So...

Next time these Fox and Friends' hosts get pulled over by a cop, and the officer says to them, "Make sure you stay here, or I'm going to shoot you." let's see how fast they sue after those words tumble from an officer's mouth.

Even if these folks are in the country illegally, they still have rights. That's what makes this country great after all. Isn't it?

You are right Magnolialover.

It's about human rights.

It's so easy for the squeeky clean ultra-authoritarians to judge the actions of those who are desperate and unfortunate.

KillMeade the Clown

So IF Killmeade gets pulled over while Steve Douchey (as in feminine product) is fellatin' him, can the Officer shoot him if he comes back to the car and Douchey stops Fellatin'. These guys are such tool boxes. They really need to put on the red rubber nose and walk around the set with that bicyle horn clowns use.

I KNOW (THESE 3) WELL....

BECAUSE I GREW UP AS A RACIST IN TEXAS.

I was a terrible, disgusting, Racist. We would joke around like (These 3) are doing all the time. Their reporting behaviors on this story reminded me of those days when I would act that way.

Racism is alive and well at Fox News. Someone should send (These 3) some White Hoods and enlist them in the local KKK.

The new Escalation in Iraq contains large numbers of brave troops similar to these 14 Mexicans and other people of color. They are proudly fighting this God Forsaken War that Fox News is so proudly supporting.

There are posters here that are still Sucking Up on that giant GOP Popsicle. I hope the Kennedy Legislation or Other Efforts can stop the Escalation. Because people of all colors are dying in VAIN.

Additional Comment.....

I would not be surprised if Bush leads us to war with Iran and Syria.

No evidence

There is no evidence that the police officer threatened to shoot anyone, that is hearsay - and the ACLU has no proof.........so that should be off the table for discussion.

The fact that this driver was pulled over for a traffic violation and found 14 people in the van with no ID and spoke no English, was more than enough suspicion for the officer to take them to ICE. He did the right thing.

The ACLU is on the wrong side, again. If they had their way we would have no borders securing this country.

I think...

You're wrong about the ACLU. They protect and defend the Constitution of the US. Which is more than I can say for some of the politicians who made an oath to do the same. I don't believe that they want open borders, that's just a broad and open general statement from you that has no merit whatsoever. It sounds like you're trying to set up the ACLU as a political strawman in this case.

I don't know the particulars about this case, but as so often right wingers like to tell me, "If the officer in this case has done nothing wrong, he's got nothing to worry about." He has been cleared by his troop, and this will probably not go anywhere. But if there is video of the trooper telling the driver and occupants of the vehicle that he will shoot them if they try to get away, then there is a good case. Don't you think? I wonder how fast that video got shredded.

Remember, the ACLU protects your rights just as well as everyone else's.

ACLU

The ACLU is no strawman here, they filed the lawsuit and are perfectly fair game for discussion.

As far as I know there is no video showing this officer threatened to shoot anyone - that is the ACLU's version to suit their litigation.

We have a hideous illegal immigration problem in this country, aided and abetted by this administration. What that officer did was not arrest them or anything, he merely instructed them to the officials at ICE so they could do their work. Nobody's rights were violated in any way - that's ridiculous.

video is not the only proof, and in fact how would you know

what evidence was or was not available. And if a video or other recording or outside witness DOES surface, we can count on your not paying attention to it and to still repete your lies.

yes but I think the point is...

That Kilmeade was responding to it as if it were true...it seems that mmfa takes issue with his response and is not necessarily implying that the events occurred as stated.

Yep...

Most of the discussion is off-topic. MMFA's only point seems to be criticism of the rather gleeful discussion of the officer's shooting remarks.

you are on target

yes, MMFA and I and those of us who value life are very distressed at the promotion of the idea that cops as terrorists as somehow admirable.

What are you talking about

There was no one disputing if the trooper said he would shoot the people. Where are you getting this extra information. The people at Fox are celebrating this officer for threating to kill the driver for a traffic stop. As far as your suspicions go please look up and read the RI statute before making incorrect assumptions.

Lawsuit just filed

There is no proof, only the press release from the ACLU.......and I don't take what they feed us as truth unless proven. You can, I don't.

where is it denied

Did the officer even deny he threatened to shoot them? I dont see where he did.

your illogic is astounding

you 'won't accept' a brown or 'liberal' person's statement until it is 'proven', and even then you continue to wail and moan, but some cop's self-serving statements are gospel to you.

No......

"As far as your suspicions go please look up and read the RI statute before making incorrect assumptions"

**********************

You call it racial profiling, I did not nor agree that it was. It was an officer who suspected people were in this country illegally and acted as such by getting ICE involved.

Are you serious?

Please tell me other than the race of the people in the van did the officer use to start questioning the people? I'll answer for you. NOTHING. If they were white people in the van do you think he would have asked them for identification?

Exactly.

If it was a van full of blonde cheerleaders would the police have asked for identification after the other information checked out?

Tom...

I know of many instances where our Legal fellow American Citizens are contacted by law enforcement such as in this instance.

Their very lives are abused, sometimes threatened and sometimes killed.

Sometimes they are detained simply because they were driving under the influence of not being White.

I'm strongly in disagreement with your take on the issue. If you were a person of color with the experiences of same, you perhaps might have a different opinion on this issue.

But I'm not sure if you even care at all about your fellow Americans of different races.

The ACLU defends some real scumbags

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Oliver North, the Christian Coalition, and NAMBLA....that aforementioned group are indeed the lowest of the low scumbags on the planet. But, thank God the ACLU exists and defends the constitution.

I agree with most of your post

However, you need to do your homework on the NAMBLA case.

The ACLU was not defending the dirtbags at NAMBLA. They were defending the legal principle at stake in the case. NAMBLA just happened to be the defendants of the suit.

There's way too much to the case for me to go into detail here. Find a decent source and read about it. You'll see what I mean.

I'm no fan of the ACLU generally. But you're way off base on the NAMBLA thing.

changed my mind

Sorry, this is off-topic, but I figured most people won't go to the trouble of educating themselves. So here you go:

People always trot out the old NAMBLA thing when they talk about the ACLU, but they usually know very little about it. Again, I've often said that I'm generally not a fan of the ACLU so I have nothing to gain by defending them.

Here are the facts of the case. A 10 year old boy was tortured and murdered by two men, two very twisted individuals. The men were caught, tried, convicted and sentenced. They are going to be spending a nice, long, uncomfortable time in jail. (Most convicts HATE child molesters.) Furthermore, the parents of the victim filed a civil lawsuit against the two men and won a $200 million verdict. (Ah, those crazy trial lawyers!) But then the parents went a step further by suing NAMBLA. As if it's NAMBLA's fault the men did what they did.

That would be like, say...suing the Republican Party after anti-abortionist James Kopp shot and killed Dr. Barnett Slepian. It's Kopp's fault, not the Republican Party's, right? Just as it's the two perpetrators' fault, not NAMBLA's.

To my knowledge NAMBLA's agenda, vile though it may be, does NOT include violence and murder. It was wrong of the parents to sue NAMBLA and right of the ACLU to come to their defense in this manner. In fact, when the ACLU asked the parents' lawyers to produce any literature or web page that advocated what those guys did, the parents admitted there wasn't any. They just wanted money.

The ACLU are not defending the right of men to rape and kill little boys, the men were duly convicted of crimes and will most likely die in jail. The ACLU are also not defending the message that NAMBLA puts out. What they are doing is defending a fundamental right, the right to advocate a change in the laws (laws which, in this instance, are not likely to be changed), against an aggressive and wrongful lawsuit. The ACLU is not defending NAMBLA, they are defending the legal principle.

If the parents win, that sets a precedent that says I can sue the NRA if my wife gets shot by a mugger. I can sue AAA if I have an accident with an SUV. As I hope you can see, the very idea is ridiculous.

So you can hate on NAMBLA all you want; I'm right there with you! But don't go crapping on the ACLU for defending common sense and United States law.

SORRY FOR OFF-TOPIC-ness

I don't think that was off topic

Part of the reason conservatives claim to fight the ACLU is for reasons like this case. I think the ACLU does a good job of separating the defendant from the case. This shows a great point that we may not like who is being defended but everyone deserves a defense. Especially when they have not done something wrong.

Hearsay?

Look up the definition and rules of hearsay. I suspect your understanding of the term is mistaken. If one of those present were to testify as to the officer's "shoot" remarks, that would not be hearsay.

Disagree.

RI ACLU executive director Steven Brown said today: “Since the license and registration papers of the van’s driver were valid and there was never any suggestion of criminal activity, the questioning and detention of the passengers was clearly based on one element: their ethnic appearance. This is the essence of racial profiling. That State Police officials have unequivocally supported these actions demonstrates the need for legislation to restrict these problematic law enforcement practices.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Just why did the state troopers ask for identification from the other people in the van? What was the basis of that search? Curiosity? In order to perform a search, there needs to be a reason.

If the reason for the search is illegal or invalid as this reason seems to be in this case, the ACLU are correct to make sure the law is followed and rights are protected.

Win or lose, I am glad the ACLU stands up to power.

ACLU Controls The Borders?

If George Bush's administration had done a competent job of policing and securing our borders, the ACLU probably wouldn't have opportunites like this to shove our faces in our own pile of stupidity.

A new terrorist attack on American soil will come from across a border, most likley, and ours are porous. I hear people bitching about the ACLU and Liberal Demos being at the root of illegal immigration and nothing could be farther from the truth.

George Bush has had 6 years to address the problem and a Republican-controlled Senate and HOR's to get the job done and, in usual style, has screwed it up beyond belief.

I cannot understand how any logical-thinking person is still supporting this band of elitist nincompoops!

Just when you think it couldn't get any worse...

These blabbering idiots at Fox continue on with their racist tirades. And before any of you right wing crazies start to blow your tops please read the following link.

[link to www.riaclu.org]

The driver was a citizen with a valid id. So other than ticketing the driver for a traffic violation the trooper had nothing to go off of than noticing the people in the van were Latino.

So now read this link [link to www.rilin.state.ri.us]

Unless there was an APB for a group of Mexicans who had done something wrong this should be a slam dunk. The officer saw a large group of people and because of their race determined that there was something wrong.

Now the other issue is while in the US everyone has constitutional rights. Now if the people in the van had all ran away when pulled over the police officer would have had a right to start asking for ID because he would not have been making an assumption based on his race.

I really love the way the Fox and Fiends tried to make it look like the driver gave false ID. They better enjoy the money they make now cause they have sold their souls to the devil.

ID

This is about a group of 14 people in a van who had no ID to identify themselves and when asked for other citizenship validation, they had nothing. They were not arrested, or harassed, or violated in any way. They were sent to ICE for documentation.

The question needs to be asked why were they alledgedly in this country illegally? Why were they breaking our laws regarding that? That is where your focus, and the ACLU's, should be. Not on some officer who was looking out for his fellow citizens.

again you have no clue

what did or did not really go on there. And unless you can prove you were there then you constant drum-beat of Cartman-like 'RESPECT MY ATHORITY' is old tired and smelly.

Clueless

When the ACLU files a lawsuit, it is incumbent upon them to prove.......not the other way around.

(gnat)

It should be easy to prove

The ACLU should have an easy time proving the office violated the law he swore to uphold. But I have a question for you Tommy.

If the officer threatened the driver in the manner in which Fox is reporting do you think that was appropriate? Because, really that is the main point of this MM article.

H-Man

That is a hypothetical. And not proven. What if this and what if that? The point is the lawsuit is invalid, in my opinion, as it is presented now.

As for their race, that is irrelevant to me - their illegality and lack of identification is what is important.

But let me ask you a hypothetical. If these were white people in this van and were treated the same way, do you think the ACLU would be filing a lawsuit? Or would you be crying discrimination?

This is about illegals in this country.

I'll be the bigger man

I knew you would say it is "hypothetical" and not answer the question. But I will answer your questions.

1. If the driver of the van was threatened that he would be shot if someone left the van then yes I think the ACLU would take that case. In fact I would assume that the driver "Thomas Chabot" is not Mexican and they are representing him too.

2. I don't think white people would have been treated the same way for this type of scenario. But given a scenario that could occur such as white people in a van in a non-white neighborhood known for drugs. I would yell just as hard that there was not a reasonable expectation the passengers were engaged in anything illegal.

When you base things on race alone you hurt the innocent people who are of the same race. But I answered your question so you should answer mine. But I know you won't so I will change my question. Do you think it would be right for any officer to threaten the driver of a van that possibly had illegal immigrants in it.

My Bad

In my haste to prove Tommy wrong I erroneously placed the name of the officer vs the driver. Sorry I messed that one up. Thankfully Rusty found an ACLU story where they were defending white people.

It is about illegals...

as in illegal search and seizure. And sure, it's up to the ACLU to prove it's assertions. That doesn't mean it's a non case. I am not aware of the ACLU having a reputation for filing frivolous lawsuits and the idea that they are is the vibe I get from your statements about them. I'd say you need to prove that position, and stop with the ignore the civil rights because they were illegals gig. Laws are not meant to be broken, if you don't think they are good laws then do the legal thing and push your congressman to change them instead of going around them when it suits your purposes.

Your hypothetical is exactly wrong

The race is the CRUX of the buscuit here. A better question is would there have BEEN any search had they been white, you know and I know there wouldnt have been. So the ACLU would have had no reason for a lawsuit. Your knee jerk reaction that there was no basis for a lawsuit itself has no basis. You got your degree in constitutional law WHERE again? Oh you dont have one? Gee what a shock, I guess that makes the lawyers at the ACLU who DO have law degrees just a bit more credible about what does and what doesnt constitute a valid lawsuit.

No

The ACLU lawyer's? Please forgive me if I don't automatically take their credibility as gospel. You are more than free to do so, I do not.

The ACLU files ridiculous lawsuits all the time (like removing the cross on the LA county seal). We will see where this ends up, but they have no proof the officer said the passengers would be shot, and that seems to be the CRUX of their flimsy, silly lawsuit against a police officer doing his job as a public servant.

Incorrect

The officer's alleged threat, while it is a juicy detail, does not appear to be relevant to the actual bases of the suit, which are violations of the state racial profiling statute and the constitutional prohibitions on discrimination and unreasonable searches and seizures.

Oh, I get it

The ACLU only included it to be inflammatory.

You'd have to ask them

All I'm doing is correcting your mistake about the alleged threat being the "CRUX" of the lawsuit.

No mistake

That is your interpretation of the lawsuit. If it was irrelevant to the case it needn't be included in the lawsuit. The ACLU knows exactly what it's doing, and I suspect you do too.

Where

do you get the idea that the alleged threat is part of the lawsuit? It was reported in the news media, and is in the ACLU's press release, but as far as I know the lawsuit itself is not available to the public. If you know where to read it online, I would appreciate if you could provide a link.

You may be right

I am not sure if it's included in the actual lawsuit, my apologies if that assumption is incorrect. But the reason behind it in their press release was for the press' and the public's consumption - or public opinion. But it may not prove out to be what they intended as I suspect the reasonable public sees this for what it is, and realize the lawsuit is frivolous and baseless.

What

makes you say it is baseless? Are you privy to evidence that has been unreported?

Why do you think it is frivoulous

Can you give reasons you believe the lawsuit is frivolous? After reading the RI statute what part of what the officer did do you believe was not based on the race of the occupants. Even Jeter2 finally admitted that the officer probably broke the law as it is currently defined. But you offer nothing. No reasons. You are just not adding to the debate.

Because

No rights were violated, in my opinion. These 14 people were directed to ICE, which is where immigration laws and matters are to be addressed. These people had no ID and no citizenship verification whatsoever. They were not harassed, searched, nothing was seized......I guess we will have to wait until the lawsuit is settled, for us to try the case is pointless.

It's a shame that taxpayer money and time in R.I. has to go in tackling the ACLU and their unlimited funds with this lawsuit.

It's a start

Wow an answer. I think their rights were violated since RI has a law that states race can not be a part of the determination of whether a crime is being committed. There was no legitimate reason to ask the passengers of the vehicle for identification. Furthermore, not having identification is not against the law either. There was no reason (other than the race of the occupants) for the officer to assume they were breaking the law. Since RI has a law against this he was in the wrong. You may disagree with the law but you have to admit that as it is written the officer broke it.

Yeah

Its a shame that Tommy isnt the final arbiter on what rights we do or dont have in this country. Shame on the ACLU for disagreeing with the little decider and HIS take on who has what rights.

Ignorance

...the ACLU and their unlimited funds...

That is a very ignorant statement. State chapters of the ACLU, especially in small states like RI, have very limited funds and resources. That's why they turn down most cases that are brought to them, and pursue only the ones that seem most meritorious. The ACLU simply doesn't have the money to file frivolous lawsuits.

You seem to have learned everything you think you know about the ACLU from extremist right-wing pundits like O'Reilly and Weiner, who to my knowledge have never said a truthful word about the ACLU. You should learn to think for yourself.

As for the taxpayers of Rhode Island, I suspect that they are not upset by the ACLU helping to enforce the racial profiling law that they chose to have put on the books.

Frivolous? Baseless?

"the lawsuit is frivolous and baseless." --Tommy

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What legal basis do you have to make such a statement?

So far you have only weakly (and mootly) attacked the peripheral argument about whether or not a threat was made. Your argument concerning why the search was performed is wildly insufficient. Until you (or the trooper for that matter) can explain the valid reason for the search, you should not be so apparently reflexive in your obvious disdain for the ACLU.

Ah no

Do you know ANYTHING at ALL about the law. It goes to evidence of bias. Is this the normal treatment RI troopers give to speeders? Man you are weak today. Step up your game tommy, these arguments are worthless. Every argument you have made so far boils down to WWWAAAAHHHHH I dont like the ACLU, and I dont like anyone telling cops they need to follow established law I dont believe in. Better regroup, its sad.

Oh I understand

Why listen to people with DEGREES in constitutional law when we can take the rantings of GUY on a WEBSITE as gospel instead. Your expertise in constitutional law came from where? It must have come by osmosis since your reading comprehension is relatively poor. The basis of the lawsuit is that his actions contradicted RI LAW on racial profiling. What you THINK about the ACLU's position on their lawsuit about the cross on a City seal means absolutly NOTHING, no judge has EVER said it was frivolous or without merit. You just dont like their take on the issue it IS a constitutional issue. Again exactly WHAT is your expertise on constitutional law? Let me take a wild guess and say it is NON-EXISTANT. Now feel free to say how much you disagree with RI law or how much you think the trooper was justified Those are valid arguments however trying to tell me how much more YOU know about the law than the ACLU, which is your contention when you claim their lawsuit is without merit, is laughable delusion.

Hilarious

"But let me ask you a hypothetical. If these were white people in this van and were treated the same way, do you think the ACLU would be filing a lawsuit? Or would you be crying discrimination?" --Tommy

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I think you inadvertantly hit the nail on the head. The point is that your example would NEVER happen to white guys. These 14 guys were treated like this because of their race/ethnicity! Thus violating the anti-profiling law.

If not, you just have to tell me what reason the troopers had to suspect these were illegals? This is really pretty simple.

I'll say it again

Please read the statute here [link to www.rilin.state.ri.us]

First the police are sworn to uphold the laws of their state whether they like them or not. This statute specifically says the officer can not use race as part of his determination of a crime during a traffic stop.

Furthermore, if these people were not Mexican the office r would not have asked them for ID. This was a simple traffic stop. I have been in numerous traffic stops as a passenger and I have not once been asked for an ID as the passenger. Racial profiling is wrong and should not be tolerated. I hope the officer at some point is punished for his actions.

Another hypothetical

Since you are dealing in them. If this officer had let these 14 people, with no ID, drive off - and down the road it was revealed that they committed crimes, or worse yet, some act of terrorism because they failed to enter this country legally.........would you be so quick to condemn the officer then?

He was perfectly within his rights to hand these 14 people to the proper authorities. He did nothing to violate any of their rights.

Again though...

Have you ever been a passenger in a traffic stop? I have as well as others on here, and I have never been asked for an ID either.

What kind of crime do you suppose the 14 latino people in the van the officer assumed they committed? Ah yes, being illegal. Why? Because they were dark skinned. That's the only thing he had to go on, and that is racial profiling don't you think?

most likely,

they were on their way to the construction site (oops! I just profiled!). But hey, let's not consider why the construction company pads their wallets by using illegal labor and instead just focus on these really evil illegal criminals.

magnolia,

This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Yes a van full of Hispanics is going to send up a RED FLAG. We have an ILLEGAL alien problem in this country. So yes it's a form of profiling. Is it fair? Well until the problem subsides I think it could be argued that it might be..

The same would hold true for a van full of Middle Eastern occupants. 9/11 was carried out by a SPECIFIC group and the chances that we could be attacked again is a reality. What do we do? IF we don't profile, let the occupants go, we may live to regret that decision IF later on we learn they were involved in an act of terrorism.

Better safe than sorry? Or civil rights? Tough call sometimes....

It doesn't matter

whether racial profiling is fair or not. Rhode Island law prohibits it.

Hey Rusty,

I understand there is a law, and it was likely enacted to PROTECT minorities from being stopped for nothing more than their race or ethnicity.

My POINT was that sometimes laws meant to protect civil rights can backfire, OR handcuff the police in stopping potential law breakers. And yes ILLEGAL aliens are breaking a law.

FOURTEEN in a van does send up a red flag. Perhaps that RI law should be re-visited. It's a matter of common sense. Laws should NOT work against other laws.

J2

Hypothetical: the RI trooper stops a Bentley with two tuxedo-clad gentlemen and their diamond-draped girlfriends inside, because the driver failed to signal a lane change. Would it be appropriate for the trooper to demand that the occupants of the Bentley prove they did not underreport their income to the IRS last year? Why or why not? Why is that situation different from the one at hand? Or is it?

Poor analogy

To compare the possible threat to our security from those residing in this country illegally to some fat cat not paying the IRS is ridiculous. The threats posed from the apples vs. oranges analogy is worlds apart.

Tommy

I understand that you lack the analytical and cognitive skills to discuss legal hypotheticals. I was addressing it to J2.

That's fine

I was simply correcting your misuse of an analogy.

Perhaps

if J2 or someone else responds you will see why the hypothetical is relevant. I look forward to discussing it with anyone who has the necessary tools.

Fine, ignore me.

One wonders why you have been engaging me at all on this topic?

Or

In other words, or let me say what you really mean - you would only rather discuss this with people who agree with your conclusions on this lawsuit. I get it.

Makes it alot easier, right?

Why

do you say J2 would agree with my conclusions?

You would.......

.......have to ask jeter2 that question. If he agrees with your conclusions, then he and I disagree.

It's all good.

Wow! Funny!

Tommy, when you are cornered, your reasoning becomes side-splittingly elyptical.

Rusty made a good analogy despite your best efforts to convince otherwise. I think it would be sporting of you to at least try to have an open-mind here and answer the question. You simply appear to be acting contrary without any real reasonable basis for your opinion.

Cornered?

And I gave you more credit for reasonable debate than that. I have answered the questions here over and over.........yet those that disagree want me to agree with them.

Sorry. Find someone with more necessary tools to discuss this.

Yes, cornered.

I just think mentioning the ACLU makes you forget reason and rationality for a little while. It's like some sort of Pavlovian response or reflex. Maybe you will be back to your old self tomorrow.

Got to go for now. Peace.

open

It's a new day and I am still as irrational as yesterday. Sorry.

The point is that you see it as cornered, I see as defending my opinions and many view that as stubborn and irrational because they don't agree. Oh well. Look, I change my mind often on things and have no problem admitting when I have been wrong. On this case, there has been no opinion that warrants me to change mine. That is the way I see it, if you see as being cornered, that's your business.

Some want to make me out a racist and throw that charge out to marginalize my opinion and render it skewed on that basis. That is their right, they are wrong. This is not about race at all to me, it is about the costs, dangers and implications of illegal immigration in this country.

Differences of opinion is what makes this website so interesting and educational for me. I am opinionated and stubborn, but I am not alone - just from a different perspective than most. If that makes me a troll in some people's minds, that is their view.

I am here to initiate dialogue and express my opinions......but only my opinions. Some agree, some disagree. We all have that right.

Hey Look Tommy's Back.

Maybe you will answer a question or two. Oh wait you never seem to want to do that. I'll answer for Rusty using Tommy speak. Your use of apples and oranges is hypothetical. It is my opinion the analogy is good. I will also say several other things that don't mean anything and if you ask me a question I will respond with a question and never answer.

bah

Tom...

Why can’t you see the broader view and effects of the issue? Your just focused on you own White reality. You don’t seem to give a hoot about your fellow Americans of other races?

I know of many instances where our Legal fellow American Citizens are contacted by law enforcement for driving with the wrong color skin.

Their very lives are abused, sometimes threatened and sometimes they are killed.

You don’t know this? They are detained simply because they were driving under the influence of not being White.

I'm strongly in disagreement with your take on this issue. I wish I could transform you into a person of color with the experiences of same.

You perhaps might have a different opinion on this issue and it would be poetic justice.

I'm not sure if you care at all about your fellow Americans of different races. Do you Care?

....

If none of them had ID would they be directed to DHS? Would a threat be made that they be shot if they try to leave? How do we know for sure that they aren't illegal? Not all illiegal immigrants are dark skinned with a hispanic accent.

Tommy, I rarely agree with you, but I more often than not respspect your opinion because most of the time you do make a point. I think you are way off on this specific issue.

Hey Rusty,

Sorry I couldn't get back here sooner, they actually require me to do a bit of work around here ;-)

I gotta tell ya I took a glance at your analogy awhile ago and came up with the SAME conclusion as Tommy...apples & oranges, BUT just re-read it now and I think I get your point

Do we assume because we've got two wealthy guys, one the owner of a Bently, each with a diamond draped lady on their arms they MUST be cheating on their taxes? After all, rich guys have been known to fudge it.

Well Rusty I think it's a tad weak, BUT it's NOT apples & oranges.

More like tangerines & oranges ;-)

Jeter

With all due respect, I can't agree with you. In order for the analogy to be apt you have to carry it to some reasonable end and it must have similar seriousness.

Some rich guy skating on his taxes is far less dangerous to the public at large than the potential ramifications of people entering this country illegally for unknown reasons - this is the reason the officer directed the people to another agency, ICE, for verification. That is the reason I feel the analogy is inadequate.

No basis

"Some rich guy skating on his taxes is far less dangerous to the public at large than the potential ramifications of people entering this country illegally for unknown reasons" --Tommy

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have not seen any evidence that suggests potential danger of the 14 illegal immigrants had anything whatsoever to do with the actions of the officer just as getting the tax cheats would likely be. Your objection to the analogy is apparently completely irrelevant.

So then

Because they are poor and hispanic they are much more likely to be dangerous felons? Yeah we get where you are coming from. Where do you get your sheets pressed for your meetings?

Hey Tommy,

I'm home now [got Chris Matthews on in the background].

Rusty's analogy is WEAK for the very reasons you stated. But I think the point he was attempting to convey was that just because SOME Hispanics are here illegally that doesn't mean we should assume every van full of Hispanics are Illegal. Just the same as just because SOME wealthy folks have been prone to cheating the IRS, not all wealthy people should be assumed to be tax cheats.

It doesn't change my mind about needing to use profiling in certain [serious] situations, BUT as you know we're outnumbered here, so we're not gonna change anyones mind ;-)

Please define serious?

What serious types of situations do you believe people should be racially profiled for? Also, which people would you say should be allowed to be targeted? And finally what do you think the limits (if any) of that targeting should be?

H-Man,

Situation: elevated terror warning/alert

Which people: [primarily] Middle-Eastern men

While there's always the chance that the next group of terrorists could be blonde-haired Swedes, I do believe that we must first begin by profiling the more obvious group to carry out an attack.

Offending a few people by profiling in an attempt to assure our nations safety is a small inconvenience considering it could save MANY lives.

It's common sense & logical.

Racial profiling

Do you know what the basic racial profile is for a serial killer? A white male with a middle class job. I suppose it would be ok for you if they stopped all white males when there is an active serial killer in the state and take them in for questioning? Back to Rusty's analogy which I think was very apt, a good profile for someone that cheats on his taxes is a wealthy white business man. Exactly how long would a racial profiling law last that allowed police to round THEM up or when stopped take them in and question them about their taxes? 10 minutes? Probably less. Its poor police work, lazy, unproductive. In any event its irrelevant to THIS question, RI disagrees with you and they have a law that says so.

Yes solon,

I am aware that the basic *profile* of serial killers is middle-class White men. This profile probably allowed the D.C. snipers to escape detection for as long as they did. BTW the cops were stopping White men driving white vans during that time.

Profiling can HELP on occasion. But again, you're correct, R.I. does have a LAW on the books prohibiting profiling, so the cop in this instance overstepped his bounds.

J2

You guys are missing the point of my hypothetical, although you're making some good points otherwise.

The point of the hypothetical isn't the similarity of tax evasion and illegal immigration, which are obviously very different; it's the powers of state law enforcement officers.

In my hypothetical the legal dynamics are the same as in the Rhode Island case: a state law enforcement official stops a vehicle for violating a state traffic law. Based on nothing more than the appearance of the individuals in the vehicle, he proceeds to demand proof from the passengers that they have not violated a federal law that he lacks the expertise, and possibly even the jurisdiction, to enforce.

But illegal immigration is a bigger problem, some would say. Really? Underreported income was estimated at $109 billion last year alone. Arguably, the underreporting of income has a bigger financial effect on any one of us individually than illegal immigration does. So does that mean we want local law enforcement officials to do what they do in my hypothetical? If not, then why is it okay for them to do what the Rhode Island trooper did?

Rusty

Thanks for your clarification - look, admittedly you have more expertise in law than I do. And I see the underlying basis for your analogy, but in this case I think the implications for non-action are far different and therefore requires different solutions. The officer didn't take the law upon himself, he clearly directed them to the federal agency that handles these matters, ICE. I guess the argument, and maybe I am wrong, lies in the suspicion of illegalities - the officer was suspicious these people, who had no identification or citizenship verification were breaking the law by being in this country illegally. I defer to you, do you think that will be the basis on how this lawsuit is decided?

And I also believe as I said, that the potential ramifications for letting these 14 people go, as opposed to the rich man, is vastly different. Crimes against citizens, terrorism among other things is far more dangerous than taxes. Breaking the law is breaking the law, I agree - but there is also different punishments and degrees for lawbreakers. I think that judgements by law enforcement officials in determining the affects to the public at large should enter in to any decisions.

It will be an interesting case to watch, thanks again for your discussion.

Tommy

Based on what little info is available, my guess is that the lawsuit will be a slam-dunk on the racial profiling issue because I doubt the officer will be able to come up with a non-racially-based reason for believing the passengers were committing a crime.

I can't predict with equal confidence about the constitutional issues. Fourth Amendment law is in constant flux. The Supreme Court handed down a decision earlier this week, in fact. The lines are always being drawn and re-drawn.

Generally speaking, however, a police officer cannot arrest a person (which is what happened here - "escorting" is a euphemism; the driver and passengers would not have felt free to leave, so they were under arrest) who has been peacefully minding his/her own business just for failing to produce identification.

Then there is the further question of the type of identification the officer demanded: proof of citizenship. It is an article of faith in the law that issues related to national citizenship are the exclusive domain of the federal government, except to the extent the federal government allows states to act in that area. For a state police officer to take it upon himself to assert jurisdiction in this federal domain is, in my opinion, highly suspect. Just as it would be if state highway patrol officers started trying to enforce federal tax laws.

Rusty

Let me ask you, in California where I live, we have Special Order #40 - this is essence, I think, does not allow local law enforcement officials to question those stopped for say a traffic violation, on their citizenship status. But I don't believe there are many states who have this, and they shouldn't, in my opinion.

If states or jurisdictions don't have this, then are they allowed to inquire on citizenship status even though it is a federal matter?

Tommy

I don't know for sure. I know that some smaller jurisdictions are considering giving, or have already given, their officers the authority to make arrests based on citizenship status. My personal opinion is that is not constitutional absent clear authority from Congress and/or the president.

From a practical standpoint, even in communities where anti-illegal immigration fervor is high, local police forces are not eager to take on the duties of immigration officers. They object to being drawn away from their other duties, having to operate in an area for which they are not properly trained, and for the possibility of harming their ability to work effectively with and within Latino communities.

Thanks Rusty

My overall opinion of this case is the same, maybe I am decidedly "tunnel-visioned" when it comes to the illegal immigration issue and I do have a problem with the ACLU of late - so that may cloud my judgements and opinions - I will admit that.

You make great points and your expertise in the law is appreciated, by me. If nothing else I will step back and evaluate this case in more of an objective manner.......and will see what happens.

See, we can have a civil discussion :) - thanks again.

Tommy

You're very welcome. Thank you.

That's illogical.

>> My POINT was that sometimes laws meant to protect civil rights can backfire, OR handcuff the police in stopping potential law breakers. And yes ILLEGAL aliens are breaking a law.

If the police break the law, then they are lawbreakers, duh.

This is a whole new argument

What you are saying is you disagree with Rhode Islands law, that is a valid complaint. Then I guess, were you a Rhode Island resident, what you would need to do is lobby to change it. The question today however is did the RI trooper comply with the law AS IT IS NOW and do you think a RI trooper OUGHT to have to comply with RI law.

Hey solon,

Yes I did go a bit off topic there. I do think we need to make certain EXCEPTIONS in our profiling laws.

As far as today's TOPIC. Then yes I will agree, the officer SHOULD have complied with the laws of his state.

Exceptions

So let me get this right. You think there should be exceptions to racial profiling laws? Why should honest Americans be subjected to any type of profiling. In the war on terror there have been all sorts of people with various backgrounds. Any ethnic background can be Muslim. The enemy is not a religion. It is a group of people who happen to be of that religion. This is like Tim McVeigh. Not every militia person is a terrorist and we should not treat them that way. Why do you think it is ok to racially profile when the vast majority of Muslims in this country are good upstanding people? Additionally, the majority of Mexican Americans are also good upstanding citizens. I just don't understand why people of the majority find it right to discriminate.

Need to correct you H-Man,

I did NOT use the term "Muslims" in any of my posts. I was very careful not to as I'm aware that Muslims are of different races & ethnicity. I understand that some Liberals assume Conservatives have I.Q's much lower than theirs, and get their info from ONLY Fox & Rush, BUT I can assure you I do not fall into that category.

I used the term when making my point.

"The same would hold true for a van full of Middle Eastern occupants."jeter2 / Wednesday January 10, 2007 03:52:14 PM EST

Next time you jump down my throat, please make sure you're reaming me out for something I actually wrote. Thanks.

No it is actually an easy decision

If you are willing to give up civil liberties for safety you deserve neither. If you think that 16 people on a plane should mean that millions of people should suffer you are wrong. White people in this country have done wrong too yet you never hear people say we should profile them. You know Tim McVeigh was a terrorist. Should we check if every white male is part of a militia. Or maybe we should interrogate every militia person without their attorney. We could just round them up and until we are sure they are not terrorists continue to question them.

What gives you the right to believe you can choose which color people deserve scrutiny in this country? You don't! Live free or die!

H-Man,

How about teenagers? White, Black, Yellow, Green, Blue....

Do you think teenagers--yes even White ones--don't get profiled?

Back when he was in High School our eldest son had 5 kids [inc himself] in his Chevy Blazer on a weekend night and got pulled over by a LOCAL cop who didn't give him a reason as to WHY he's stopped him...asked to see his license...asked the other 4 boys their names and asked him if he could look around in the back. Found nothing...let them go.

Do you think the cop would have pulled over a woman with a few kids?

We can go round & round here.

The cop was PROBABLY looking for beer....5 boys in an SUV on a weekend night. Yup that's a form of profiling too.

Let me guess, you're cool with profiling White teenagers ;-)

Of course we shouldn't PROFILE minorities, teenagers, or tattooed bikers [just thought I'd throw that in] BUT on occasion a RED FLAG goes up...when it does Law Enforcement should be able to act upon it.

J2

You may agree with his actions, but the officer in your son's case acted unlawfully unless he had a reasonable suspicion to believe that your son and/or his friends were engaged in illegal activity.

Take a second...

and read my other comments. I told Tommy that racially profiling white people is wrong too. What happened to your son was wrong. When I was a teenager I was stopped for nothing and I never gave in when I was not actually breaking a law. I know police officers profile people based on youth. This is not right either and I would equally support your son for bringing a law suit. I hope you contacted the police and complained. I know I would.

...

Civil rights every time. Too many people have suffered or even died in the fight to obtain our civil rights. To push them aside for some supposed sense of safety, is a disservice to everyone who has fought, is fighting or ever will fight for our civil roghts.

You Again Tommy?

You were on here for at least 6 hours yesterday, and at least 3 hours so far today. Are you paid by the hour?

Don't know what country you live in

I'm sorry but it is not against the law to not have an ID when traveling in the US. There are plenty of times I walk down the street without my license. So if he let them go I would have no problem with it. If they were terrorists that would be unfortunate. But I believe there is a certain amount of risk living in a free society. I love the way people are willing to give up freedoms for people because they will not lose the freedom themselves.

I'm sure it is easy for you Tommy to say it is ok for a police office to question the citizenship of a person because of their looks. But RI has a law against it and I have not heard you give one reason why their law would not apply. You only skirt around the issue saying nothing really.

Irrelevant strawman

Had there BEEN an act of terrorism or a crime for which 14 people in a van were reasonable suspects that would be probable cause and there would be no argument. IF they had been witnesse beating small children and stealing their lunch money he would have been justified too. We could probably make up a hundred scenarios under which this would have been a justifyable action but they, like your made up strawman mean NOTHING in the context of THIS case.

You can't be that dumb

14 people who happened to be "Latino" in RI

We don't always like to think the worst of people (racial profiling) but when in walks and quacks like a duck it is a duck. If the 14 people had been white and say maybe wearing "Amish" clothing , THEY NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR ID!!! On the other hand if they had been wearing Muslim robes or just maybe dark skinned they would have been handcuffed on the side of the road or Homeland Security would have been called. Tommy, that's the problem with profiling!

...

If the driver had a valid license, the ACLU has a better case than some may think.

BTW

FOX News also made it sound like the driver presented the officer with a stolen drivers license when in fact it was valid.

I am not "Pro-Illegal Immigration" what ever that is, but I always find it odd how a nation of immigrants has such a large portion people who dispise immigrants.

Monk,

It's NOT that people "despise immigrants", what MANY of us would like to see brought under control is ILLEGAL immigration. Whole different topic.

I agree to a point

I think there are people who wants illegal immigration under control. In fact, I'm one of them. I'm not a huge fan of illegal immigration. However, the way many people have decided to enforce this is through racial profiling. I have friends who immigrated illegally here and the funny thing is none of them are Latino. Irish, Polish and Chinese. At the same time I have seen my Mexican friends harassed for no reason other than being of Mexican decent. There are ways of fighting illegal immigration that do not involve racial profiling.

your point is exact!

Reform is what is sorely needed. I've said it before, the system in place since the 50's is wrong. Making the immigration department pay for itself by charging prospective entrants to come into the country is designed to descriminate against the lower working classes. If this were a $20 fee that would be one thing, but having personally gone through it via my wife I can say it isn't. You typically end up paying close to the thousands in fees, legal visits, lost work days etc.

And to this day we still get the snarky "are you an american?" remark from your typical southern hick because all he sees is a mexican woman with a white man. Never mind that she speaks perfect english...