure you're getting some now, but you're a fool if you think that person is loyal or can be trusted. I may decide that I want to be on the Sheriff Joe bandwagon and cheer him on as he uses questionable methods to bust illegals, but how do I know that he won't use similarly questionable methods to violate my rights later?

 

I don't understand how it is that if Arpaio is pulling over minorities for spurious reasons, that he'd come after you when he's "done", isn't a slippery slope.

 

White people not from here come in more flavors that just "Canadian". If we want to make immigration status standard operating procedure for every stop, that's one thing. If we want to harass brown people on the basis of their being brown, then that's another. If I was a 3rd generation citizen and I got pulled over on a "immigration round-up" you'd better believe I would be pissed off. And I'm willing to bet that if you really thought about it, you would be too.

 

Well, then I guess I'll modify my prior statement to that: We should just step up immigration enforcement in general so that none get through. My apologies.

[Achilles]

I don't understand how it is that if Arpaio is pulling over minorities for spurious reasons, that he'd come after you when he's "done", isn't a slippery slope.

Slippery-Slope

 

Specifically:

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim.

Emphasis added.

 

The fact that he has already demonstrated a willingness to employ questionable tactics to infringe on some individuals constitutes as an argument that he is capable of doing so for others.

 

Or more simply: If you have a co-worker that walks around punching people in the eye, it isn't a slippery-slope to posit that one day he might walk up and give you a shiner.

 

Well, then I guess I'll modify my prior statement to that: We should just step up immigration enforcement in general so that none get through. My apologies.

Thanks for clarifying, however this isn't very helpful. I'm quite positive that I've heard Sheriff Joe argue that he is doing precisely that right now, yet here we are having the debate. Did you have something more specific in mind?

[True_Avery]

In Reno NV a vet got pissed off that a mexican restaurant flew their mexican flag over ours. So he took it down, kept the US flag and shredded and cut the Mexico flag. I don't blame him. He fought for this country. Not only is it contempt and insult to the country, it's illegal to do.

Well, one it is ironic that a vet who fought for free speech was insulted at an expression of free speech...

 

Two, kind of a douche for pulling down someone's property and destroying it.

 

Three, again ironic that he's stopping expression even though he fought for it...

 

Four, how outside of a political cartoon is it insulting?

 

And five:

© No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof: Provided, That nothing in this section shall make unlawful the continuance of the practice heretofore followed of displaying the flag of the United Nations in a position of superior prominence or honor, and other national flags in positions of equal prominence or honor, with that of the flag of the United States at the headquarters of the United Nations.

What an absolutely appalling law to have, and frankly I'm insulted that we consider ourselves that highly as a country and would actually make something like putting one flag over another a crime like this was some kind of political cartoon.

 

What a joke.

 

I see what you're saying though. But, ask yourself this: If he truly thought Mexico was an amazing place to be... why was he in Reno? His actions speak louder than his expression.

[Achilles]

What a joke.

My son had heard that if a U.S. flag touches the ground it is supposed to be destroyed.

 

He thought is was a curious practice, because "it's just a flag". I had to explain to him that some people had very interesting beliefs when it came to the importance of certain pieces of cloth. I explained what "the rule" was, but agreed with his assessment that the whole thing was pretty silly.

[Tommycat]

What an absolutely appalling law to have, and frankly I'm insulted that we consider ourselves that highly as a country and would actually make something like putting one flag over another a crime like this was some kind of political cartoon.

 

Actually symbolicly placing one flag over another represents which one controls the other. If you notice at the UN all flags are placed at (roughly) equal heights. Placing one higher symbolizes rule over the lower flag. Placing a Mexican flag over the US flag IS a slap in the face to the veteran.

 

It's all flag etiquette really. Either fly the US flag on equal ground as the Mexican flag or only fly one of the two. Of course it is considered rude to fly a foreign flag on another country's soil.

 

Gotta laugh about the flag thing too though. to an extent. Ever since I heard Eddie Izzard and his "Do you have a flag?"

[True_Avery]

My son had heard that if a U.S. flag touches the ground it is supposed to be destroyed.

 

He thought is was a curious practice, because "it's just a flag". I had to explain to him that some people had very interesting beliefs when it came to the importance of certain pieces of cloth. I explained what "the rule" was, but agreed with his assessment that the whole thing was pretty silly

I quite clearly remember having the same conversation with my parents. I got the symbolism, but overall thought and still think its silly.

 

I had no idea till today, though, that it was actually a crime to fly a flag over the US flag though. My feelings have gone from silly to flabbergasted, and just a little angry.

 

Actually symbolically placing one flag over another represents which one controls the other. If you notice at the UN all flags are placed at (roughly) equal heights. Placing one higher symbolizes rule over the lower flag. Placing a Mexican flag over the US flag IS a slap in the face to the veteran.

 

It's all flag etiquette really. Either fly the US flag on equal ground as the Mexican flag or only fly one of the two. Of course it is considered rude to fly a foreign flag on another country's soil.

I can see the -symbolism- behind the idea that a flag being higher than another represents power. Completely understandable.

 

What I don't understand, however, is why it is apart of law when we seem to have this thing about Freedom and all that stuff. Other than pride, what is it hurting?

 

I mean, if Flag Desecration is legal why not flying a flag higher than another?

 

C'mon. That is just a little insane.

[Tommycat]

I can see the -symbolism- behind the idea that a flag being higher than another represents power. Completely understandable.

 

What I don't understand, however, is why it is apart of law when we seem to have this thing about Freedom and all that stuff. Other than pride, what is it hurting?

 

I mean, if Flag Desecration is legal why not flying a flag higher than another?

 

C'mon. That is just a little insane.

 

Basically it comes down to being that you are claiming that country for the one higher up. Or you are claiming that territory for the country whose flag is raised the highest. Technically it could be construed as a declaration of war.

[True_Avery]

Basically it comes down to being that you are claiming that country for the one higher up. Or you are claiming that territory for the country whose flag is raised the highest. Technically it could be construed as a declaration of war.

I am afraid of flags now...

 

It seems like an outdated law at least. Like, back in the days when throwing your flag down basically meant you owned that land. Doesn't really work that way anymore.

[Darth Avlectus]

Slippery-Slope

 

Specifically:

 

Emphasis added.

 

The fact that he has already demonstrated a willingness to employ questionable tactics to infringe on some individuals constitutes as an argument that he is capable of doing so for others.

 

Or more simply: If you have a co-worker that walks around punching people in the eye, it isn't a slippery-slope to posit that one day he might walk up and give you a shiner.

 

There is not reason enough evidence to believe one event must inevitably follow another without argument for such claim. The fact itself that he is willing to employ questionable tactics may have merit. However the flaw in your argument is that he is already capable of doing so, given his position.

 

By the by: If I had a violent coworker (and I do speak from experience) who was going around decking people in the eye, well sure he might come at me, that's not what I find fallacious. The emphasis, however, speaks to conjecture. Which prove's nothing but one's own paranoia. Not a good argument.

 

Furthermore, as construction is one of my occupations and I work around dangerous power tools: If you appear to be unstable or dangerous, I won't hire you. Plain and simple. If you prove it after the fact, well, you are no sheriff if you're coming to me for work. I have also a legal right to defend myself and to fire you if you prove dangerous. I may even press charges. Fair warning: if you intend to go that way, I've been in situations where people have even used weapons (knives, guns, pipes) and tried to kill me. .....I'm not dead. I can and will defend myself, especially if law enforcement's ETA is 15 minutes where I don't have but 30 seconds because you're lunging at my throat.

 

Thanks for clarifying, however this isn't very helpful. I'm quite positive that I've heard Sheriff Joe argue that he is doing precisely that right now, yet here we are having the debate. Did you have something more specific in mind?

 

Well, you asked where breaking the law to enforce it might be acceptable. The "shakiness" you attested to would imply that it isn't kosher w.r.t. staying within the bounds of the laws. You have even pointed out that: Just because you have probable cause, it does not make a case. So even if the guy is as dirty as they come, you still had to overstep your bounds and I'd imagine you'd still catch some kind of hell even if you succeeded.

 

In terms of what to go on...did you have some other criteria? Just for the record, no I'm not necessarily in support of Arpaio's tactics on a frivolous level. However, if you have a camper/truck/van that doesn't look well maintained, driver is acting weird avoidant or distant, and vehichle's possibly large enough that it might be carrying contraband cargo as in: drugs, weapons, or most relevant illegals...that constitutes "suspicious enough to be pulled over".

 

Well, one it is ironic that a vet who fought for free speech was insulted at an expression of free speech...

 

They know they are in another country. It's contempt.

 

Two, kind of a douche for pulling down someone's property and destroying it.

Funny thing is you were so quick to get on it when someone showed the least bit of disapproval for the president with a sign (which too is expression). Nice ad hominem to the vet, BTW.

 

Three, again ironic that he's stopping expression even though he fought for it...

It's in contempt of the symbol of the country's sovereignty. I rather suspect you'd also take their side in their own country if one of ours did the same thing.

 

Nice to see your standards allow us to be 'walked on'.

 

Four, how outside of a political cartoon is it insulting?

You fought for your country, possibly took a debilitating injury for it. You see its glory being stepped on by a business who feels it is their land and not all of our land. Contempt.

 

And five:

 

What an absolutely appalling law to have, and frankly I'm insulted that we consider ourselves that highly as a country and would actually make something like putting one flag over another a crime like this was some kind of political cartoon.

No, when you raise a flag it symbolizes sovereignty over that land of that symbol. This is the way EVERY nation is. Has been for a long time. Will be long after you or I are dead.

 

What a joke.

I dare you to say all of that to an American legion full of vets during one of their meetings. Not worth your time? Not worth tolerating the blatant contempt, either.

 

Seems like to you everyone BUT the USA is allowed to be proud of displaying their soverignty. If USA does it, we're automatically arrogant?

 

What the ****?

 

Don't even try to tell me "but it was formed with blood on our hands" as justification--you won't find any nation in the world that wasn't formed that way.

 

I see what you're saying though. But, ask yourself this: If he truly thought Mexico was an amazing place to be... why was he in Reno? His actions speak louder than his expression.

 

If you come into a country demanding to be a part of it and then spit on it once in, that's Arrogant, contemptuous, and ungrateful. I would not, as a guest, deprecate those who would have taken me in no matter how repugnant I felt those persons to be. There is an unsaid level of mutual respect. It's what makes civility great--without which you have nothing but squabbling and it is doomed to failure.

 

Here America is handing out $$$ to you, and you shout VIVA le Mexico? Bull****. I don't have to take that and I won't.

[Tommycat]

I am afraid of flags now...

 

It seems like an outdated law at least. Like, back in the days when throwing your flag down basically meant you owned that land. Doesn't really work that way anymore.

 

Can't remember which country it was, but I remember reading that if you raised another country's flag on their soil you could be beheaded. Not sure if it's practiced anymore, but... The US isn't the only one with laws regarding flags. It's all Britain's fault. If they hadn't used flags to take countries... haha...

[True_Avery]

They know they are in another country. It's contempt.

So? Its contempt to burn a flag, but that's legal.

 

Funny thing is you were so quick to get on it when someone showed the least bit of disapproval for the president with a sign (which too is expression). Nice ad hominem to the vet, BTW.

You'll have to direct me to that post, as I don't remember going up to someone's poster and ripping it in half because I disagreed with it.

 

Destroying another's property is also illegal, good sir. He's still a douche for doing it regardless if he's a vet or not. If he had a problem, he should have called the police or something instead of being a vigilante.

 

It's in contempt of the symbol of the country's sovereignty. I rather suspect you'd also take their side in their own country if one of ours did the same thing.

Its a flag. A representation of a country. Why should it be a huge deal if someone decides to post a flag?

 

If you wanna go down to Mexico, or go over to France and fly the American flag be my guest.

 

Nice to see your standards allow us to be 'walked on'.

My standard are that they should be allowed to express their beliefs and opinions as long as they are not harming anyone.

 

The ones being walked on in this situation are the ones who express themselves by posting a flag, and are then arrested. That seems more like freedoms being walked on in my opinion.

 

You fought for your country, possibly took a debilitating injury for it. You see its glory being stepped on by a business who feels it is their land and not all of our land. Contempt.

They fought for freedoms within the country.

 

How is it possible that you have the right to say "Mexico rules!" in America, or "Texas should break from the US", and even burn a flag, but when you post a flag higher than another you've suddenly crossed the line?

 

Outdated hypocrisy. He fought to uphold freedoms and he, and apparently the law now, are quashing that by disallowing this.

 

I dare you to say all of that to an American legion full of vets during one of their meetings. Not worth your time? Not worth tolerating the blatant contempt, either.

What? Tell them that posting a flag higher than ours is disrespectful, but that taking away the freedom to do so is an appalling, arrogant thing to do?

 

Sure. Know any vets? I'll talk with my grandfather next time I meet him if you'd like.

 

The law is an outdated joke. Not the concept; the law.

 

Seems like to you everyone BUT the USA is allowed to be proud of displaying their soverignty. If USA does it, we're automatically arrogant

As I said above, I give you permission to fly the American flag in any other country with freedoms for the same reason I think that Mexican man should have the right to post his flag.

 

But yes, regardless of legality, area, country, etc it is still an arrogant thing to do. Thing is, you have the right to be arrogant in America.

 

Or, so I thought.

 

What the ****?

Yes, those would be my feelings on this law.

 

My problem is that it is a LAW. The symbolism, your anger, and other such things I can understand. What I do not understand is why this is still a law and something that can be punished.

 

Don't even try to tell me "but it was formed with blood on our hands" as justification--you won't find any nation in the world that wasn't formed that way.

What?

[Achilles]

There is not reason enough evidence to believe one event must inevitably follow another without argument for such claim.

Already addressed this. There is an argument that one event could follow another on the basis that a precedent has been set. Therefore not a slippery slope as you keep insisting.

 

Glad to see you read the link. Sorry to see that you're still not quite there on the content.

 

The fact itself that he is willing to employ questionable tactics may have merit. However the flaw in your argument is that he is already capable of doing so, given his position.

The flaw in my argument that he is capable of doing something is that he's already doing it?

 

Are we talking about my actual argument or are we still chasing down your slippery-slope strawman?

 

By the by: If I had a violent coworker (and I do speak from experience) who was going around decking people in the eye, well sure he might come at me, that's not what I find fallacious. The emphasis, however, speaks to conjecture. Which prove's nothing but one's own paranoia. Not a good argument.

 

<snippety-snip non-sequitur>

 

Well, you asked where breaking the law to enforce it might be acceptable. The "shakiness" you attested to would imply that it isn't kosher w.r.t. staying within the bounds of the laws. You have even pointed out that: Just because you have probable cause, it does not make a case. So even if the guy is as dirty as they come, you still had to overstep your bounds and I'd imagine you'd still catch some kind of hell even if you succeeded.

 

 

In terms of what to go on...did you have some other criteria? Just for the record, no I'm not necessarily in support of Arpaio's tactics on a frivolous level. However, if you have a camper/truck/van that doesn't look well maintained, driver is acting weird avoidant or distant, and vehichle's possibly large enough that it might be carrying contraband cargo as in: drugs, weapons, or most relevant illegals...that constitutes "suspicious enough to be pulled over".

Sheriff Joe drives into Guadalupe on a Friday night, sets up check points and starts pulling over hispanics with cracked windsheilds, etc. Not the same thing.

 

I rather suspect you'd also take their side in their own country if one of ours did the same thing.

Mmmm, no. I'm pretty sure I have better things to do with my time.

 

You fought for your country, possibly took a debilitating injury for it. You see its glory being stepped on by a business who feels it is their land and not all of our land. Contempt.

Now you´ve probably noticed I don´t feel about that "war," the way we were told we were supposed to feel about that war ... the way we were ordered and instructed by the United States Government to feel about that war ... you see, I tell ya ... my mind doesn´t work that way ... I got this real moron thing I do - it´s called, "thinking," - and I´m not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions. I don´t just "roll over" when I´m told to.

 

Sad to say most Americans just "roll over" [tchock] on command. Not me - I have certain rules I live by.

 

My first rule: I don´t believe anything the government tells me. Nothing. Zero. Nope.

 

And I don´t take very seriously the media or the press in this country, who, in the case of the Persian Gulf War were nothing more than unpaid employees of the Department of Defense, and who, most of the time functioned as sort of an unofficial public relations company for the United States Government.

 

So, I don´t listen to them, I don´t *really* believe in my country, and I gotta tell ya folks, I don´t get all choked up about yellow ribbons and American flags. I consider them to be symbols, and I leave symbols to the symbol-minded.

[True_Avery]

<snip>

Good ol' George. His words shall live on.

 

If Skin or ET could rip this current conversation about symbols into another thread it would be appreciated.

[Tommycat]

My problem is that it is a LAW. The symbolism, your anger, and other such things I can understand. What I do not understand is why this is still a law and something that can be punished.

 

All countries have a law regarding their flag and the display of such. Sure it may be an outdated legal concept, but it is what their country expects. I mean for instance the PRC National Flag Ordinance. It's just easier to find our laws than most other countries.