Powered by TypePad

« Dare We Cite This As An Example Of Epistemic Closure? | Main | Traditional First Saturday In May Conspiracy Derby »

April 30, 2010



--Iggy, why are you wasting your time arguing with that illiterate POS and his May Day rally talking points?--

I have a little time to kill before getting ready for chuch, Capn.

Besides it is such a novel experience to not have a liberal descend into froth-flecked, obscenity-laced, rants upon being shown the light that I can't resist.
Bunky may be invinceably ignorant and his skull impervious to reason but he remains relatively polite and equanimous.


bb..Tell me you aren't a law student, PLEASE!


Any first year law student can explain to you that this means some reason to stop and question the person--a nearby crime in which he might be a witness or fits the description of the perp, the situations described by Ignatz above, weaving as you walk or drive down the street, etc.

Looking Hispanic, for example, doesn;t meet the test.


Clarice: As you point out, "lawful contact" includes circumstances in which there is no probable cause, such as when a policeman believes a person may have witnessed a crime. Of course, in Arizona, from now, illegal aliens will surely flee the approach of law enforcement and have every reason not to report any crime, ever.
No one is suggesting there are not examples of "reasonable suspicion." The point is that, in practice, it could be defined to include virtually any behavior -- he looked poor. he looked afraid. he looked like he didn't belong here.
This is a great example of the American right's belief in big government as a problem solver. While they use anti-government rhetoric as a campaign prop, the obvious reality is that they're fine with big government, as long as its power is brought to bear against the politically weak and economically powerless. They are only concerned when government power acts as a check on the prerogatives of the powerful...
Remember all the rhetoric about how the government screws everything up? Yet somehow the same people tell us the government can be trusted to competently, fairly administer highly nuanced laws that either directly violate or push the envelope on constitutional rights.

The comments to this entry are closed.