Can you BELIEVE this? Do we HATE our law enforcement officers?

Question

Sorry, you'll have to read this. I am to mad to paraphrase at the moment.

http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20060819_aclu19.32a4d66.html

What do you think?

"The Rhode Island State Police will review a trooper's actions during a July 11 traffic stop on Route 95 in Richmond, when he detained 14 people who he suspected were in the country illegally, a state police spokesman said.

The internal investigation stems from a complaint the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union filed this week, on behalf of 11 of the 14 people involved, said Maj. Steven O'Donnell.

The ACLU took the case after the driver and several passengers alleged during a Providence news conference last month that Trooper Thomas Chabot overstepped his authority by taking immigration enforcement into his own hands.

They also alleged that Chabot threatened to shoot anyone who tried to escape the van that morning as it was escorted to the Bureau of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement office in Providence."

I don't see how it can be clear, since we don't know what he saw in that car. Hairstyles, clothing and other physically identifiable features have been held adequate to even stop someone, much less ask for ID once a car is already stopped.

bitter, it is possible that if they were here legally I might be more likely to think he had done something wrong. This just sounds like they are lying. They say he threatened to shoot them if they didn't drive to ICE. Do you even believe that? Apparently the officer had an in car video going of what he did and it doesn't support what they say.

Answer 1

thats messed up , U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has called for America’s police officers to help secure the homeland. In a speech on October 8, 2002 and when they do their job this is what happens ? state and local police officers have the legal authority to enforce federal immigration laws (this is explored more fully in the following section), officers may not realize this. Some people have tried to create a perception of an arbitrary distinction between immigration and other federal laws, and local officers may be uncertain whether the law or the Constitution grants them authority regarding immigration offenses; however, police at the local level often make arrests for other federal offenses.

Police officers also may hesitate to scrutinize a suspect too closely for fear of being charged with racial or ethnic discrimination. Such lawsuits as that won against Chandler, Ariz., in 1997, when police questioned about 400 people for proof of citizenship, can have a chilling effect on local law enforcement’s getting involved in immigration matters.


Federal authorities do not help the situation any when they add to the confusion. For example, an INS deputy district director in Georgia was quoted, “It’s not a crime to be in the U.S. illegally. It’s a violation of civil law.”8 An INS spokesman in California referred to aliens unlawfully present as “law-abiding citizens” (they are neither).9 Such statements, though clearly wrong, serve to muddle local law enforcement’s understanding of what the immigration code says and how they should handle suspected violations

They may not know whether an illegal alien has committed a criminal immigration offense or not, but most immigration offenses, such as entry without inspection, fraud, and alien smuggling, are felonies. Gray areas exist, however. For example, to enter the country by sneaking across the border is punishable under the federal criminal code (INA Sec. 275), while overstaying a temporary visa is but a deportable offense (INA Sec. 237(a)(1)(C)(i)).




State, county, and municipal law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the law. This includes upholding the U.S. Constitution and implies federal laws. As a 1996 Department of Justice legal opinion put it, “It is well-settled that state law enforcement officers are permitted to enforce federal statutes where such enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests.”26 The current Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel has reportedly read the law and the Constitution even more in accord with the Founding Fathers.

Answer 2

It makes me angry.

What is their argument? Because they are not caucasian, it is racial profiling because they were asked for identification? I've been a passanger in a vehicle before where I was asked for my identification because I was in the car. If you are over 16, you should always have some sort of identification on you.

The officer had probable cause for the request. If I was 19 and in a car with a driver that had been speeding, and then it was found that he had been drinking, then everyone would be asked to prove themselves of legal age for alcohol consumption. The officer pulled over the van, asked for identification of the people in the van because he saw a rather large number in the van (is it legal to have that many in a van in the first place? Isn't it with the seat belt laws that there must be a seat and seat belt for each passanger in the vehicle?) and inquired further.

They're just pissed that they got caught. And the ACLU really goes too far at times. . .

Answer 3

I tell you...a nice class action suit against the federal government by all of the different states attorneys for failing to do their sworn duty would be a good start. I can say this, Americans have a keen sense of right and wrong, The feds will see another example of Americas outrage and see that there is no escape any more. We have got to hold the feds responsible for their negligence. The states should look at the laws they are passing to help our cause as sub-contracting, and charge the feds for the price of apprehending and deporting illegals.

Answer 4

I'm tired of people hating law enforcement officers just for doing their jobs.

Let me get this straight.

The people in the vehicle believe that they were pulled over wholly due to their ethnicity and that it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there were 14 people in the vehicle!?!

OK fine - it was a van, maybe it did have 14 seatbelts.

But then when the officer asks for identification and none was given. His intuition suggested that he notify ICE - which is what he is suppose to do.

Furthermore, when ICE arrived it was found that he was RIGHT and the 14 people are now facing deportation.

And the officer is facing charges??? For WHAT? Being right? Listening to his gut??

Give me a break!

Answer 5

I don't think we "hate" our law enforcement officers is an appropriate statement. In regard to the article, one must not forget the way our judicial system works, those people who were detained and then holler " racial profiling" should be, shot on the spot, using that as an excuse is the biggest crock of dung I've ever heard.

We must, as Americans, take a stand and change those old laws. One way is for all Americans to go out and VOTE, every vote counts> I cannot emphasize that enough, you just might just see some changes.

Answer 6

It sux .. but you'll see more and more of that type of thing the more the public becomes aware of what's going on .. look, the powers that be don't WANT to close the borders, they WANT illegal immigrants ... look at the prima donna in the Chicago church, the INS refuse to go and get her, and now she brags she "won" ... she "stopped the INS", and urges more illegals to follow her shining example ... and nothing gets done ... the feds pay lip service to the whole thing ... they give us a few Nat Guards, unarmed, and slap a few companies on the wrist .... deport a few "really" criminal illegals ... but that's all .... it's all a plot by the goddamn administration to pave the road for their beloved super highway and the opening of the borders in 2010 ... nobody seems to see that though, which is troubling ....

Joe (below) is right ... a class action suit is what is needed ....

Answer 7

Actually, I tend to be on the liberal side, but I believe in profiling. Somewhere we have to get a clue that all this PC stuff is creating a door for bad people to attack us. I personally do not have a problem with profiling as long as it is done without animosity and with a sense of purpose. The people whining about being detained is what causes the animosity. This includes the white business man in the airport. Let the officials do their job and quit being so sensitive. There are a lot worse things in the world than you being detained momentarily. TIME TO GROW UP AMERICA!!!!

Answer 8

this is such bull. they were he illegally and then they want American rights. the cop made a clean bust all 14 are illegal. he deserves a medal for the single handed capture of 14 criminals. to be in America is a privilege not a right. the ACLU are nothing but commie, Christians haters.
it's time to end all this political correctness it's just hypocrisy.

Answer 9

Critics argue that race should:

never be considered for any reason in a police action (save the exceptions made below).
never be considered the primary or motivating factor for suspicion.
only be considered when it is used to describe a specific suspect in a specific crime and only when used in a manner like other physical descriptions (e.g., hair color, weight, distinguishing marks).
it is sometimes necessary to consider racial factors in a way that may not be immediately apprent from the above when dealing with hate crimes and the like, though it is very rare to think of situations where racial profiling would aid police decision making in this context.

It does sound like Racial Profiling

Answer 10

I think our officials are so afraid of backlash they would prefer that nothing is done.

Officers in my family often have told me they were to leave certain thing alone by their Supervisors.

Unfortunately I think by things like this-the ACLU is hurting the people who are here illegally more. They are not helping-as more and more people are getting outraged.