AZ: Truck driver forced to show birth certificate claims racial-profiling

  • Thread starter Thread starter seventh circle
  • Start date Start date
Should he be charged because he didn't know that he is legally required to carry his CoLB? If indeed the situation dictated as such?
 
Fuck you're dense. It is not "any little tickle", you fucking retard. It is suspicion, arising from a reasonable inference based upon specific and articulable facts, that you have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime. It is a standard of evidence, not a fucking excuse to stop anybody and everybody.
 
You couldn't connect the dots on how this foreshadows what will happen once AZs law goes into effect?
 
That case you quoted was only talking about asking her legal status, not providing any proof of said status.
 
What's sad is that you aren't joking and your vision for this country is a police state.
 
They passed a law that makes it legal for them to racially profile?

Cops racially profile now, they will racially profile once the law goes into effect. But people like you are going to say "OMG, SEE!!! I KNEW this law was going to cause racial profiling" when the truth is that the law will have zero impact on that aspect of police work.
 
Fuck the birth certificate, this works ...





Once the AZ law goes into effect, this will too ...





Regardless, holders of CDLs have to carry more documentation when they are transporting their load, as has been required by both Federal and State Law for over 70 years now.
 
Like already stated, we do not have enough information as to whether he crossed the boarder or not.
 
And yet they are "papers" and identification required when you are stopped, despite this being a 'free country'
 
month sub v month ban.




if we don't find out "more" behind the story in the next...hmm, 2 weeks?...then I buy you a sub. if there's "more" like I listed above, month ban.

bet?
 
Right, but I thought we were talking about what information the original article has, or does not, and what that means.
 
she should have watched that "how to deal with police" video on youtube, and just kept repeating "am I free to go?" and "are you detaining me?" and "I don't consent to a search of my person or my belongings" over and over.

but instead, dumb bitch didn't know her rights and talked to them, and then sued the police because she chose to waive her right(s).
 
then he can't understand a damn thing I am saying because I have done nothing but provide examples that have held up in court. He is either trying to say that reasonable suspicion holds no subjectivity (tickle in the cop's shorts) or he just wants to argue an argument that isn't there.
 
Back
Top