this came out early, so it just touches on some of the changes to the law.
"Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status."
This is a change in the right direction.
|
this came out early, so it just touches on some of the changes to the law."Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status."
This is a change in the right direction.
I agree...lawful contact was too broad, but I believe that this is still too little. With the other language placed in the bill that makes it criminal for anyone who's not legal to be on AZ land (public or private) it leaves the police open to stop anybody at anytime and question their status.
|
|
I agree...lawful contact was too broad, but I believe that this is still too little. With the other language placed in the bill that makes it criminal for anyone who's not legal to be on AZ land (public or private) it leaves the police open to stop anybody at anytime and question their status.this came out early, so it just touches on some of the changes to the law."Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status."
This is a change in the right direction.
Anybody at any time with a tail light out, no insurance (here in Texas they routinely run license plates to see if your insurance is up to date, regardless of race, creed whatever, a lot of my friends have been pulled over for it and they come from all walks and economic backgrounds), speeding, etc.
The addendum pretty much rules out just random stops, not that it would keep many cops from doing so, but at least they addressed it statutorily.
|
|
I agree...lawful contact was too broad, but I believe that this is still too little. With the other language placed in the bill that makes it criminal for anyone who's not legal to be on AZ land (public or private) it leaves the police open to stop anybody at anytime and question their status.this came out early, so it just touches on some of the changes to the law."Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status."
This is a change in the right direction.
Anybody at any time with a tail light out, no insurance (here in Texas they routinely run license plates to see if your insurance is up to date, regardless of race, creed whatever, a lot of my friends have been pulled over for it and they come from all walks and economic backgrounds), speeding, etc.
The addendum pretty much rules out just random stops, not that it would keep many cops from doing so, but at least they addressed it statutorily.
No the purpose of the amendment was to prevent police from questioning victims of crimes and people in emergency situations regarding their immigration status (because who's going to report a crime if it will get them deported?). There is still nothing in place to prevent an officer from stopping any random guy because they could possibly be trespassing.
|
I know. Only problem is, right now, I'm doing all I can, and I'm sliding backwards.If you don't like the law work to change it!!! Even better look for a better solution!!!Do you know exactly how much easier said that is than done? Have YOU personally ever tried to influence government policy? One person can't do it. f&@@, a thousand people can't do it.All I can think of is the old quote: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Your not the only one who feels this way. Hence the law in AZ. We have to many people with ideas and not enough leadership to have those ideas and ideals put into motion. And when someone tries to do something, well the 'other side' makes snarky remarks or has a temper tantrum. And capital hill wonders why kids act the way they do these days.
We learned from you Hypocrites.
And when someone tries to do something, well the 'other side' makes snarky remarks or has a temper tantrum.
Goddamn kids and their snarky tantrums! Get the hell off my lawn!!!
No the purpose of the amendment was to prevent police from questioning victims of crimes and people in emergency situations regarding their immigration status (because who's going to report a crime if it will get them deported?). There is still nothing in place to prevent an officer from stopping any random guy because they could possibly be trespassing.I agree...lawful contact was too broad, but I believe that this is still too little. With the other language placed in the bill that makes it criminal for anyone who's not legal to be on AZ land (public or private) it leaves the police open to stop anybody at anytime and question their status.this came out early, so it just touches on some of the changes to the law."Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status."
This is a change in the right direction.
Anybody at any time with a tail light out, no insurance (here in Texas they routinely run license plates to see if your insurance is up to date, regardless of race, creed whatever, a lot of my friends have been pulled over for it and they come from all walks and economic backgrounds), speeding, etc.
The addendum pretty much rules out just random stops, not that it would keep many cops from doing so, but at least they addressed it statutorily.
The law explicitly rules out random stops to determine legality. You must be stopped for some other violation of the law before legal immigration can be investigated. I believe this was the case before the amendment was added.
You cannot stop someone on the possibility of tresspassing on public property because you think he might be illegal. In that case the cops would be making the assumption of the condition being true (illegal alien) in order to satisfy the conditions for determining whether or not it is true: must be stopped by the police for some other reason other than to determine if the person is illegal. That is an invalid reason and thus the law does not give license to do so.
The addendum pretty much rules out just random stops, not that it would keep many cops from doing so, but at least they addressed it statutorily.
Again with the police-bashing. I say again people, THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY DESIGNED TO HARASS YOU. The police have guidelines they have to follow, and thier boss is an elected official. Specifically, directly elected by the same people the police make daily contact with, and not an electoral college.
Neither are they walking automatons that blindly do things without a conscience or morality. They go through polygraphs, drug tests, background checks, and psychological tests to test their moral character. How many of you have done the same?
There is still nothing in place to prevent an officer from stopping any random guy because they could possibly be trespassing.
If he's trespassing, then he's not "a random guy". He's a suspect in CRIMINAL activity, and 99.99% of the time, the police are there to stop him because the property owner called the police.
Seriously folks, Hollywood movies are not the real world. Heck, even the TV show "COPS" is not the real world. It's a caricature of reality. I know, I was on numerous calls with a "COPS" camera crew. They ride around for an entire week, with multiple crews, just to get a half hour of footage (or about 23 minutes after commercials). Apparently, everything I did was too boring for TV, because I never made the final episode.
Every person you run into IS NOT a drunk redneck without a shirt on.
Most of the people I've met that "hate the police", haven't actually had a bad experience themselves. It's always a cousin, a friend, or a friend of a friend that supposedly had something unfair happen to them. It reminds me of a game I played as a child, called 'telephone". In this game, person 1 told something to person 2, and person 2 then told it to person 3, and person 3 to person 4. By the time the last person heard what was said, it was always different than what person 1 originally said. This is the same reason hearsay evidence is rarely allowed in court.
gp
There is still nothing in place to prevent an officer from stopping any random guy because they could possibly be trespassing.If he's trespassing, then he's not "a random guy". He's a suspect in CRIMINAL activity, and 99.99% of the time, the police are there to stop him because the property owner called the police.
I believe that Xpltvdeleted was referring to this conclusion drawn earlier:
With the other language placed in the bill that makes it criminal for anyone who's not legal to be on AZ land (public or private) it leaves the police open to stop anybody at anytime and question their status.
I believe he was arguing that because it was tresspassing for an illegal to be on AZ public land then anybody can be stopped to the possibility of tresspassing and then satisfy the requirement of being stopped.
In other words, he is suggesting that the criminal activity a person can be stopped for (to give reason to investigate legal status) is tresspassing based upon suspiscion of not having legal status.
I don't think that reasoning stands.
Again with the police-bashing. I say again people, THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY DESIGNED TO HARASS YOU.
The addendum pretty much rules out just random stops, not that it would keep many cops from doing so, but at least they addressed it statutorily.
In Derek's defense, he said "many," not "all" -- and he neither said nor even implied anything about conspiracies.
Regarding the "never personally," I personally was stopped and harrassed last year when the local cops saw I was from out of town -- I was written a ticket for going 55 mph in a 55 mph zone (Direct quote: "Well, I'm tellin' you it's FORTY-five now, boy!").
On a larger scale, if the screening worked as well as you claim, there would be no need for Internal Affairs.
Are all cops bad? Hardly. I'd say a very small minority of them, except in certain places at certain times. But are all cops white knights out to serve and protect? No, they're not, and in the words of Billy Shakespeare, "The lady doth protest too much."
|
|
There is still nothing in place to prevent an officer from stopping any random guy because they could possibly be trespassing.If he's trespassing, then he's not "a random guy". He's a suspect in CRIMINAL activity, and 99.99% of the time, the police are there to stop him because the property owner called the police.
I believe that Xpltvdeleted was referring to this conclusion drawn earlier:
With the other language placed in the bill that makes it criminal for anyone who's not legal to be on AZ land (public or private) it leaves the police open to stop anybody at anytime and question their status.I believe he was arguing that because it was tresspassing for an illegal to be on AZ public land then anybody can be stopped to the possibility of tresspassing and then satisfy the requirement of being stopped.
In other words, he is suggesting that the criminal activity a person can be stopped for (to give reason to investigate legal status) is tresspassing based upon suspiscion of not having legal status.
I don't think that reasoning stands.
It sounds like the perfect circular logic trap that would be written into a bill that has the sole purpose of driving out illegals. Maybe I'm paranoid, but it's not like the police don't already racially profile.
It sounds like the perfect circular logic trap that would be written into a bill that has the sole purpose of driving out illegals. Maybe I'm paranoid, but it's not like the police don't already racially profile.
There is still nothing in place to prevent an officer from stopping any random guy because they could possibly be trespassing.If he's trespassing, then he's not "a random guy". He's a suspect in CRIMINAL activity, and 99.99% of the time, the police are there to stop him because the property owner called the police.
I believe that Xpltvdeleted was referring to this conclusion drawn earlier:
With the other language placed in the bill that makes it criminal for anyone who's not legal to be on AZ land (public or private) it leaves the police open to stop anybody at anytime and question their status.I believe he was arguing that because it was tresspassing for an illegal to be on AZ public land then anybody can be stopped to the possibility of tresspassing and then satisfy the requirement of being stopped.
In other words, he is suggesting that the criminal activity a person can be stopped for (to give reason to investigate legal status) is tresspassing based upon suspiscion of not having legal status.
I don't think that reasoning stands.
No, it doesn't sound that way because the law doesn't work that way.
The bill which you interpret to mean that illegals cannot be on Arizona land (I am not disputing that) is the same bill that says that they must be stopped for another reason than to determine residency. That determination of residency would be the reason for stopping on the basis of tresspassing due to being illegal. The two are one and the same. One cannot be used to legitimize the other.
Law simply does not work that way. If you have to ASSUME the minimum requirements for investigation/arrest are present in order to begin the investigation/arrest that will give you the minimum requirements for an investigation/arrest then you do not have the minimum requirements to begin with. Therefore you cannot start with the tresspassing arrest. Circular logic cannot be used to validate itself with respect to arrest/investigation criteria. Logic doesn't work that way.
The very fact that such an application would be circular logic invalidates the application. It is invalid and thertefore it is not a trap allowing racial profiling to be used at will.
End Note: Whether or not cops do or do not racially profile ain other circumstances has no bearing on the legitimacy of the law.
|
|
The addendum pretty much rules out just random stops, not that it would keep many cops from doing so, but at least they addressed it statutorily.Again with the police-bashing. I say again people, THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY DESIGNED TO HARASS YOU. The police have guidelines they have to follow, and thier boss is an elected official. Specifically, directly elected by the same people the police make daily contact with, and not an electoral college.
Neither are they walking automatons that blindly do things without a conscience or morality. They go through polygraphs, drug tests, background checks, and psychological tests to test their moral character. How many of you have done the same?
Lordy, you know, if i didn't have to get to my game pretty soon, I could link literally hundreds of stories just from this year telling the lie of your statement above. Do you have any clue how many cops go to prison every year just on drug trafficking/protection racket charges? Murder? Rape? How many are suspended each year for overstepping their bounds?
Dude, stop being naive and smell reality. Cops are people. They aren't "walking automatons" just going around doing the right thing 24/7.
And thanks for the laugh, O Strident Defender of the Porcine Set.
|
|
Most of the people I've met that "hate the police", haven't actually had a bad experience themselves. It's always a cousin, a friend, or a friend of a friend that supposedly had something unfair happen to them. It reminds me of a game I played as a child, called 'telephone". In this game, person 1 told something to person 2, and person 2 then told it to person 3, and person 3 to person 4. By the time the last person heard what was said, it was always different than what person 1 originally said. This is the same reason hearsay evidence is rarely allowed in court.
I don't hate the police. I've just had way more contact with them than most. On both sides of the bars. The cops were on both sides of the bars too, well, except the punk cops who could break the law, but were scared shitless to do their time in Gen Pop.
Pussies.
I realize those are just examples you've thrown out, but both of them happen to be personal choices that can be made by individuals (a man does have some say in an abortion--an opinion at least). Nobody chooses to be racially profiled, and TBH, even though I am in a unique position (relatively), I'm not going to even pretend that I understand what it's like to get pulled over for DWB (driving while black) even though my wife has to worry about it. Do I have more understanding than the average non-brown person? Yes. Do I even come close to having the same understanding as someone who is brown? No.It has some truth to it. I'd be willing to bet that a fair portion of the people posting on this topic are people who wouldn't even be affected by the law under discussion. How can they argue the merits of the law if they cannot even begin to fathom the detriments of it?Tread lightly. You're very close to falling into "you can only comment on this if you are one of the affected people", which is a stupid route to follow.Must be really easy for somebody who doesn't fall into the racially profiled group to say...Can you see how this reasoning becomes a train wreck when you apply it to other basic human rights?Hate to be rude and interrupt, but, which human right does invading a foreign nation's sovereignty fall under?I respectfully reject this line of thought. Let's take a deep breath, and not walk into an emotional trap.
Men can be pro choice, and non drug users can oppose criminalization and so on.
People can argue the merits of a law that doesn't impact them directly through reason. For example I can't envision a situation where anti gay marriage laws or anti poly-amorous marriage laws would impact me personally, but I think adults have the right to define their own relationships.
I...
I doubt Arizona's law is likely to have a direct effect on me in the foreseeable future, as I am a caucasian man living in Southern California. However, regardless of any direct effects to myself, I would take great amusement to look back on AZ SB 1070 in about twenty years and see that it was what laid the groundwork for the Native American tribes to forcibly deport me and others like me to Europe.
<snip>the police don't go around looking for ways to mess with people cuz they think it is fun,
Sorry to respond to something so far back in the thread, I'm really not trying to threadjack. But this statement concerns me to some extent.
Certainly not all police are just out to mess with people, but in my experience, some are. Some became cops because they got a gun and a badge, and the authority to bully people. All it takes is a couple bad apples like this to take something too far and then other officers end up being put in a position of having to takes sides with or against fellow officers who may have had their back at an important time.
I'm not saying that law enforcement should be disrespected in any way. Chances are, even that cop giving you a ticket for speeding or running the red light would risk his life to save yours. However, it's important not to hand over power too freely or unnecessarily either. Just because most of the homeless in San Diego are not constantly scouring parking lots to ransack my car does not mean I shouldn't lock my doors at the mall.
Power and authority can be put to great use when properly focused, but police are Human too, and therefore susceptible to the same flaws and faults (and bonus feats) as all the rest of us in that racial package. The same can be said for politicians and celebrities. I have my doubts about lawyers, but generally everybody should be subject to equal measures of respect and distrust, unless or until they individually prove themselves (guild/faction membership should not constitute proof to non-guild/faction members) deserving of differing ratios.
I doubt Arizona's law is likely to have a direct effect on me in the foreseeable future, as I am a caucasian man living in Southern California. However, regardless of any direct effects to myself, I would take great amusement to look back on AZ SB 1070 in about twenty years and see that it was what laid the groundwork for the Native American tribes to forcibly deport me and others like me to Europe.
That was funny. IF the indians could have forced us out they would have. I don't see any type of great indian uprising anytime soon. They would lose what little land we let them have left. I'm not going to get into my veiws on how much we helped the natives of this country but sufice it to say we have helped more than hurt.
I wonder if anyones done a economic study on just how much it would cost vs savings to seriously start the great illegal round up. If you have a greencard then no worries otherwise away you go back to your counrty of origin. Then we have the national guard on the borders to help protect the farmers and ranchers and to deter drug smugglers. It sounds costly but if you think long term of not paying for illefgal education,food,houseing and exorbant medical costs then it might be worth it.
Are all cops bad? Hardly. I'd say a very small minority of them, except in certain places at certain times. But are all cops white knights out to serve and protect? No, they're not, and in the words of Billy Shakespeare, "The lady doth protest too much."
By quoting that line, I'll have to assume you know the context and meaning behind it. You are implying that by offering a counter-statement, I was one of the "bad cops". So, I'm just supposed to be quite and keep my opinion to myself if it doesn't match the majority opinion on this thread?
Sounds like a catch-22 situation. If no one offers a counter-point, the stereotype persists. If someone offers a counter-point, they MUST be "one of those". Perhaps you're protesting too much that the police are harassing you for no reason? hmmm...
Internal affairs exists because police are human beings. EVERYONE, including you, has flaws. I'm sure you will agree that the police are held to a higher standard than the general public, but higher doesn't mean flawless.
As to the use of "many", that is exactly what I disagree with. Definition of many. The bad apples are hardly "a majority of the people", or even "a large number". They just get more press time than the rest, just like any politicians/athletes/clergy involved in a sex scandal. They are hardly the norm, but they get a vastly larger portion of the media's attention.
I came on here not to defend or support the law (although I did say I didn't think it would have any effect). I came on here because I have thousands of hours of direct, first-hand experience with the issue at question. Something that many of the people on this message board do not have. My purpose was to dispel the false statements and rumor that will inevitably cloud the issue. However, It's clear that there are several people that claim to be against prejudice, as long as it's not their form of prejudice. No amount of reasoning is going to dispel the hate-mongering.
Houstonderek:
Which sentence in my statement was a lie? Or did you mean the whole post? You know, you can find lots of things on the internet. Everything from sources that say "we never landed on the moon", to "The C.I.A. killed President Kennedy", to "bigfoot exists", to "alien abduction happens." My point is, just because someone says something doesn't make it true.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the police are flawless. In fact, I've said the opposite, that the police are human beings. If you go back and re-read my posts you'll see that. What I am saying (and have said) is that one, two, or even ten bad cops doesn't mean everyone in law enforcement is bad. It doesn't even mean a majority are bad. By your rational, I could say everyone that drives a car in Chicago is an angry/inconsiderate S.O.B., just because of a few bad experiences I've had. But that is not the case.
In fact, it's my opinion that the law enforcement in this country is far better than A MAJORITY of the world's countries. Try posting your anti-police messages in China and see how long before the government knocks on your door. If you want to see a government conspiracy, try using a Chinese web browser and search for "Tiananmen Square massacre". Then use an American browser and do the same search. THAT is an example of bad law enforcement.
You know what, never mind answering my question about which part of my statement was a lie. I won't be back to read it. Seriously, I'm done with this thread. Feel free to carry on with the pity/hate party without any more interruptions by me. I frequent these threads to talk about gaming, not to be called a liar and implied that because I was in Law Enforcement, I must be a racist jerk. If you choose to focus on only the negative things group X does, that's your issue. I am proud of American Law Enforcement, as a whole, and proud of my time serving this country.
Carry on.
So, I'm just supposed to be quite and keep my opinion to myself if it doesn't match the majority opinion on this thread?
No... just not overstate your point so that it becomes as false as the ones you're offering it as a counterpoint to. Someone says that many cops are not honest. You call him a liar and explain what high standards they're supposedly held to*, and imply that maybe "ten" of them are dishonest -- when in fact an order of magnitude more documented examples than that can be found in a few minutes of Googling. (What number constitutes "many," by the way? If Derek can find hundreds of real-life examples, will you then declare that "many" has to be over 51%?).
Not all cops are crooked. Not even a majority. I agreed with you there.
Some cops are dishonest. Far more than a "vanishingly small" number. That's fact.
* Aside: This is maybe part of the problem. When we have a group appointed to prevent the rest of us from doing anything wrong, we EXPECT that group to have much higher standards of honesty than the rest of us, and rightfully so. When those standards fail, we focus attention on that fact, and rightfully so, rather than whitewashing it. When the Pope and high officials cover up a multinational culture of abuse by a large number of clergy, the right thing to do is put it under a magnifying glass, not sweep it under the rug by citing the larger number of priests who didn't molest anyone. If you're part of the cover-up, you're part of the problem. In your case, instead of reacting with condemnation for the few bad apples, you immediate argue with people pointing them out, in essence defending them. In short, abetting their behavior.
<SNIP>That was funny. IF the indians could have forced us out they would have. I don't see any type of great indian uprising anytime soon. They would lose what little land we let them have left. </SNIP>
...
Putting aside for a moment the fact that I can barely read your posts: Might makes right? Seriously? And who, exactly, are "we" that "let them have" land?
You're either a troll, or you're utterly unequal to the task of contributing meaningfully to this discussion. Either way, you're a poster-boy for why this forum needs ignore functionality.
Again with the police-bashing. I say again people, THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY DESIGNED TO HARASS YOU.
And I say again, THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. Sorry, I just don't trust the police (or anyone else in a position of power and/or authority) to always do the right thing. That simply isn't human nature. Asserting that police are not above reproach doesn't necessitate a "government conspiracy."
False dichotomy, much?
<SNIP>That was funny. IF the indians could have forced us out they would have. I don't see any type of great indian uprising anytime soon. They would lose what little land we let them have left. </SNIP>...
Not that it's relevant, but: Might makes right? And who, exactly, are "we" that "let them have" land?
You're either a troll, or you're utterly unequal to the task of contributing meaningfully to this discussion. Either way, you're a poster-boy for why this forum needs ignore functionality.
This thread was off topic way before I posted that. You were first talking about a new law in arizona then it migrated to police officers and whether they could enfore it without racial profiling.
I don't believe thye can and thats not a bad thing profileing is a valid law enforcment tactic that helps officers solve cases. As was stated earlier in the thread it's not profileing IF all evidence supports the logical conclusion.The rape example earlier in the threadof if a white woman is raped they start looking for white males because in MOST cases the rapeists victimise members of their own color. Thats racial profileing but it's also a sound tactic.
It's real easy to call the police ineffective but when the laws tie their hands so that they can't do their jobs somethings got to stop.
The WE I was refering to was the european settlers that became Americans. I am very glad that they did what they did. We may have made some mistakes here and there but as a whole we have been benevolent and kind.
End Note: Whether or not cops do or do not racially profile ain other circumstances has no bearing on the legitimacy of the law.
I have to disagree with this part of your statement. If there are already abuses of police power and a law is likely to facilitate more abuse then said law may not be the tool to fix the problem.
|
|
I'm not going to get into my veiws on how much we helped the natives of this country but sufice it to say we have helped more than hurt.
How exactly did we help the natives? Did the definition of "help" change and it now means slaughtering through traditional and biological warfare while taking advantage of those who were not killed? Please explain this. It sounds too close to white supremecists claims that white folks helped black people by enslaving them and "civilizing" them.
|
|
The WE I was refering to was the european settlers that became Americans. I am very glad that they did what they did. We may have made some mistakes here and there but as a whole we have been benevolent and kind.
jajaja
says the man with the gun after shoting someone in the belly "I am being kind, i could have blown your brains over your woman"being kind? :P
i know this was not done by all people in USA, so i don't encompass them all... but some mistakes?
basically these people began a progrom of the native american...
I take your land and leave you a small piece for you ... so you know I am being kind....
I destroy your mediums of subsistence because it profits me more and I don't care you are going to die...
....
I can see you took Monrow's politics to heart... people like you are he ones that make a good part of the world hate your country and your people, why a good part of the world see US as menace...
I know not everyone in there is like that... its just that kind of people with the idea that "if I can take it then its mine and anyone else should be grateful for whatever i left them..."
<SNIP> The WE I was refering to was the european settlers that became Americans. I am very glad that they did what they did. We may have made some mistakes here and there but as a whole we have been benevolent and kind.
Your point of view is so far divorced from reality as I know it that I'm simply going to leave off.
Good afternoon.
|
|
<SNIP> The WE I was refering to was the european settlers that became Americans. I am very glad that they did what they did. We may have made some mistakes here and there but as a whole we have been benevolent and kind.Your point of view is so far divorced from reality as I know it that I'm simply going to leave off.
Good afternoon.
I agree, this is the best Idea I have read so far.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm not going to get into my veiws on how much we helped the natives of this country but sufice it to say we have helped more than hurt.How exactly did we help the natives? Did the definition of "help" change and it now means slaughtering through traditional and biological warfare while taking advantage of those who were not killed? Please explain this. It sounds too close to white supremecists claims that white folks helped black people by enslaving them and "civilizing" them.
Well... Like I'm fond of saying:
"The Americas were a nice peaceful place before the Europeans arrived, just ask the Moundbuilders in Ohi- oh wait, they ceased to exist before the Europeans arrived? Well then we can ask the Hopewell- What? The Hopewell were wiped out? Well we can ask the Shawnee...The west didn't bring genocide to the Americas. The Westerners left some of them alive to complain."
[spoiler]No, our ancestors weren't saints. Judging by the comfort of 21st century morality they did some horrid things. Fortunately the American Government seems to be innocent of the charges of biologic warfare[/url]
The WE I was refering to was the european settlers that became Americans. I am very glad that they did what they did. We may have made some mistakes here and there but as a whole we have been benevolent and kind.jajaja
says the man with the gun after shoting someone in the belly "I am being kind, i could have blown your brains over your woman"being kind? :P
i know this was not done by all people in USA, so i don't encompass them all... but some mistakes?basically these people began a progrom of the native american...
I take your land and leave you a small piece for you ... so you know I am being kind....
I destroy your mediums of subsistence because it profits me more and I don't care you are going to die.......
I can see you took Monrow's politics to heart... people like you are he ones that make a good part of the world hate your country and your people, why a good part of the world see US as menace...
I know not everyone in there is like that... its just that kind of people with the idea that "if I can take it then its mine and anyone else should be grateful for whatever i left them..."
If the choice is live on sustance only, wipe my butt with a piece of bark, and weep when my friend's wife dies in childbirth; or have technology that increases the survival rates of people, that allows me to communicate all across the globe, to have governments and companies send people and items into space. Well, there really is no choice for me. I don't condone all of the individual actions taken in the history of my country, but I firmly believe that despite the negatives the world is better for the existance of my country.
Yes, that means I think it was ultimately better for humanity for the native americans to "lose". But seriously, do people think things would have been better if Russia had invaded the americas? Or if spain had spread its influence more strongly into north america? It wasn't like the people that the current U.S. citizens descended from were the only people in the world exploring, conquering, and claiming. If you are stuck in a stone age technology and the rest of the world is in the steel age, you pretty much going to lose one way or another, if not to england, denmark, and sweden, then to spain, portugal, or russia.
As for comparing early american settlers with the current illegal immigrants, remember that it wasn't an "immigration" so much as an "invasion". Those settlers had the legal backing of their home governments to claim the americas (most of the illegal immigrants are ironicly also descendents of european invaders just from a different region of europe). I guess if there was evidence that Mexico and other central and south american countries were giving legal permission to their residence to "invade" the U.S., then I could see the comparison. But without that, I fail to see the connection between these two very different immigration trends.
End Note: Whether or not cops do or do not racially profile ain other circumstances has no bearing on the legitimacy of the law.I have to disagree with this part of your statement. If there are already abuses of police power and a law is likely to facilitate more abuse then said law may not be the tool to fix the problem.
I think there might be some miscommunication in this particular case.
I did not argue that whether or not this law is likely to facilitate abuse of power isunimportant. I argued that whether or not it occurs elsewhere is unimportant.
Anything always can be found somewhere is a hyperbolic truth that means nothing.
Compare these two sentences:
If there are already abuses of police power and a law is likely to facilitate more abuse then said law may not be the tool to fix the problem.
If there are no abuses of police power but a law is likely to facilitate abuse then said law may not be the tool to fix the problem.
Both statements are true and both statements are applicable. But, the important point is whether or not the law facilitates the abuse. Whether or not whatever is gained is worth what is risked becomes important.
But, the existence of the abuse of police power is not in question. Stating that it occurs ("but it's not like the police don't already racially profile.") does not impact the discussion of this law. That is determined by this laws merits and shortcomings.
|
|
nor did I used such comparisons Pres man between colinist and inmigrants...
as you pointed colonist came to invade with permision of their countries (I have never understand how that legaly works... specially since the land was already from someone.. but would it serve in a cout to invade.. lets say Arizona? If i get permission from Mexico Goverment would I be able to take a piece of land and say tis mine? well taking out of context the army and weapons of US... it sounds patently ridiculous, but basically that was how those orders worked... just like corsaris with permissions to attack other ships... criminals to everyone eyes, except their country.,.. they still hung like criminals when they got them)
while immigrants go from one place to other to get a job... just like when people from US come to Mexico (Texas) just to grab it and run :P
....
my references were only about the fact of Tindal saying that historical the people of UDA had been benevolent and kind with native americans.
to make an historical references about "preferences" of powers that be...
I am sure Hiberia or Greece were not so fond of the idea of Rome being the big dog around.
its ridiculous to ask if we are happier if another superpwoer had won or occupied the place of USA... of course people in USA are happier that way :P, but to talk about the historical changes of different regimens taing preponderance is an exercise best elft for "historical-fiction"
Every big nation says that their way is the best... Rome under Cesar said so, France under Napoleon said so, japan under its emepror said so, Germany under Hitler said so.
While one is in the top, one calls the shots. And gets challenged by those wanting to go up.
Whatever, some economical and political theories say already that US is in decadence (which may be or may not... I agree with the idea that you are in the phase of Republic, decadent yes... in theory you would need to pass first to Empire to reinvigorate as a country before true decadence) and China is in the rise.
again, time will tell.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
If the choice is live on sustance only, wipe my butt with a piece of bark, and weep when my friend's wife dies in childbirth; or have technology that increases the survival rates of people, that allows me to communicate all across the globe, to have governments and companies send people and items into space...
I didn't realize that Americans from the year 2010 colonized America in 1492. Are you really suggesting that if it weren't for colonization than native Americans would be living exactly the same lifestyle they had 600 years ago? Are you also saying that technological advances would not have occurred if it weren't for colonization? Seriously?
gp
Just wanted to say that equating 8 years of Bush with 1+ years of Obama and calling them both failures of equal scale is an absurd reduction. I'm saying this calmly because there's no way for me to yell loud enough at the internet to fully express myself. Capslock won't do it, and I don't see any point in swearing. :)
Zo
While I feel the law should have been written differently, people's reactions have been utterly nonsensical.
Doesn't this empower police to haul people in anytime they see someone who may be illegal? The law's unfortunate phrasing about 'legal contact' has already been replaced, to require arrest or lawful detention BEFORE a police officer can enforce it.
When I've asked Arizona cops about people's reactions, they've universally said that the law doesn't change anything from their perspective. All it does is empower them to put illegals into the local jail instead of hauling them off to the Federal holding facility.
How often are the police likely to use that power? Rarely, since Arizona's overburdened county jails barely have room for the serious lawbreakers. They can't afford to start arresting people who aren't actively causing trouble.
What about racial profiling or targeting people because they don't speak English? While that is already a problem in Arizona (For example, Mexicans have their cars searched by Arizona DPS more often than other groups), there is no evidence that this law will "normalize" such behavior, as various civil rights groups contend. Instead, Arizona Police Departments are working with the state's Attorney General's Office to set clear limits on their officers' behavior. Paradoxically, by forcing this issue into public prominence, the law may actually reduce racial profiling.
I have heard about one instance of police harassment inspired by Arizona's new law: Mexican police in Sonora told a Mexican coworker of mine that they intend to harass Arizonans any way they can as retaliation for the law. I'm sure THAT will help matters...
nor did I used such comparisons Pres man between colinist and inmigrants...
as you pointed colonist came to invade with permision of their countries (I have never understand how that legaly works... specially since the land was already from someone.. but would it serve in a cout to invade.. lets say Arizona? If i get permission from Mexico Goverment would I be able to take a piece of land and say tis mine? well taking out of context the army and weapons of US... it sounds patently ridiculous, but basically that was how those orders worked... just like corsaris with permissions to attack other ships... criminals to everyone eyes, except their country.,.. they still hung like criminals when they got them)
Sorry if I wasn't as clear as I could have been, I had switched from a direct address of the quoted comments to a more general statement of the discussion of the thread.
Addressing your comments here, I would say the difference is if the country you are invading has diplomatic relations with the country that gave you permission, then you could claim that you are acting on behalf of your country of origin and should be treated as a prisoner of war. And yes, often in history prisoners of war were treated just as badly if not worse then everyday criminals. But theoretically if Mexico gave someone permission to claim land in Arizona, then U.S. could call that a declaration of war and go to out fighting for the land. The native americans could have gone to war with the colonial powers, and in fact they did try to do that a time or two.
I didn't realize that Americans from the year 2010 colonized America in 1492. Are you really suggesting that if it weren't for colonization than native Americans would be living exactly the same lifestyle they had 600 years ago? Are you also saying that technological advances would not have occurred if it weren't for colonization? Seriously?
I am suggesting that if colonization by those particular countries hadn't occurred that doesn't mean that the Native Americans would be living in some kind of primative bliss. They would have just be conquered by someone else. There may be some guilt about the actual treatment they recieved, but I honest don't believe that it would have turned out any better if someone else was around. Would the native americans have abandoned their primative ways and started studying science and building rockets if the colonists had never arrived? Possibly, but given their distance from most of the rest of the "civilized" world, and the necessasity to drastically transform their way of life, it is doubtful if it would have happened without outside influence (or brutal invasion, as the case maybe). One thing to keep in mind is that what happened to the native americans had been happening constantly in Europe for hundreds if not thousands of years. As the Shadows say, "Conflict breeds advancement."
If the choice is live on sustance only, wipe my butt with a piece of bark, and weep when my friend's wife dies in childbirth; or have technology that increases the survival rates of people, that allows me to communicate all across the globe, to have governments and companies send people and items into space...I didn't realize that Americans from the year 2010 colonized America in 1492. Are you really suggesting that if it weren't for colonization than native Americans would be living exactly the same lifestyle they had 600 years ago? Are you also saying that technological advances would not have occurred if it weren't for colonization? Seriously?
Didn't you know? All technological advancement is due to European imperialism, just as all economical development is due to American capitalism.
am suggesting that if colonization by those particular countries hadn't occurred that doesn't mean that the Native Americans would be living in some kind of primative bliss. They would have just be conquered by someone else. There may be some guilt about the actual treatment they recieved, but I honest don't believe that it would have turned out any better if someone else was around. Would the native americans have abandoned their primative ways and started studying science and building rockets if the colonists had never arrived? Possibly, but given their distance from most of the rest of the "civilized" world, and the necessasity to drastically transform their way of life, it is doubtful if it would have happened without outside influence (or brutal invasion, as the case maybe). One thing to keep in mind is that what happened to the native americans had been happening constantly in Europe for hundreds if not thousands of years. As the Shadows say, "Conflict breeds advancement."
Because if we didn't do it, someone else would have? Are you KIDDING me?
As for "conflict breeds advancement": Are you at all familiar with the history of western civ? Ever heard of this little thing called the Dark Ages? Care to guess what the common thread there was?
Seriously, I couldn't write better material if I tried. Where do you people come up with this stuff?
am suggesting that if colonization by those particular countries hadn't occurred that doesn't mean that the Native Americans would be living in some kind of primative bliss. They would have just be conquered by someone else. There may be some guilt about the actual treatment they recieved, but I honest don't believe that it would have turned out any better if someone else was around. Would the native americans have abandoned their primative ways and started studying science and building rockets if the colonists had never arrived? Possibly, but given their distance from most of the rest of the "civilized" world, and the necessasity to drastically transform their way of life, it is doubtful if it would have happened without outside influence (or brutal invasion, as the case maybe). One thing to keep in mind is that what happened to the native americans had been happening constantly in Europe for hundreds if not thousands of years. As the Shadows say, "Conflict breeds advancement."Because if we didn't do it, someone else would have? Are you KIDDING me?
As for "conflict breeds advancement": Are you at all familiar with the history of western civ? Ever heard of this little thing called the Dark Ages? Care to guess what the common thread there was?
Seriously, I couldn't write better material if I tried. Where do you people come up with this stuff?
Your right, the native americans were well on their way to landing on the moon before the colonists showed up and screwed up their space program. Sorry, I forgot about that, I mean they had all those spaceship landing fields in South America already built and everything. Damn colonists stopping human progress and all.
|
|
while immigrants go from one place to other to get a job... just like when people from US come to Mexico (Texas) just to grab it and run :P
Actually, if that paragon of virtue Santa Ana hadn't declared a dictatorship and dissolved the Republic of Mexico, Texas would probably still be part of Mexico.
And, lest you forget, a there were quite a few Mexican soldiers in the Republic of Texas army in 1836, and our first vice President was of Spanish descent.
Oh, and seriously, since Cinco de Mayo is tomorrow, um, if y'all hadn't overthrown and executed Maximilian, he may have been able to implement the reforms in education and property rights he so desperately wanted for the Mexican people (he was particularly distressed by the power of the Roman Catholic Church, which pretty much kept the masses ignorant and uneducated). And had he been able to do so, maybe people in Mexico wouldn't risk imprisonment or worse coming here illegally for a better life.
But then, it is far easier to cast your neighbor to the north in a negative light than to do something to make Mexico a better place, isn't it? Enjoy the festivities tomorrow, all Benito Juarez did for Mexico is make sure y'all continued to be little better than a third world nation.
:)
|
|
Your right, the native americans were well on their way to landing on the moon before the colonists showed up and screwed up their space program. Sorry, I forgot about that, I mean they had all those spaceship landing fields in South America already built and everything. Damn colonists stopping human progress and all.am suggesting that if colonization by those particular countries hadn't occurred that doesn't mean that the Native Americans would be living in some kind of primative bliss. They would have just be conquered by someone else. There may be some guilt about the actual treatment they recieved, but I honest don't believe that it would have turned out any better if someone else was around. Would the native americans have abandoned their primative ways and started studying science and building rockets if the colonists had never arrived? Possibly, but given their distance from most of the rest of the "civilized" world, and the necessasity to drastically transform their way of life, it is doubtful if it would have happened without outside influence (or brutal invasion, as the case maybe). One thing to keep in mind is that what happened to the native americans had been happening constantly in Europe for hundreds if not thousands of years. As the Shadows say, "Conflict breeds advancement."Because if we didn't do it, someone else would have? Are you KIDDING me?
As for "conflict breeds advancement": Are you at all familiar with the history of western civ? Ever heard of this little thing called the Dark Ages? Care to guess what the common thread there was?
Seriously, I couldn't write better material if I tried. Where do you people come up with this stuff?
Chances are the colonists would have been slaughtered by the indians had they not traded guns to them. The bows they were using were just as lethal, had a longer effective range, and a rate of fire 10x that of a traditional musket (not to mention they were more accurate to boot). So in reality, the colonists set them back, then plowed over them.
And at what point does progress take a back seat to respecting a people's right to their land? Whose to say the Mexicans aren't simply coming into our country to colonize us in the name of advancement? (they are advancing themselves anyway)
Your right, the native americans were well on their way to landing on the moon before the colonists showed up and screwed up their space program. Sorry, I forgot about that, I mean they had all those spaceship landing fields in South America already built and everything. Damn colonists stopping human progress and all.
My right...what? I think you forgot a noun in there someplace.
Anyway, you're right: That lack of twentieth century technology in fifteenth century North America really showed me. Good thing Europeans came along and violently conquered the indigenous people...you know, for their own good. Thanks for setting me straight!
<SNIP> And at what point does progress take a back seat to respecting a people's right to their land? Whose to say the Mexicans aren't simply coming into our country to colonize us in the name of advancement? (they are advancing themselves anyway)
Haven't you been paying attention? The cultures of brown people don't advance. They just wait around for white people to come kill them and take their stuff.
|
|
Actually, if that paragon of virtue Santa Ana hadn't declared a dictatorship and dissolved the Republic of Mexico, Texas would probably still be part of Mexico.
true, Santa Anna was worthless as president :p
but well he sold half the country or suffered the consequences of going to war :PAnd, lest you forget, a there were quite a few Mexican soldiers in the Republic of Texas army in 1836, and our first vice President was of Spanish descent.
there is always those who would desert... and criollos were all around the republic and in other parts, so i understand if he choose to stay there
Oh, and seriously, since Cinco de Mayo is tomorrow, um, if y'all hadn't overthrown and executed Maximilian, he may have been able to implement the reforms in education and property rights he so desperately wanted for the Mexican people (he was particularly distressed by the power of the Roman Catholic Church, which pretty much kept the masses ignorant and uneducated). And had he been able to do so, maybe people in Mexico wouldn't risk imprisonment or worse coming here illegally for a better life.
seriously?
I hate Benito Juarez... not for that exact reason.. but i hate him with a vengueance...Maximilian was a good man who was made to believe that the whole country (instead of a group) waited for him with open arms... and yes I do believe he would have been a good ruler...
about the 5 of May... well... no one likes when another country takes your country by force... that was not even a decisive victory... but a victory nonetheless, the first against the french... I remember we could actually win after France called for his armies back for his own wars in Europe.
But then, it is far easier to cast your neighbor to the north in a negative light than to do something to make Mexico a better place, isn't it? Enjoy the festivities tomorrow, all Benito Juarez did for Mexico is make sure y'all continued to be little better than a third world nation.
:)
considering He was planing to sell us to North America... aye... he has not my beneration like most of the country... i mean he was asked to cooperate direclty with Maximiliano... it was not an issue to keep foreigners out, but an issue of power as always.
and no
we work
5 de mayo is for shools.
|
|
<SNIP> And at what point does progress take a back seat to respecting a people's right to their land? Whose to say the Mexicans aren't simply coming into our country to colonize us in the name of advancement? (they are advancing themselves anyway)Haven't you been paying attention? The cultures of brown people don't advance. They just wait around for white people to come kill them and take their stuff.
no, those are the red people
the brown people actually mixed with the withthey didn't prospere but lived a bit better...
If the choice is live on sustance only, wipe my butt with a piece of bark, and weep when my friend's wife dies in childbirth; or have technology that increases the survival rates of people, that allows me to communicate all across the globe, to have governments and companies send people and items into space...I didn't realize that Americans from the year 2010 colonized America in 1492. Are you really suggesting that if it weren't for colonization than native Americans would be living exactly the same lifestyle they had 600 years ago? Are you also saying that technological advances would not have occurred if it weren't for colonization? Seriously?
That is exactly my point Tarren,
It may not be a popular point but IF it wasn't for colonization the native peoples would have continued the way they had for roughly 1000 years. They had no written language, that was introduced by the settlers,they had a poor system of currency called wampum. By the standards of any civilization they were a stagnat people. They were not progressing because there was no dramatic change for them to adapt to. The settlers first introduced horses to the natives and iron work and so many other advances that the Politically correct revisionist can't stand.Just as a clarification I am referring to the noth american tribes not the central american civilizations. Also of note I keep referring to the earlier american settlers not the whites because the early settlers had indentured servants of all colors mostly white. People love to look at our early history with todays politically correct lenses firmly in place and thats an unfair assesment.
We must learn from history both the good but mostly the bad. Did you know that a common present back in world war 2 was the boiled skull of a japaneses solider. They didnt do it to german soliders because they were white but the jappanese were not given that consideration.
History is a wonderful subject that I love investigating as a hobby but I don't stop at just the high school level I enjoy reading the accounts of the people that were there. If you have never read the life stories of actual slaves from their perspective or the journals from the soliders involved in the spanish american war or any of the other times of intrest your missing alot of great stuff. The problem comes when you can't get past your modern views and try to understand the people that were living it at the time instead of condemming all previous peoples as "racist,hatefull biggotted" or any other label that makes us today feel so morally supperior.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
condemming all previous peoples as "racist,hatefull biggotted" ...
I didn't call anyone racist, hateful, or bigoted, but, if I had, I would have spelled it right.
I have no doubt that interaction between cultures can have positive effects on scientific progress. Without it, the Europeans would not have received the writing systems used today, it would have taken longer to develop what is now called 'western' medicine, progress would have been limited due to the lack of paper to make books, etc. Likewise, today, multicultural exchanges offer us the opportunity to learn different ways of living that have the potential to save us from rampant consumerism.
What I was objecting to in pres man's post was the setting up of a meeting between primitive Native Americans and European colonizers with cell phone technology. That would be a novel worthy of Harry Turtledove and is entirely fictional. Such a comparison is convenient because it emphasizes 'their' negative -- wipes bum with bark, poor medical care -- and 'our' positive -- technological superiority, global communication, space travel, etc.
He suggests that colonization, with all its negative consequences, is necessary for cultural exchange. I don't believe it is.
While cultural exchange and conflict may quite often occur side-by-side, there are many examples of nations sharing technology without destroying each other.