That thug from Southampton has murdered him and ate him.

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuoteThis story has a lot of parallels with a developing story from Arizona. Come Friday, the biggest example yet of an authority entity giving the green light to single out a minority group may be Arizona -- if the governor signs into law a bill that in essence is declaring "open season" on the state's Latinos.
The unfortunate reality is that unlike these black workers, the Latinos impacted by this law would have no legal route to take to defend themselves.
The Arizona bill is known as Senate Bill 1070 and it would require:
Anyone whom police suspect of being in the country illegally to produce "an alien registration document," such as a green card, or be charged with a Class 1 misdemeanor and pay a minimum $500 fine.
An act that immediately criminalizes an undocumented immigrant and impacts their chances of ever returning to the United States. This is problematic since many undocumented have lived in the country for years and their families are of mixed-status.
Makes it illegal to seek work from a road or sidewalk if doing so slows traffic. It also makes it a crime to pick up someone if a driver "knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is here illegally."
Basically, like Oklahoma, the other state that wants to terrorize people from helping the undocumented, giving someone a lift to the hospital, school, store, etc. and the driver knows they are undocumented criminalizes the citizen being a Good Samaritan.
A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.
While no one would like to believe police officers would abuse their positions, unfortunately that's not the case, especially in Arizona which is home to the infamous Sheriff Arpaio.
This section of the law could be abused in going after Latino citizens. If a warrant is not needed that gives the officer the first excuse of getting his foot in the door to look for other signs of, real or imagined, violations of the law.
A law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is in the agency's custody to a federal facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency.
Basically, this allows for the "disappearance" of undocumented immigrants. Since these immigrants are not afforded the opportunity to contact family members to let them know what has happened to them, this "transport" to facilities outside the region and/or state is a cruel act to perpetuate on a family worried to death about where their husband, wife, mother or child is.
A person may bring an action in Superior Court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order any of the following...
This section may actually be one of those things that comes and bites the state of Arizona in the ass. It allows for everyday citizens -- in addition to the Minuteman, Tea Party and other racist extremists -- to bring to court any law enforcement agency or city official deemed not enforcing the full extent of the immigration law.
For those people who are so prejudicial that any Latino is one too many, they would now have recourse to legally exhibit their discrimination -- without fear. The way the bill reads on about what would happen to the person who brings the charges is that they would be rewarded by having their court costs and attorney fees covered.
It goes on to say how the "entity" would be punished for not complying with the law if it was found to be guilty but nothing would be done to the person for bringing the charges, other than they would have to pay the court costs and attorney fees.
It's a blatant attempt to encourage citizens to turn against their neighbor and their local city and law enforcement officials -- and it serves to not only destabilize the social fabric of Arizona but make it such an unfriendly place by empowering the person on the street to challenge law enforcement that this bill redefines what the Wild West is in the 21st Century.
Petitions have been set up by such organizations as the National Council of La Raza and the United Farm Workers urging Arizona Gov. Brewer to not sign into law a bill that has the potential to harm both citizen and non-citizen Latinos in the state.
QuoteGov. Jan Brewer signed Senate Bill 1108 into law Friday afternoon. It eliminates the requirement for a concealed-carry weapons permit, but does require gun owners to accurately answer if an officer asks them if they are carrying weapon concealed. It also allows officers to temporarily confiscate a weapon while they are talking to an individual, including during a traffic stop.
"I believe strongly in the individual rights and responsibilities of a free society, and as governor I have pledged a solemn and important oath to protect and defend the Constitution," Brewer said in a news release. "I believe this legislation not only protects the Second Amendment rights of Arizona citizens, but restores those rights as well."
The law goes into effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns for this session, which could happen in the next couple of weeks.
Arizona joins Vermont and Alaska in not requiring such permits.
"If you want to carry concealed, and you have no criminal history, you are a good guy, you can do it," bill sponsor Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, has said of his bill. "It's a freedom that poses no threat to the public."
National Rifle Association lobbyist Matt Dogali said the new state law would not violate any current federal requirements.
"There is no federal requirement for a permit or lack thereof," Dogali said.
The federal government oversees the background-check program required to purchase a weapon, which will still be required in Arizona in most cases.
Brewer last week did sign a separate law that exempts guns made and kept in Arizona from federal regulation, including background checks.
Arizona had 154,279 active permits as of April 4. Permit holders are spread across all ages, races and counties, but White males older than 30 in Maricopa and Pima counties hold the majority, according to the Arizona Department of Public Safety data.
The permits generated $1.8 million in revenue last fiscal year, according to DPS. The money is used to help cover costs for enforcing laws related to the Highway Patrol, operating the concealed-carry weapon-licensing program and impounding vehicles.
Arizona's permit process will remain in place, and many gun owners may still choose to get a permit. Permits would still be needed in order to carry a weapon into a restaurant or bar that serves alcohol. They would also be needed if an Arizonan wants to carry his or her gun concealed in most other states.
For those who do choose to get a permit, the education requirements do change under the new law. Classes are no longer required to be a set number of hours or include any hands-on use of the weapon. Those who don't get a permit would not be required to get any training or education.
Retired Mesa police officer Dan Furbee runs a business teaching permit and other gun safety classes. He said if most people choose not to get a permit, it will put several hundred Arizona firearms instructors out of business.
"It's going to hurt," he said.
But he said what really concerns him is that the new law will allow people who have had no education about Arizona's laws and no training on the shooting range to carry a concealed gun. The eight-hour class currently required to get a permit includes information on state law and gun safety, as well as requires students to be able to hit a target 14 out of 20 times. Furbee said his class at Mesa-based Ultimate Accessories costs $79, plus $60 for the five-year permit.
"I fully agree that we have a right to keep and bear arms," Furbee said. "But if you are not responsible enough to take a class and learn the laws, you are worse than part of the problem."
He said it's not uncommon for students to walk into his classroom and pull a new gun out of a box with no idea how to hold it and no understanding of the laws surrounding it.
"If you are going to carry a concealed weapon, you should have some kind of training and show that you are at least competent to know how the gun works and be able to hit a target," he said. "You owe the people around you a measure of responsibility."
This new law is the latest of several that have passed over the past year since Brewer took over the office from former Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat.
Napolitano vetoed at least a dozen weapons bills that crossed her desk during her seven years in office, all of which would have loosened gun restrictions. In 2005, Napolitano rejected a bill that would have allowed patrons to carry loaded guns into bars and restaurants. In 2008, she also vetoed a bill that would have allowed people to have a hidden gun in vehicles without a concealed-carry permit.
In January 2009, Napolitano resigned to become U.S. Homeland Security secretary and Republican Secretary of State Brewer became governor.
During her first year in office, Brewer signed a bill allowing loaded guns in bars and restaurants, as well as another that prohibits property owners from banning guns from parking areas, so long as the weapons are kept locked in vehicles.