carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 18, 2019 14:41:52 GMT -5
Or we drop it because both you and lonestarr777 were being raging assholes during the part we're discussing and this won't lead anywhere anyway. Good point and I apologize to the voice of reason. I'll try to not let myself be lured by the troll again. |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 18, 2019 14:44:28 GMT -5
As a side note here, every time I see your screenname the first thing I see is "se impotent walrus". I seriously thought that was your actual screenname for a month before looking more closely, LOL
|
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Jul 18, 2019 14:47:17 GMT -5
ICE has no authority over American citizens. What's the difference between an illegal arrest and a wrongful arrest? A wrongful arrest is when an officer reasonably believes they have a legal reason to take someone into custody, but are in error because they misinterpreted the law or the facts of the moment. For example, if your twin brother commits a crime and you get arrested because you match a photograph, it's not an illegal arrest just wrongful.
Illegal arrest is when an officer blatantly ignores the law to arrest you.
Border enforcement can legally detain people that they reasonably believe are illegal immigrants, even if they are legal, if they are within 100 miles of the border of the US. This isn't just at the southern border. I believe they used this to gain extra authority during a raid on a packing plant near the Canadian border a number of years ago.
If that is the standard of evidence required for an ICE officer to chuck you in a concentration camp for weeks without trial, I can't imagine being brown in America and going anywhere near 100 miles of the border for any reason. Where's that 'freedom' y'all are supposed to be so topped up with? |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 18, 2019 14:53:05 GMT -5
Woah woah woah, that's not how this works. You made a claim that I said I was going to outright shoot lonestarr777. Instead of backing that up, you sidestepped it with by saying "well, I'm not going to read a wall of text." Yes, we know that, but that's not telling us if he threatened me or not. Stay focused on the initial thing here, and don't try deflecting. TL;DR: You made a claim first, back it up. No, I said I didn't see where he said that, and I already proved you said you'd shoot him. Now it's up to you to prove he said it first. keep up dude. I know you're a republican fucktard from a fly over state, but cmon. Are you that stupid? (Also, I'm not claiming you or he did it first, just that we were talking about you, nor do you prove a negative.) |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 18, 2019 15:50:32 GMT -5
A wrongful arrest is when an officer reasonably believes they have a legal reason to take someone into custody, but are in error because they misinterpreted the law or the facts of the moment. For example, if your twin brother commits a crime and you get arrested because you match a photograph, it's not an illegal arrest just wrongful.
Illegal arrest is when an officer blatantly ignores the law to arrest you.
Border enforcement can legally detain people that they reasonably believe are illegal immigrants, even if they are legal, if they are within 100 miles of the border of the US. This isn't just at the southern border. I believe they used this to gain extra authority during a raid on a packing plant near the Canadian border a number of years ago.
If that is the standard of evidence required for an ICE officer to chuck you in a concentration camp for weeks without trial, I can't imagine being brown in America and going anywhere near 100 miles of the border for any reason. Where's that 'freedom' y'all are supposed to be so topped up with? That's not quite accurate. Reasonable suspicion requires more than just "He's Brown and doesn't speak English". Crossing the boarder without a visa, or finding out you have missed immigration court proceedings, or if you have a deportation order constitutes the vast bulk of detainees. It's required to have a legal review within 48 hours of anyone that claims to be a citizen. After that point the bulk of wrongful detaining is over. The majority of people that have wrongful detention are citizens born outside the US.
Now, there have been a number of screw ups. At the extreme end of things was a guy that spent 3 years in detention and many others that have been wrongfully deported due to being identified as someone else with very similar information. Wrongful detentions are largely in part in inaccurate databases.
It's also necessary to distinguish between an initial arrest and "detention". 3,600 arrests of citizens were made in 2010 alone pending the running of their info. This still lead to more than 1500 citizens being either in an actual detention center or being held at a county jail pending transfer in the 9 years form 2007 to 2015.https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/22/504031635/you-say-you-re-an-american-but-what-if-you-had-to-prove-it-or-be-deported
Now, ICE makes over 100,000 arrests and 40,000 detentions per year. That's a 3.5% error rate for arrest and a .4% error for detainment. Can we do better? I think we can and we should. No system will be perfect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 18, 2019 16:38:47 GMT -5
People in those concentration camps, like Japanese Americans during WW2, are denied guns. They'd be denied guns even if they weren't in detainment centers. I'm confused about why, and about why it is supposed to somehow make it better (?? ?), or change the fact that an evil regime in general, and Trump administration in particular, won't be stopped in any way by people owning guns. Also you certainly didn't explicit well why you'd still vote for a POTUS that you acknowledged as bigoted an enacting bigoted policies. |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 18, 2019 16:39:07 GMT -5
It however goes further than that for Cory Booker, including unilateral removal of civil rights without due process or notification, no requirement to produce evidence, and virtually no way to appeal it. If so that just won't pass the supreme court. So what's the problem? Just so we're clear here, are you saying that we shouldn't be concerned about a candidates unconstitutional views because they will be overturned by the safeguards of the Supreme Court anyway?
If so, a great portion of this thread has been made redundant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 18, 2019 16:51:41 GMT -5
Well, first you messed up the quote, and second, if the only problem with his policy is that it isn't constitutional, what's the problem? The problem with what Trump is doing isn't that it's unconstitutional, it's that it's cruel, unfair and make people suffer. If the problem was just that it was unconstitutional, then we'd just change the constitution or whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 18, 2019 17:13:50 GMT -5
Well, first you messed up the quote, and second, if the only problem with his policy is that it isn't constitutional, what's the problem? The problem with what Trump is doing isn't that it's unconstitutional, it's that it's cruel, unfair and make people suffer. If the problem was just that it was unconstitutional, then we'd just change the constitution or whatever. Also that the constitutional safeguards we have against people like trump (i.e. impeachment) aren't being used because one party is so corrupt that they actively help him, and try to stop any effort to check his power. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2019 17:28:11 GMT -5
Oh really? Because I fail to see how gun owners are stopping Trump from putting people into concentration camps. All I see is that they don't, and it's a very perfect example of why all the "We need guns to stop evil government" arguments are plain wrong. People in those concentration camps, like Japanese Americans during WW2, are denied guns.
...
HBMC, I'm dead certain you're not that stupid. Start exercising that brain for a second, and let me ask you, what do you think his endgame is? He's not that bright, and copying Hitler pretty closely. Do you see where I'm going with this, or do I have to hold your hand a little further?
|
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Jul 18, 2019 17:53:38 GMT -5
I think that the point, Baron, is that most of the rabid 2A nuts are cheerleading the march into American fascism, not opposing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 18, 2019 17:58:32 GMT -5
BaronIveagh, do you see some kind of armed insurrection brewing in the US? I don't see any, and I would wager that most civilians with guns are on Trump's side, and that's not even counting police and army.
See, that's the thing about Hitler: there was no armed insurrection because he had a large number of enthusiastic followers, along with an even larger number of people who thought "well we don't like this guy but hey, he is the chancellor". Guns don't change people's minds, and people's minds are what allow Nazi to reach power.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 18, 2019 17:59:15 GMT -5
If so that just won't pass the supreme court. So what's the problem? Just so we're clear here, are you saying that we shouldn't be concerned about a candidates unconstitutional views because they will be overturned by the safeguards of the Supreme Court anyway?
If so, a great portion of this thread has been made redundant.
I'm really curious, you say certain dems would attempt to take away guns, so how do you feel when trump actually said that we should take away guns before the due process is done? BaronIveagh, do you see some kind of armed insurrection brewing in the US? I don't see any, and I would wager that most civilians with guns are on Trump's side, and that's not even counting police and army. See, that's the thing about Hitler: there was no armed insurrection because he had a large number of enthusiastic followers, along with an even larger number of people who thought "well we don't like this guy but hey, he is the chancellor". Guns don't change people's minds, and people's minds are what allow Nazi to reach power. Also, weren't trumptards freaking out over some nonsense conspiracy about liberals sstarting a civil war, and how they'd own the liberals because they have guns? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2019 19:13:00 GMT -5
I think that the point, Baron, is that most of the rabid 2A nuts are cheerleading the march into American fascism, not opposing it. As a 'rabid second amendment nut', I take offense to that. |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Jul 18, 2019 19:29:33 GMT -5
I think that the point, Baron, is that most of the rabid 2A nuts are cheerleading the march into American fascism, not opposing it. As a 'rabid second amendment nut', I take offense to that. He did say most. |
|
