Too much ice

#12,676
#12,676
Orangeslice13 said:
It won’t get to the judge. I just hit 1 on speed dial and exercise my 1st amendment right to tell them how they suck at their job while waiting on the Law dude to answer. **** the police. They’re just another person who has to follow the law like everyone else.
Click to expand...
Like hiring illegals? or do you pick and choose which laws you follow?
 
#12,678
#12,678
Rickyvol77 said:
Weird I have worked with tons of people of all ethnic backgrounds and hired them and supervised them and never had this issue one time, across two different states.

But then again I don't hire illegals
Click to expand...
Sure you have.
I’m sure you have friends that are black too.
And I don’t hire illegals either. Yet this administration is stripping people of their visas and green cards without even notifying them. Yet you want to play self righteous on something you know obviously know nothing about.

My best guy self deported Saturday because his paperwork was revoked and we can’t get an answer why. So, ya we play by the rules here…..even though the excrement and often racist thugs in law enforcement don’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, Smokey123, LouderVol and 2 others
#12,681
#12,681
Orangeslice13 said:
Sure you have.
I’m sure you have friends that are black too.
And I don’t hire illegals either. Yet this administration is stripping people of their visas and green cards without even notifying them. Yet you want to play self righteous on something you know obviously know nothing about.

My best guy self deported Saturday because his paperwork was revoked and we can’t get an answer why. So, ya we play by the rules here…..even though the excrement and often racist thugs in law enforcement don’t.
Click to expand...
If the government revoked his paperwork he is illegal....you may not like it but they have the right to do that

and clearly you do hire illegals, because again I've never had this problem one time and i've probably been involved in the hiring of nearly 1000 people over the years

Background checks and hiring US citizens help
 
#12,684
#12,684
Rickyvol77 said:
If the government revoked his paperwork he is illegal....you may not like it but they have the right to do that

and clearly you do hire illegals, because again I've never had this problem one time and i've probably been involved in the hiring of nearly 1000 people over the years

Background checks and hiring US citizens help
Click to expand...
If they can revoke legal paperwork without notice or reason then they can revoke your citizenship under the patriot act the same way.

Everyone should expect the government to play by the rules.

And I’ve never had a problem with this for 35 years of business. Now it’s happened to 2 of my guys I’ve known over a decade. You’d think if there was a legitimate reason to revoke then they would say what it is.

It’s scary what people like you will defend from a government that’s becoming more and more tyrannical.


I’d be willing to bet when the fbi was tracking soccer moms at town hall meetings you had a problem with it but now that you agree with the tyranny it’s ok.
 
#12,685
#12,685
Orangeslice13 said:
If they can revoke legal paperwork without notice or reason then they can revoke your citizenship under the patriot act the same way.

Everyone should expect the government to play by the rules.

And I’ve never had a problem with this for 35 years of business. Now it’s happened to 2 of my guys I’ve known over a decade. You’d think if there was a legitimate reason to revoke then they would say what it is.

It’s scary what people like you will defend from a government that’s becoming more and more tyrannical.


I’d be willing to bet when the fbi was tracking soccer moms at town hall meetings you had a problem with it but now that you agree with the tyranny it’s ok.
Click to expand...
You can argue tyranny if you want but they aren't US citizens.

And just because you got away with it for 35 years doesn't mean it's not wrong or illegal
 
#12,687
#12,687
Rickyvol77 said:
Yes please ask your lawyer to say how this statement is true:

It’s a misdemeanor. SCOTUS has ruled that a misdemeanor doesn’t rise to the level of probable cause for requiring ID
Click to expand...
It doesn’t
You can’t require me to show ID for walking down the street near where a crime is committed. They have to have a legitimate reason to think I’m the guy.

A murder or more serious crime comes with wider latitude on ID requirements.
 
#12,688
#12,688
Rickyvol77 said:
You can argue tyranny if you want but they aren't US citizens.

And just because you got away with it for 35 years doesn't mean it's not wrong or illegal
Click to expand...


Now you’re just being intentionally ignorant.
They’ve been legal. And self deported to follow the rules in spite of not being given a reason for their paperwork being revoked.

And why don’t you have a problem with that?

Do you think your government should live within the rules they established?
 
#12,692
#12,692
Orangeslice13 said:
I have an MBA in human resource management from the University of Tennessee.

what do you have.
Wait I bet it’s criminal justice from a community college
Click to expand...
HR Management? Congrats! I can't tell you how many HR people I have known that are experts on several subjects, especially Constitutional law lol
 
#12,693
#12,693
Orangeslice13 said:
Now you’re just being intentionally ignorant.
They’ve been legal. And self deported to follow the rules in spite of not being given a reason for their paperwork being revoked.

And why don’t you have a problem with that?

Do you think your government should live within the rules they established?
Click to expand...
The government has the right to revoke any non-US citizen's visas

That is within the rules

They aren't following the rules established or they would've ALREADY been US Citizens in the decades they have been here
 
#12,694
#12,694
Rickyvol77 said:
That case involved officers that had no reasonable suspicion at all and actually the crux of the issue was that the California/San Diego law on "vagrancy" was poorly written and vague
Click to expand...

Ruling was based on the vagueness of "credible and reliable" identification in California law.

Justice Brennan, in his concurrence, does states "Even if the defect identified by the Court were cured, I would hold that this statute violates the Fourth Amendment....States may not authorize the arrest and criminal prosecution of an individual for failing to produce identification or further information on demand by a police officer."

The SC in Hiibel did rule that identifying yourself does not violate 4th and 5th Amendment.
 
#12,695
#12,695
BigOrangeMojo said:
Ruling was based on the vagueness of "credible and reliable" identification in California law.

Justice Brennan, in his concurrence, does states "Even if the defect identified by the Court were cured, I would hold that this statute violates the Fourth Amendment....States may not authorize the arrest and criminal prosecution of an individual for failing to produce identification or further information on demand by a police officer."
Click to expand...
So what? that's not what the law is

25 states can arrest as a separate charge for failing to ID, SCOTUS covered this in Terry vs Ohio and other cases

Reasonable suspicion is all that matters whether it's a misdemeanor or felony....(unless it's a traffic offense which is automatic ID required of course)
 
#12,696
#12,696
Rickyvol77 said:
So what? that's not what the law is

25 states can arrest as a separate charge for failing to ID, SCOTUS covered this in Terry vs Ohio and other cases

Reasonable suspicion is all that matters whether it's a misdemeanor or felony....(unless it's a traffic offense which is automatic ID required of course)
Click to expand...

I did edit for the 25 states by bringing up Hiibel ruling.

Not in here picking argument but was to provide the case that I expected that was cite for @whodeycin85...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#12,697
#12,697
BigOrangeMojo said:
I did edit for the 25 states by bringing up Hiibel ruling.

Not in here picking argument but was to provide the case that I expected that was cite for @whodeycin85...
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but what I took issue was Orangeslice's silly take that police can't even with reasonable suspicion detain and identify someone because it's only a misdemeanor investigation
 
#12,698
#12,698
BigOrangeMojo said:
Ruling was based on the vagueness of "credible and reliable" identification in California law.

Justice Brennan, in his concurrence, does states "Even if the defect identified by the Court were cured, I would hold that this statute violates the Fourth Amendment....States may not authorize the arrest and criminal prosecution of an individual for failing to produce identification or further information on demand by a police officer."

The SC in Hiibel did rule that identifying yourself does not violate 4th and 5th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Still the question was can someone charged with a misdemeanor be required to show identification. This case doesnt seem to definitively state they cannot be required to show ID.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#12,700
#12,700
Vol8188 said:
Still the question was can someone charged with a misdemeanor be required to show identification. This case doesnt seem to definitively state they cannot be required to show ID.
Click to expand...
You don't even have to be charged with it.

ALL a police officer has to do to require ID is to be able to articulate the reasonable suspicion of why they believe someone has committed, is committing or might commit a crime based on all facts and circumstances in play

It's not hard to do at all and is done every day by officers across the country, whether it's murder or jaywalking
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top