Riot police were needed to control protesters angry about the new immigration law in Arizona.

Where is the foaming at the mouth outrage from the Obama & Media crowd? Why isn't Nancy Pelosi on TV condemning the protesters who used refried beans to smear swastikas on the state Capitol?


Protesters throwing rocks and bottles at police.






To view this video on YouTube you must verify that you're 18. Strange.

Who's that biker dude with the beard in the second video?

Signatures are for fags

The biker guy is obviously an American, and some ese was saying that he was a member of the Minutemen. Regardless, one-on-one, I can guarantee that he could beat the shit out of any burrito sucker there.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

"Where is the foaming at the mouth outrage from the Obama & Media crowd? Why isn't Nancy Pelosi on TV condemning the protesters who used refried beans to smear swastikas on the state Capitol?"

Damned if I know. The only place I'm seeing any real coverage on this
is on Fox. Lamestream media is in denial. I'll bet Obama is going to
be paying a surprise lunch visit to Juan's Illegal Taco House just to
show everybody how "Mexican" he really is.

Face down own on the pavement TPL NOW! Show me your papers! I have reason to believe you are illegally retarded!

Whenthey show up with guns..when they shout down people at meetings they will. In the meantime local law enforcemnt is taking care of it. While the teababggers are crying about abuses of their liberty that dont exist...these people are protesting a dangerous and racist law that is really affecting their rights.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Pathetic.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Other than the "hype" surrounding this law, it specifies little, if anything different from what is already being done in practice in hundreds of law enforcement areas in the country. Some of them do it if they arrest a person, some of them do it to anyone they have "lawful contact" with (as this law specifies). Usually the indicator would be - when you ask them for their license (after they have been pulled over) they fail to produce one, or have a suspended license from another state. I don't believe it says they are thrown in jail because of this - just that they can have their status checked with ICE.

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3666&mid=8917663&pt=msg

Quote

...
Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself.

The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person's immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."

Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics. What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status.

"That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.

For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.

Is having to produce a driver's license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver's license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it's a burden, it's a burden on everyone.
...

They cannot just walk up to you on the street and demand you show identification.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Leave it to a racist like Registered Voter to defend this Nazi law.

durkadur Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Leave it to a racist like Registered Voter to
> defend this Nazi law.


Yeah, must be time to break out the swastikas again huh? Maybe they can hassle law abiding citizens over their rights to carry concealed firearms also.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whenthey show up with guns..when they shout down
> people at meetings they will. In the meantime
> local law enforcemnt is taking care of it.
> While the teababggers are crying about abuses of
> their liberty that dont exist...these people are
> protesting a dangerous and racist law that is
> really affecting their rights.

Hey Vince, maybe you could go down to Arizona and tell us how bad it is. Oh wait...

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Regis-turd Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Face down own on the pavement TPL NOW! Show me
> your papers! I have reason to believe you are
> illegally retarded!


Oh snap, it's the Gestapo! I knew you were somehwere. Don't forget your helmet:



==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Other than the "hype" surrounding this law, it
> specifies little, if anything different from what
> is already being done in practice in hundreds of
> law enforcement areas in the country. Some of them
> do it if they arrest a person, some of them do it
> to anyone they have "lawful contact" with (as this
> law specifies). Usually the indicator would be -
> when you ask them for their license (after they
> have been pulled over) they fail to produce one,
> or have a suspended license from another state. I
> don't believe it says they are thrown in jail
> because of this - just that they can have their
> status checked with ICE.
>
> http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3666&mi
> d=8917663&pt=msg
>
> ...
> Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited,
> carefully-crafted measure designed to help law
> enforcement deal with a serious problem in
> Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and
> went to great lengths to make sure it is
> constitutional and will hold up in court. It is
> the criticism of the law that is over the top, not
> the law itself.
>
> The law requires police to check with federal
> authorities on a person's immigration status, if
> officers have stopped that person for some
> legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or
> she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of
> the law is this provision: "For any lawful contact
> made by a law enforcement official or a law
> enforcement agency where reasonable suspicion
> exists that the person is an alien who is
> unlawfully present in the United States, a
> reasonable attempt shall be made, when
> practicable, to determine the immigration status
> of the person."
>
> Critics have focused on the term "reasonable
> suspicion" to suggest that the law would give
> police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for
> any reason and force them to prove they are in the
> U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights
> violations targeting Hispanics. What fewer people
> have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which
> defines what must be going on before police even
> think about checking immigration status.
>
> "That means the officer is already engaged in some
> detention of an individual because he's violated
> some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of
> Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who
> helped draft the measure. "The most likely context
> where this law would come into play is a traffic
> stop."
>
> As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned,
> there is a great deal of case law dealing with the
> idea, but in immigration matters, it means a
> combination of circumstances that, taken together,
> cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not
> race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race
> and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in
> determining a reasonable suspicion.
>
> For example: "Arizona already has a state law on
> human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a
> group of people in a car that is speeding. The car
> is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The
> driver acts evasively. They are on a known
> smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon
> occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would
> reasonably suspect that the people in the car were
> illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get
> in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs
> Enforcement to check on their status.
>
> But what if the driver of the car had shown the
> officer his driver's license? The law clearly says
> that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's
> license, or other state-issued identification,
> they are presumed to be here legally. There's no
> reasonable suspicion.
>
> Is having to produce a driver's license too
> burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S.
> citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to
> show a driver's license to get on an airplane, to
> check into a hotel, even to purchase some
> over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it's a
> burden, it's a burden on everyone.
> ...
>
>
> They cannot just walk up to you on the street and
> demand you show identification.


Any "lawful contact"...then allows law enforcement to question you on your legal status.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Whenthey show up with guns..when they shout
> down
> > people at meetings they will. In the meantime
> > local law enforcemnt is taking care of it.
> > While the teababggers are crying about abuses
> of
> > their liberty that dont exist...these people
> are
> > protesting a dangerous and racist law that is
> > really affecting their rights.
>
> Hey Vince, maybe you could go down to Arizona and
> tell us how bad it is. Oh wait...


Your defense of the fraudulent outrage of teabaggers is just another lie you have built your life around.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Same goes for LEGAL citizens Vince! Moral of the story? --> DO NOT TALK TO POLICE. And if they want to talk to you about anything including a current supposed investigation or anything esle, tell them you will NOT TALK to LAW ENFORCEMENT about ANYTHING WITHOUT A LAWYER PRESENT. If they demand a reason tell them thier testimony(even if benneficial for you) is inadmissable in court for your defense, so being that it CAN NOT BENNEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY AT ALL, you cordially decline.



So there you go bitches.