Ironhold, your point is important.  If I were George Bush, I might devise a plan whereby certified McDonalds, Taco Bell, Carl Jr. etc...,  truck drivers were to replace those dangerous coyotes (who deserve no better than Road Runner on whom to vent their venal intentions).

Dec 6, 2010 -- 12:02AM, Aka_me wrote:

Dec 2, 2010 -- 10:05PM, Ironhold wrote:

In other words, you have no blinkin' clue how the US legal system works or the kinds of trade-offs that must be made by law enforcement at all levels in order to keep the peace, right wrongs, and safeguard the Constitution.

remind me again how law enforcement decides to which laws are most important?

remind me again how careful law enforcement verifies they have the correct person/house?

remind me again how ONLY the "important" stuff ends up in court?

remind me again how the government PRIORITIZES "important" topics?

remind me again how the government knows how "to do the right thing"?

 

anyone proclaiming to "understand the system" needs to seek immediate professional help.

Please tell me why I should even read a single one of those links when you still refuse to acknowledge the prospect of being wrong about this issue?

Dec 6, 2010 -- 12:02AM, Aka_me wrote:

remind me again how careful law enforcement verifies they have the correct person/house?

I've read a few of the incident reports that they've done up.

Most of those incidents can be attributed to incompetence and lack of training, something that's been a known problem nation-wide for quite some time.

And because you are effectively proposing having two wrongs make a right, a third party might be forgiven for questioning your senses or your morals.

edit - read a few more.

1. Police have difficulties dealing with raves because, like other large gatherings, they virtually never know what to expect and information about what's going on is frequently insufficient. This is another known concern that is slowly being addressed.

2. A lot of the other examples I'm seeing also indicate a mix of stupidity and insufficient training.

Dec 6, 2010 -- 12:02AM, Aka_me wrote:

remind me again how the government PRIORITIZES "important" topics?

*headdesk*

Yet again, you've linked to an irrelevant article.

Pretty much all states require that those who wish to participate in certain career fields obtain licenses in order to practice, often because there are examinations in place to prove that you know just what you're doing. Not only does this help protect the citizenry from malpractice, it's also a few extra dollars in the state coffers.

Furthermore, the blurb doesn't state if the plaintiff actually underwent any vocational training for interior design. If not, then I have no sympathy; interior design isn't exactly something that you can just leap into.

Dec 6, 2010 -- 5:26PM, Aka_me wrote:

many police in Arizona don't want to be performing the FEDERAL task of immigration.

I saw them cite a report issued in SLC, but nothing from Arizona itself; instead, vague assertions were made about cops "nationwide."

Furthermore, the person who did the article failed to note one key aspect of the law: police can only ask about a person's immigration status if they're going after that person for another offense.

They can't simply walk around town stopping whoever they meet; they would have to wait until someone is being questioned in regards to another offense. IE, if someone was loitering (which is still a crime in many areas) or was drunk in public.

It's kinda like how many states have made driving w/o insurance or driving w/o a license illegal, but the cops can't actually ask people about that unless they've been pulled over for either a traffic violation or an inspection.

As it is, the main reason why Arizona passed the law in question was to get the government's attention; the explicitly stated reasoning was that even though enforcing immigration is a federal matter, the federal government has shirked their duties in the matter and so the state is having to pick up the slack. Given the hype generated by the law, I'd say it's largely worked.

"the people" decide whether polygamy is a priority for enforcement or not.

...and thus far, they've decided that it isn't.

Texas CPS botched the Eldorado Raid so badly that I don't anticipate anyone else in Texas sanctioning another large-scale effort; we'll most likely only be seeing case-by-case interventions.

Utah is believed to have so many families living within the state boundaries that there's no way on Earth the state, county, & local law enforcement offices will be able to cope with them all; again, we're maybe talking case-by-case.

California is too mired in its other crises to really care right now, as are Arizona and Nevada. New Mexico doesn't seem to be motivated enough to bother, and aside from anti-Mormon literature & questionable media attention the rest of the nation treats it as a non-issue.

show me where law enforcement has ANY right to sit around doing what they prefer over what the laws say?

That just shows me you haven't been following the news as closely as you want us to believe.

Earlier on in the year, a sheriff (IIRC up near Chicago) made national news when he ordered his men to start ignoring orders to assist with evictions; he'd seen too many cases in which people were unjustly being evicted (such as renters who were getting kicked out because the landlord was delinquent) and refused to participate in such events unless the people seeking assistance with the evictions had their junk in order.