Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I'm assuming with a little effort you could understand this. It seems interesting that the lawyers have repeatedly skirted this aspect of the law. It was brought up in multiple posts in which Yankee ignored it as well. Please take the initiative and take a stab at what this might mean. The cops seem to hate it. My guess is that many lawyers are quite happy with this item.
How about you start by pointing out where this "right to sue" exists.I'm assuming with a little effort you could understand this. It seems interesting that the lawyers have repeatedly skirted this aspect of the law. It was brought up in multiple posts in which Yankee ignored it as well. Please take the initiative and take a stab at what this might mean. The cops seem to hate it. My guess is that many lawyers are quite happy with this item.
If I do what'll ya give me? More equivocation?I didn't write that, but I am assuming you've read the bill and can determine what Tim means. If not, I will happily await Yankee's answer, or that of one of our other fine barristers at large.How about you start by pointing out where this "right to sue" exists.I'm assuming with a little effort you could understand this. It seems interesting that the lawyers have repeatedly skirted this aspect of the law. It was brought up in multiple posts in which Yankee ignored it as well. Please take the initiative and take a stab at what this might mean. The cops seem to hate it. My guess is that many lawyers are quite happy with this item.
How is that relevant to timmy's claim that citizens can sue the police "if they're not diligent enough in prosecuting illegal aliens?" Oh yeah, I forgot that timmy can't read. There is no right to sue if police aren't diligent enough in prosecuting illegal aliens. As it clearly states, there is a cause of action if an agency or official "adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law." In other words, people can sue a municipality if it refuses to enforce the law. I don't see a problem with that. If some liberal town council decides it's not going to let its police department enforce the law they should be sued.videoguy505 said:Here's the text from the law:Christo said:timschochet said:
Is the police an agency? Is a police officer an official? (Questions not claims)
I'm no lawyer, but is the police force considered an agency? What if they implement a policy that they are not going to enforce this law? Then can a citizen sue them?How is that relevant to timmy's claim that citizens can sue the police "if they're not diligent enough in prosecuting illegal aliens?" Oh yeah, I forgot that timmy can't read. There is no right to sue if police aren't diligent enough in prosecuting illegal aliens. As it clearly states, there is a cause of action if an agency or official "adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law." In other words, people can sue a municipality if it refuses to enforce the law. I don't see a problem with that. If some liberal town council decides it's not going to let its police department enforce the law they should be sued.videoguy505 said:Here's the text from the law:Christo said:timschochet said:
Beat me to it...
There are cops in AZ who would do just that (refuse to enforce the law), not some liberal town council. But again, I can see why lawyers are for this.How is that relevant to timmy's claim that citizens can sue the police "if they're not diligent enough in prosecuting illegal aliens?" Oh yeah, I forgot that timmy can't read. There is no right to sue if police aren't diligent enough in prosecuting illegal aliens. As it clearly states, there is a cause of action if an agency or official "adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law." In other words, people can sue a municipality if it refuses to enforce the law. I don't see a problem with that. If some liberal town council decides it's not going to let its police department enforce the law they should be sued.videoguy505 said:Here's the text from the law:Christo said:timschochet said:
I think police/sheriff's departments would qualify as agencies and sheriffs & chiefs of police would be officials. Rather than the law enforcement agencies/officials, I think it's more likely targeted at local politicians who'd try to stop their local police departments from enforcing the law. The law specifically protects individual police officers from liability: "a law enforcement officer is indemnified by the law enforcement officer's agency against reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the officer in connection with any action, suit or proceeding brought pursuant to this section in which the officer may be a defendant by reason of the officer being or having been a member of the law enforcement agency."
Then if those cops are high enough in the department to "adopt or implement a policy or practice" for their department they should be sued too. This provision is clearly not targeted at individual street cops.
I'm not going to presume to guess what's in Tim's head at any moment in time. Just trying to get the actual text into the discussion, rather than what Tim though he heard on the radio or read in an article or a blog somewhere. Trying to keep things on track.How is that relevant to timmy's claim that citizens can sue the police "if they're not diligent enough in prosecuting illegal aliens?" Oh yeah, I forgot that timmy can't read. There is no right to sue if police aren't diligent enough in prosecuting illegal aliens. As it clearly states, there is a cause of action if an agency or official "adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law." In other words, people can sue a municipality if it refuses to enforce the law. I don't see a problem with that. If some liberal town council decides it's not going to let its police department enforce the law they should be sued.videoguy505 said:Here's the text from the law:Christo said:timschochet said:
This might be a biased summary and not the law, but are you referring to this?Section 2-I: Indemnifies police officers against costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with any litigation brought by citizens and residents who were wrongfully detained, questioned, arrested, or transported, unless the officer was acting in bad faith.
Not something you read every day.Ray Stevens said:
Would willfully not enforcing the law be considered acting in bad faith? If not, what would constitute "bad faith"?
Well, yeah, one is the Sheriff of Pima County. So go get 'em, tiger.Then if those cops are high enough in the department to "adopt or implement a policy or practice" for their department they should be sued too. This provision is clearly not targeted at individual street cops.
Looking through the statute, the term "law enforcement agency" is used liberally.
I'm talking about the section we're discussing--the refusal to enforce the law.
I'm not licensed to practice in Arizona. But I guaranty you someone will.Well, yeah, one is the Sheriff of Pima County. So go get 'em, tiger.
It looks like my summary was biased (or outdated). Assuming that this is the language in the actual signed bill-9 J. EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS ADJUDGED TO
It's reasonable to suspect that most illegals are Mexican. It's not reasonable to suspect that most Mexicans are illegal.That's a very important distinction that many people seem to lose sight of. See: any thread involving Islam and terrorism.Ray Stevens said:
Let me take some time away from my quest to improve my literacy skills in order to respond. So far as I can see, there is no actual difference between what I wrote and what the law says- at least, no difference that will present some attorney from suing. Anyone who is not diligent enough in prosecuting illegal aliens could be interpreted as someone who "limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent",etc. What difference?If police officers are personally indemnified by these lawsuits, that only means the state of Arizona- and taxpayers within the state- will pay.
I refuse to engage in a discussion with you because, as usual, you willfully ignore the operative language of the statute.
Because I interpret it differently than you do does not mean I am ignoring it. If you can provide a legal analysis that matches your interpretation I'll certainly read it. I have already read a few opinions that bolsters my own.
Precisely my point, my man. And that someone should be you.I've got plenty of family still in the area, many of whom could pass for illegals (you know what I mean). We could get a van full and parade 'em up and down I-10. Assuming they don't get pulled over, we could be fairly certain some law abiding citizens will get wind of this (hint, hint) and we could drum up some business. Conversely, if they do get pulled over and taken in -- with the adequate coaching from yours truly and the help of counsel, of course -- we could have a lawsuit of a different flavor on our hands. It's a win-win-win.So, how long do you think you need to pass the AZ Bar?I'm not licensed to practice in Arizona. But I guaranty you someone will.Well, yeah, one is the Sheriff of Pima County. So go get 'em, tiger.Then if those cops are high enough in the department to "adopt or implement a policy or practice" for their department they should be sued too. This provision is clearly not targeted at individual street cops.
Continuing the words mean things refrain, police officers don't prosecute.
More and more people just want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend there isn't a problem.
I'm shocked.
Gee thanks. But I used that word, its not in the law. The law uses the word "enforce". Police do enforce, don't they?
Please read it again. There's a difference between denying a problem and disagreeing with the proposed solution.
Do you not think there is a difference between a police officer who refuses to apply the law because of his personal choosing and a police officer who can't enforce the law because his superiors are telling him he's not allowed?In layman's terms, that's what Christo is saying....I agree with him and YF.
Citizens are suing the police departments and municipal governments here in Colorado regarding their intentional failure to enforce illegal immigration laws.A young boy was killed in an ice cream shop when a guy ran a red light at 70 mph, broadsided another car, and the wreck spun into the shop where the boy was eating ice cream. Turns out two people in the other car were killed as well in the incident. Also turns out that the offending driver was an illegal who had been arrested at least 19 other times prior to that in various municipalities and the fact that he was illegal turned up in the police reports. The parents are suing under the premise that had someone done their job in any of the prior arrests rather than simply following sanctuary guidelines rampant in the Denver Metro area, their boy would still be alive.It ought to be interesting to see how this turns out.
Rich, I never did respond to this point, and I think its very important. I do recognize that many people who are concerned about increased enforcement of the border are not going to accept any compromise that allows for a path to citizenship, because you don't believe the borders will really be enforced. For my part, I'm skeptical of a 'let's fix the borders first" approach, because I don't believe your side will ever agree to a path to citizenship. So we are at an impasse, which is why immigration reform failed in 2006. You don't like the idea of amnesty. I don't like the idea of tightening the borders. There are many more people that agree with you than agree with me, yet it seems that the elites in our society tend to agree with me; so for the moment, it's a draw. Are we going to come to a compromise here, or simply be forever unable to reach any viable solution to this issue? I have no idea. What do you think?
I don't know why. You've already accepted that the actual law is over your head. The language of the law does not back up your seeming assertion that joe citizen can sue joe cop.
Sure there's a difference in fact, but it's irrelevant to my point. My point is that lawyers are going to sue anyhow, because the law encourages them to do so.
Do you not think there is a difference between a police officer who aggressively applies the law because of his personal choosing and a police officer who aggressively enforces the law because his superiors are telling him he must? And are you OK with those "superiors" being ordinary citizens with little to no idea about the issues of the police force suing the police force, or town, or county, or whatever?
They do. In support of policy already created by the agencies referenxed in the law that could be subject to the litigation clause. It is pretty clear that barring some truly awful action individual cops are not subject or indemnified.
And this is the crux of it Tim.Just to put it in one perspective by using an issue that I have seen you discuss before so maybe you can understand where people on my side are coming from. Israel agreed in the 90's to pretty much everything the Palestinians wanted other than the right of return and instead of peace they got the fatwa (I think that is the correct term
). So should Israel now turn around and give up more land for the future promise of peace? Or should they make the Palestinians show that they are serious and will follow through first?I know the 2 situations aren't the same, but do you kind of see the point I am trying to make? One side in this debate has recent history to back up what they claim and the other side has vague promises of future actions that have been agree to in the past but never followed through on.
What I wrote is that the law, as it pertains to the constitution, is over my head. i also wrote that there are plenty of legal experts who disagree with your interpretations of this law, both in general and with regard to this specific issue. As far as my own POV, I never meant to say that joe citizen could sue joe cop, but that he could sue the State of Arizona when joe cop appeared not to be diligent enough, for whatever reason. And he will.
Why not? I realize there is section J to protect the officer, but what in this language keeps a resident from suing an officer for "looking the other way" as a matter of "practice"?
So its a bad law becausew its a law? You make less sense with each post.
Yes. When you put things in that perspective, I absolutely agree. Let me go a step further, even. Many of the people on my "side" are disingenous. They will never admit in public what they really want, especially the politicians. They want amnesty and they don't really want to tighten the borders. That is the truth. But they won't tell you that, because they know the majority of Americans are very much against it. I can afford to be honest about this because I'm just an internet poster, not a politician, and I know my views on this issue are not popular and don't really give a ####. But politicians who privately agree with me (and there's a lot of them) are all terrified of your side, which is the majority, so they will continue to lie to you. But you already know this.And this is the crux of it Tim.Just to put it in one perspective by using an issue that I have seen you discuss before so maybe you can understand where people on my side are coming from. Israel agreed in the 90's to pretty much everything the Palestinians wanted other than the right of return and instead of peace they got the fatwa (I think that is the correct term). So should Israel now turn around and give up more land for the future promise of peace? Or should they make the Palestinians show that they are serious and will follow through first?I know the 2 situations aren't the same, but do you kind of see the point I am trying to make? One side in this debate has recent history to back up what they claim and the other side has vague promises of future actions that have been agree to in the past but never followed through on.
Well, yeah...and water is wet. None of that has to do with the law rather the nature of the lawyer. People can/will sue for just about anything. Any time a new law comes on the books, I bet the lawyers are into the law to see where they can get angles.
This law is above everybody's head as it pertains to the constitution (YankeesFan protestations to the contrary). No one knows how the court will rule and anybody who says otherwise is either full of themselves or fooling themselves.
