By Nick Dial
Recently Arizona passed into law a new bill, 1070. This new bill has brought on an onslaught of controversy, rumors, myths, and nonstop attacks. The problem is, when you listen to the outlandish statements made by those who oppose this new law, it quickly becomes evident that they themselves either did not read the bill and have no understanding for how the law works in practice or they are simply ignoring the facts and dishonestly exploiting the issue for political gain.
Recently President Obama made the statement that if you “looked liked an illegal immigrant, and if you didn’t have your papers and you took your kids out for ice cream, you could be harassed,” (2010). This statement coming from a sitting president is shocking. My first question is this; tell me, Mr. President, what does an illegal alien look like? I wasn’t aware that in the United States illegal aliens were labeled as one race over another. Are there not illegal immigrants that may be Canadian, Asian, or European? The fact that now the President is insinuating the Latino race as the Poster Child for what an illegal immigrant looks like, should be troubling and offensive to all Latino people of this nation. In a debate where the word “racism” often gets thrown around, you must ask yourself, who are the ones really making race a focal point? It’s certainly not a law that only focuses on legal status. Nowhere in this bill does the law make any reference to race or skin color in any way.
President Obama’s statement also demonstrated that he either has no understanding of how law enforcement works, or he is choosing to ignore the facts and push misinformation to drive more hysteria in support for his political position on this issue. By stating that you may be “harassed” by simply going out in public is both false and inflammatory. To have the leader of our nation spread such misinformation on legislation when Obama himself was a sitting legislator displays gross negligence on his part as the representative of this nation.
To clear up some of the myths about this bill being spread by activists on the left, let’s take a look at the popular talking points being repeated.
Myth: Hispanics will be randomly stopped by police when they go out in public. Recently President Obama made the statement that if you “looked like an illegal immigrant, you didn’t have your papers and you took your kids out for ice cream, you could be harassed,” (Politcal punch, 2010).
Fact: This could not be any less true. A police officer must conduct themselves as they always have, and have probable cause for their stop. Citizenship status is not a primary infraction and therefore does not constitute probable cause for a stop. It is a secondary infraction. An officer may stop a car for a traffic violation, and then later find the driver has no legal status or identification. At this point an arrest may result after further investigation. This is no different than a drug charge. You don’t look at a car and say, “hey, they have drugs.” Once the vehicle is stopped, however, there may be other factors that indicate further probable cause to look for drugs, for example, an odor being emitted from the vehicle.
Myth: You will be questioned without just cause. “Republican governor Jan Brewer is deciding whether to sign the bill. “Reasonable suspicion” is not clearly defined. But it’s obvious that anyone who “looks” Latino, just like anyone who looked Jewish, could be stopped and required to produce documentation proving they are legally in the country.” (Valen, 2010).
Fact: Reasonable suspicion is very uniform in its application. If an officer pulls a vehicle over and the driver does not speak English, has no driver’s license, no state ID, no social security number to give, at this point there is ample reasonable suspicion for the officer to investigate further. The officer would then run a name and date of birth check to see if any DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) records show. If this comes back blank with no record, there is probable cause to detain the individual to investigate their legal status. The argument made by the above author claims there is no definition in the state law as to what “probable cause is.” This is unnecessary. This falls under federal law which is mandated by constitutional law, which in return trumps state law.
“When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears. It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984). Probable cause exists when “the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)).” (Probable Cause, 2011).
Probable cause is clearly defined, and this argument holds no truth or merit in its current argued state.
Myth: you will now have to carry “papers” on you to prove citizenship.
“The legislation makes it a misdemeanor for foreign nationals to lack proper immigration paperwork in Arizona. But since it’s impossible to identify a foreign national by sight, it effectively mandates that all individuals in Arizona carry papers. That’s right: you, American citizen, can’t walk your dog or buy milk from the grocery store without having papers on you that confirm your legal residence. If you take your kids to the park and forget your documentation at home, you can be held in police custody until your information is verified, even if you’re a U.S. citizen.” (Menendez, 2010)
Fact: Legal immigrants are already required to carry their green card. In most states you must carry a form of ID and if an officer asks for your identification on a stop, you must give it to them. Arizona’s law is no different then what is already on the books. When you go to the DMV, you MUST provide vital records such as a birth certificate in order to obtain a valid driver’s license. If you are not a citizen, you still must have the proper paper work that shows you are in the nation legally before obtaining the license. The following are an example of some of the identification requirements provided by AZdot.gov, the Arizona State website for the vehicle Motor Division.
“Identification Requirements: You need two documents listed below-one must have a clear photo of you, or three documents listed below with no photo” (azdot.gov, 2011)
Examples of such identification include the following,
Primary: U.S. state or territory issued driver’s license, state issued birth certificate, U.S. passport, U.S. certificate of citizenship.
Secondary: U.S. Military ID, Social Security Card, Concealed Weapon Permit, Marriage Certificate.
As you can see, the documentation required by the state of Arizona to legally obtain a driver’s license already verifies one’s legal status and would not be accessible unless they were here in the country legally. When an officer stops an individual and must enquirer into legal status, whether or not that person holds a valid driver’s license with the state tells the officer most of what they need to know. Having a valid license takes the place of a birth certificate. The notion that you would have to carry such papers is false and not supported by fact, but rather emotional sentiment and misconception.
Myth: This law will lead to racial profiling.
“The practical effect of the law will likely result in officers engaging in racial profiling by questioning and detaining individuals based on their race and ethnicity. Even if you think that your State legislators are opposed to SB 1070, it is still beneficial for them to hear from constituents that a dangerous racial profiling law will not be tolerated” (ACTION ALERT: SAY NO TO RACIAL PROFILING: STOP THE SPREAD OF SB 1070!, 2010).
Fact: This is another empty claim with no logic attached. In fact, it’s a false logic based on ad populeum and sloganeering of racial profiling. Most police officers’ conduct themselves in a professional manner and are careful not to violate a person’s civil rights. The idea that somehow a new bill will cause racial profiling is an empty one. This statement is based on the assumption that officers who racially profile would only do so if it were “in the rules.” Racial profiling is illegal, and whether or not an officer participates in such acts is the choice of that individual. This law will no more encourage the officer who chooses to profile anymore then racial profiling being illegal will discourage it. This is like the empty argument stating that making guns illegal to carry will rid gun crime. If you’re a criminal, you don’t care about the law hence the title “criminal”, and will carry a weapon anyway regardless of what the law states. The same concept applies to the corrupt officer. Ethics come down to the individual, not what a law may or may not state. They will either profile, or they won’t; a bill won’t change that reality.
Myth: Most illegal immigrants only want to work; the real problem is drug crime. This bill does nothing to help fight the drug problem.
“SB 1070 did NOTHING useful to really deal with the real problem on our border. The real problem is those guys armed with AK 47s that were shooting at Pinal County deputies over by Interstate 8.We have a serious problem when drug cartel gunmen can get all the way to Interstate 8 to shoot at our deputies. Would there be a meaningful federal response if the gunmen were speaking Pashtun instead of Spanish? SB 1070 didn’t even come close to that problem” (Holub, 2010).
Fact: While this bill is not focused specifically at drugs, it does aid in the cartel drug problem in a large way. Illegal immigrants who come here to work depend on an economic system that caters to their illegal status. Their ability to find work, employment, earn an income and maintain a place to live is necessary for their survival. This bill makes it illegal for an undocumented alien to seek employment. It makes it unlawful for an employer to hire an illegal and unlawful to rent a home to an illegal. The end result of this will become a natural weeding- out process. The people, who are truly here to work, will leave on their own merit. They will have no other choice because you must be able to provide an income and shelter for families to live upon. They will either go back home or simply move to another state that is lax on immigration law. In 2008 E-verify for employment and immigration sweeps by Sheriff Joe Arpio made Arizona a more restricted place for illegal aliens to reside. Since 2008, an estimated 100,000 illegal aliens have left the state. The natural result of this will make law enforcement more effective when fighting drug and cartel crime, because people who are only in AZ to work will have to relocate, largely leaving behind the criminal elements. Illegal aliens who are here for malicious reasons, i.e. to traffic, push drugs, and run cartel errands will not need to relocate. They do not rely on legitimate work to provide an income. The lack of a general population of illegal aliens to blend in with may even result in cartels moving operations to cities and states that do not have such strict laws. Because the general population would move away, this leaves their operatives exposed for tracking and apprehension. It is much harder to blend in as just another landscaper looking for work when all the legitimate workers have moved away to other states where they can still obtain work. This will greatly aid both ICE and local law enforcement in combating cartel activity and tracking down operatives for such operations.
AZ Bill 1070 is in place simply to enable our local law enforcement with the power to enforce laws that often get neglected on the federal level. For example, one night I was driving my patrol car when I was almost T-boned. A vehicle had run a stop sign. I pulled the vehicle over and found a man who did not speak English and had no driver’s license or State ID on him. He had no DMV record, and was not a legal citizen. This man had an alcohol level of .218, and was extreme DUI. After processing, I contacted ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement). They told me they did not have the man power to send and could not pick the man up for detainment. Being local law enforcement, we had no authority to hold the man based on his citizenship and had to let him go. Do you think he showed up for court? Of course not, now this man was released back into the public and is once again a potential threat to public safety. Had the man became intoxicated again and killed someone in a fatal accident, people would have screamed at how the system failed, and the police failed to do their job. The reality was however, we did not have the tools in place to detain the man. This very situation happened in San Francisco in 2008 when an illegal alien, Edwin Ramos, gunned down a father and two sons. Edwin was found to have been arrested several times without being turned over to immigration.
“The Bologna family filed a lawsuit Tuesday alleging that the city’s sanctuary policy shielding illegal immigrants from questions about their citizenship status — even those charged with a crime — was to blame, KCBS San Francisco reported. “The city adopted and enforced a policy that was actually inconsistent with and prohibited by federal law,” Bologna family attorney Michael Kelly was quoted as saying” (Family Sues San Francisco Saying Sanctuary Law to Blame for Murder of Father, Two Sons, 2008).
If California had a law in place like Arizona’s recent passing of 1070, this horrible crime may have been prevented the first day they discovered his legal status.
The outcry against Arizona’s new law is not only silly, but is a complete demonstration of ignorance of the already existing laws of this nation. Before the passing of bill 1070 it was already illegal to be in Arizona illegally. The only difference was it was an offense and a felony on the federal level. Now, it is both a federal offense and state offense. It is nothing more than mirroring the federal law and providing our officers with the tools necessary to keep Arizonians safe. This is absolutely no different than many other laws already on the books. For example, it is a federal offense to rob a bank. However, it is also a state offense to rob a bank. If you rob a bank in any state, you will face both federal and local state charges for the crime. You can even be charged both locally and federally in two different court systems and no, this is not the same as double jeopardy. Just like it’s both a federal and state offense to rob a bank and is illegal, Arizona’s new immigration law has made being in Arizona illegally both a federal and state offense. The question can be asked, “What’s all the fuss about?” The real answer is simple… enforcement. Illegal aliens and their supporters have long lived comfortably in the United States relying on the complacency and lack of enforcement of the federal government to thrive. Now that a border state like Arizona has made a stand to enforce the law the federal government chooses to ignore, they have no more economic collusion that came with sanctuary policies. They are angry because in Arizona, the gravy train has made its final stop, and the tax payers have had enough. There will be no more free meals; no more living in comfort while law abiding immigrants patiently wait for their legal papers to enter this country the respectful and correct way. The message here is that we reward those who follow the rules, and tell people who cut the line and break the rules to get in the back. The first step has been taken and hopefully, many other states will soon follow suit.
References
Family Sues San Francisco Saying Sanctuary Law to Blame for Murder of Father, Two Sons. (2008, April 08). Retrieved September 22, 2011, from Foxnews.com: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513378,00.html
ACTION ALERT: SAY NO TO RACIAL PROFILING: STOP THE SPREAD OF SB 1070! (2010, May 11). Retrieved September 22, 2011, from CAIR California : http://ca.cair.com/losangeles/action_alert/action_alert_say_no_to_racial_profiling_stop_the_spread_of_sb_1070
Politcal punch. (2010, April 27). Retrieved September 22, 2011, from ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/04/president-obama-says-arizonas-poorlyconceived-immigration-law-could-mean-hispanicamericans-are-haras/
azdot.gov. (2011). Retrieved Septemeber 22, 2011, from Motor Vehicle Division.
Probable Cause. (2011, September). Retrieved Septmeber 22, 2011, from LectLaw.com: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p089.htm
Holub, H. (2010, May 23). SB 1070 does nothing to stop drug cartel gunmen. Retrieved Septemeber 22, 2011, from Tucsoncitizen.com:
Menendez, A. (2010, April 23). SB 1070: A Little Bit of History Repeating . Retrieved September 22, 2011, from Laprensa-Sandiego.org
Valen, C. (2010). probable Cause . Retrieved September 22, 2011, from ChristopherValen.com: http://christophervalen.com/blog/?p=259
Good infomation here, thanks.
Dan, what’s the real problem? Or the real issue? Something happen to shape the discussion you present…… Kinda funny, when you’ve been called to answer any of the contradictions you’ve presented, there is nothing but endless “other” issues”……hmmmmm………
Joe doesn’t even make sense. The question he initially posed to me was when he asked me if I could cite any times that I agreed with conservatives. I answered him, and now he changes his thinking/the past to ask whether or not I could cite any of the “contradictions” I have made. This is nonsense. At first, I thought I was blogging with somewhat rational people, but now even that is being thrown into question. This is useless, I can’t lower my standards for you people any more.
I addressed your number 1 question already. Even though it does not explicitly say in the bill anything about race, etc – it is implied in it that you are targeting Mexicans. If you haven’t noticed, there are a lot of people boycotting your state as a result of reaching similar conclusions.
#2: Would you agree that me, as a middle-aged white person, that I would be expected to produce my papers if I do not have a license? If your answer is no, or if you can’t even answer this quickly, then this bill is flawed – because you would agree that “reasonable suspicion” would derive from a confrontation with a Mexican only, and not a middle-aged white person. In which case, you would be targeting Mexicans.
The only thing I can say to you is – go take an anthropology class, or even a Spanish class. If you think liberals are nuts, then try to find out for yourselves by going through similar training exactly what people with open minds go through. Broaden your view of the world, open up your mind. I am done here. If you don’t heed my advice, then you are hopeless. Good luck with that training.
Hey, Dan, in case you haven’t noticed, all the articles I posted were out of Colorado not to mention that I was fortunate to grow up in Colorado, where I am currently at – not in “your state” as which you refer to is in Arizona.
#2, Dan, we (the police) DO arrest WHITE people if there is any question at all whether they are telling us the truth in terms of their identity…. Happens quite often…..so must be a RACIST thing …you know…against Caucasion Americans!!!
I just crack up…you have NO idea what happens in real life….that’s why the suggestion of a ride-a-long just might — might — go ALONG way with you….you go along on a ride and I will take an anthropology class, again…already took one in my undergraduate courses… speak Spanish, so no sense there….but then again I am lying according to you!!!
Dan, good luck with reality.
Dan…..what’s your take on the article I posted yesterday? The one about the majority of people being in support of the Arizona law – 1070?
Once again, you are making assumptions. Show me where it can be “applied” Daniel.
Use facts and references. Ever heard of APA formatting, go ahead and give it a try.
I have taken Spanish, and this has nothing to do with a law that is equally applicable to all illegal aliens of any color or nationality. Again, show me some support for your argument Danil.
Just becaue Mr. Danial is claiming that this law targets Mexicans does not make it fact. We have detained illegals from China and even the Middle East here.
Funny, now that I call for you to support your argument with any fact to back it, you have no desire to continue. No suprise, guess its time to cut and run huh? For your sake I hope you write college papers better then you debate baecause in the academic world you have to argue your points with references to back them up. You have yet to do this. Your not entitled to create your own relaity of facts.
I’ll be waiting Daniel for those references to prove our laws target anyone one of color. Until then, your arguements are no more factually solid then that of a child claiming there is a boogy man in their closet.
Joe – “ditto”
People who do not understand how the law or systems works, especially where illegal immigration is concerned, need to be quiet. The influx of illegals is an epidemic and has to stop…..even if that means we shoot a few of them.
Deputy Louie Puroll shot himself:
http://immigrationclearinghouse.org/assault-on-pinal-county-deputy-an-apparent-hoax/#more-2341
he did lie after all. Remember, question EVERYTHING!
Daniel,
Seriously? This is story is on a pro-illegal immigration blog that promotes the AZ boycott. Their only reference is the left wing New Times, which has very little reference to the claim except a supposed law enforcement source. I’ve checked around and cannot find a single creditable site to back this conspiracy theory, and yet you’re so quick to take this as proof?
The blog site has the following mission statement
“Immigration Clearinghouse is a Pro-Reform Action Group working for logical immigration reform and pushing back and countering the hateful rhetoric of the radical right”
So hateful rhetoric is wanting the laws enforced?….ok, sure.
Don’t you think this group making the allegation has everything to gain and nothing to lose in such a wild story? Do you realize the difficulty in shooting yourself in the back with an AK? Have you ever fired one? I have. It’s a long rifle, and firing one into your back without risking fatal injury is no easy feat. Of course, perhaps the butler held it for him. I do think they found a candlestick under the seat.
Could he have done this? maybe, but so far it’s pretty unlikely, and you’re going to need something way more solid then claims being made by a group that CLEARLY is anti-1070, promotes illegal immigration, and has an axe to grind.
Remember when I said you need more creditable factual data to back up claims? Once again, here we are. This again is allegations made off of speculation and an unknown source from the less then creditable “New Times”. From which their source says “Law Enforcement Source Says Evidence Doesn’t Support Account”.
LOL, oh boy, that is tantalizing! That’s about as convincing as black helicopters flyng over my house at night.
I’m just sayin’. I certain could understand how both sides expediently used this attack for political purposes, ultimately devolving into conspiracy theory. But, like I said… three fundamental questions have never been answered:
1. Did they identify the attacker of the 17 illegal immigrants they rounded up that day? Presumably, deputy Puroll is still alive, and is plenty capable of identifying one of those 17 people(??).
2. Where’s the smoking gun?
3.Why was this event quickly swept under the rug, when it was integral to the passing and acceptance of SB1070, largely because of the unusual timing?
Until you or any other reliable sources can answer these, I will remain skeptical of this event.
Daniel,
You cant assume the Deputy had a good look at the shooter. If there really was a group, Its very difficult pick out of a group, especially when your fired on. The Deputy may never of gotten very close to the group in the first place. I have been in car pursuits and foot chases where its very hard to obtain an accurate profile of the individual running.
As far as the weapon, the desert is a big place, and the border not far. There are a mass of routes that could have been taken, and mass of amounts of places in the desert. The shooter may have fled across the border again. The weapon could be in Mexico, or any other mass amounts of places in the desert. Do you realize how big it is out there? Your literally asking people to find a needle in a stack of needles. Its not as simple as your implying. There are tons of crimes where weapons are never found or discovered. Its not like Television, where CSI comes in and solves who, what , when and where in an hour for your viewing pleasure. The real world doesn’t work this way.
Finally,
Swept under the rug? how so? It made headlines, they went on a man hunt, they found no probable suspects. At this point all they can do is file the report, take down the info, and keep their eye out for any evidence that may emerge. What more do you expect them to do on the matter?
If they were truly trying to “cover” something up and are dishonest, tell me……why wouldn’t they just take one of the 17 they apprehended and pin the shooting on them? Why wouldn’t they plant a weapon?
Your accusing an officer of hoaxing a shooting and the agency covering it up, which would mean they are inherently dishonest and unethical across the aboard, but yet you expect them to run an honest instigation and not have a suspect or weapon? If they were behind it, they could easily have came up with a fall guy and planted weapon as well to seal the deal. Why hoax one thing, then stop short there?
Being skeptical is healthy, but it should be based off of reasonable factors that warrant such a suspicion. So far, this is not close to warranting such a claim. 100′s of shootings have weapons never found and shooters never identified or apprehended.
If there were more solid evidence that came forward, then that would be different.
For example, does the Deputy own an AK? were there powder burns on his back? based on on the impact damage, what was the likely speed of the bullet? Were there any spent AK-47 casings found at the scene? If so, what brand was the ammunition?. Was it local or foreign, or foreign military surplus?
These are all factors that could warrant reasonable suspicion. If some of these were not adding up, THEN there is something there. As of yet, all there is is a bunch of bitter and angry bloggers who support the breaking of federal law and promote ILLEGAL activity making such a claim, with NO evidence to back it. Lack of evidence is not proof of anything.
“You cant assume the Deputy had a good look at the shooter. If there really was a group, Its very difficult pick out of a group, especially when your fired on”
lie.
He certainly was quick to label them illegals. Or was this jump to claiming them as “illegals” just an assertion? Ha – caught you up in your own, as well as others, stereotype. Furthermore, they can delineate group size based on the footprints from the shooting direction.
“As far as the weapon, the desert is a big place, and the border not far. There are a mass of routes that could have been taken, and mass of amounts of places in the desert. The shooter may have fled across the border again. The weapon could be in Mexico, or any other mass amounts of places in the desert. Do you realize how big it is out there?”
lie.
Have you ever seen Fugitive? They can calculate the distance one can travel by foot, or car, quarden off the distance from the time the call was made to dispatch, and send out a team to close in on the area. To remind you, there were plenty of people who were dispatched on that day, including helicopters.
“they found no probable suspects”
lie.
they rounded up 17 “probable suspects” that day. None of which have been yet identified as the potential shooter.
Let me remind you, if these 17 people were indeed probable suspects in the shooting of a police officer, then there is already enough laws on the books and sufficient evidence to detain these people to go to trial. In this case, these people would not be simply sent back to Mexico. Why would you on Earth want to let these potential cop-killers (for lack of a better word) people go under such circumstances? This case is not yet closed in my estimation.
Furthermore, that one-inch wound was not an AK-47 wound. His back would be missing. If you have used an AK-47, which you claimed to have done, then you would know this.
Daniel,
He was in a known location of smugglers, it’s not hard to tell a dope load when you see it. If you had any knowledge or real world experience you would know this. There are signs you can look for i.e. ride height and distribution of weight, type of vehicle, occupants, etc.
I don’t expect you to understand this, you lack any training and real world experience on this this issue.
You said you caught me? You stated- “Have you ever seen Fugitive? They can calculate the distance one can travel by foot, or car, quarden off the distance from the time the call was made to dispatch, and send out a team to close in on the area.”
Seriously? The only thing you caught is a serious case of Hollywood delusional paranoia. Your actually using a fictitious movie such as fugitive for support of your argument? Have you lost it? Did you forget Daniel that your speaking to a trained officer who has done this type of stuff in the real world, and has conducted investigations? I don’t use Hollywood movies as my basis for training or knowledge on such issues.
Lets take your example for one second though. Your using the movie, “Fugitive”, as support for why they should of caught the shooter.
So let me get this straight, you’re using a movie where the suspect (Harrison Ford) Got away! He eluded police for the entire movie! Your using this as support for why they should have caught the suspect in the Deputy shooting? Your using details from a movie of why they should have caught the guy, when the whole movie is about the fact they CANT catch him!
Do you realize how asinine that sounds? Just another example of very simple minded logic being applied to a real world scenario of which you know nothing about……except what you saw on the movies.
As far as the AK-47, again you show your ignorance. Yes I have shot and am very familiar with the weapon, as I am with many firearms.
You said the following: “that one-inch wound was not an AK-47 wound. His back would be missing. If you have used an AK-47, which you claimed to have done, then you would know this”.
Daniel, I have news for you,
his back would very much be there. We’re not taking about a .50 Caliber round here, not to mention the fact it all depends on the angle of impact and many other veriables.
The AK-47 is a 7.62X39mm round. Its not nearly as powerful as the NATO 7.62X51MM round AKA .308, which an M-14, and M-60 fire.
A .223 from a M4 fires a smaller round, but its faster, and when it hits soft tissue, it tumbles, leaving a small entry and big exit.
An AK-47 7.62X39MM does not do this. Actually it goes in and out of soft tissue pretty straight and clean.
Ever heard of Frank D. Miller? He was a medal of honor winner in Vietnam. He was shot several times in the abdomen with an AK-47 at close range, one round exiting his back. He was able to dress his own wounds and continued to fight. He lived and later wrote the book “Reflections of a Warrior”.
Again, this Hollywood assumption you have that taking a AK-47 round to the back would destroy his back is silly and foolish. Yet another example of too many actions movies “teaching” people what bullets do.
I guess you should explain to my buddy who was shot in the back with an AK-47 in Panama why his back is still there. I’m sure he would be fascinated to know why.
Sorry Daniel,
but your creditability is all but gone at this point.
If you’re buddy was shot in the back, the exit wound would be in the front (stomach), which shows me your ignorance of comprehending the logic of physics. Of course his back would still be there.
For the movie Fugitive, I was refering to the strategy Tommy Lee Jones implemented, which in this case, appeared to be of much success (rounding up 17 suspects). You veared off into some delusional endeavor to impute that I was somehow alluding the outcome of the movie. Which shows once again, you amazing ability to make these epistemic disconnects and leaps to judgement based on your own stereotyping.
Daniel,
bullets don’t always exit. they lodge, bounce around, fragment, and do a whole number of other things when enter a human body. Your going to educate me now on ballistics and physics? lol.
Don’t talk to me about “disconnects”.
So far you have……….
1. Refused to acknowledge that riding with an officer would give you any insight to real world situations
2. Accused an officer of hoaxing a shooting based on nothing more the allegations made by pro-illegal immigration bloggers
3. Have given no creditable sources to back any argument you have made
4. Used a fictitious movie to back your argument for “strategy”,….. guess what……in the movies they have unlimited resources ,never run out of ammo and have unlimited logistical support.
I happen to know from working the area, Pinal County has no helicopters and has to request assistance from neighboring agencies that do. It often takes long to get air support in that region.
5. You try to make claims about what is legal and not legal, when you clearly don’t understand the difference between states rights and federal law. You have been proven incorrect repeatedly about thing you state on legal processes, i.e. how a traffic stop is conducted.
6. you try to tell other readers how a traffic stop works and what a cop would or can look for, even though you have never conducted such a stop or have had the training to do so.
The list could go on but I have made my point. It’s pretty clear who here is lacking knowledge, logic, and good old fashioned common sense.
The only disconnect going on here is the fact you refuse to acknowledge reality for what it is, and would rather debate people you ideologically disagree with, even when your arguments hold no merit once help up to moderate scrutiny. My advice to you is to actually go out and experience first hand about these issues before you speak as if your such a knowledgeable authority on the matter. You only hurt your self in the process. As they say, look before you leap.
I
See, here you go again, showing your incompetence on this issue. We were talking about AK-47s, but now you want to mix it up with .22 caliber bullets. AK-47 bullets don’t bounce around like .22 caliber bullets. Don’t mix up the two. Damn dialn! No wonder you are no longer a deputy!!
Daniel, do you suffer from selective reading? Are you unable to comprehend what I just posted. First off, .223 is not a .22 cal. Its a 5.56 MM NATO round the M-16 fires. I used the .223 in contrast to that of a 7.62X39mm round to show how different rounds behave when they hit soft tissue.
Here is my direct quote.
“The AK-47 is a 7.62X39mm round. Its not nearly as powerful as the NATO 7.62X51MM round AKA .308, which an M-14, and M-60 fire.
A .223 from a M4 fires a smaller round, but its faster, and when it hits soft tissue, it tumbles, leaving a small entry and big exit.
An AK-47 7.62X39MM does not do this. Actually it goes in and out of soft tissue pretty straight and clean.
Ever heard of Frank D. Miller? He was a medal of honor winner in Vietnam. He was shot several times in the abdomen with an AK-47 at close range, one round exiting his back. He was able to dress his own wounds and continued to fight. He lived and later wrote the book “Reflections of a Warrior”.
Again, this Hollywood assumption you have that taking a AK-47 round to the back would destroy his back is silly and foolish. Yet another example of too many actions movies “teaching” people what bullets do”.
Nowhere did I go off topic, I was speaking about the AK-47 round the whole time. Usually, it helps to explain things to people by comparing similar items. When you read a car review, they often compare it to competitors cars and compare and contrast how they perform against one another. This is no different. I’m trying to teach you something, but you seem to think you know it all.
Funny, now your going to tell me I’m mixing up ballistics when you think a .223 cal is a .22?
When I left being a Deputy, I went to work as an Officer for a city. Now, I am dealing with chronic health issues and am disabled from being able to work at the moment. Not that I owe you an explanation, but since you made an obnoxious statement about my employment, I may as well inform you.
Did they find the shooter?
Did they find the weapon?
Did they even find footprints and track them, just like they were able to do with the killed rancher on the border?
How quickly this event got swept under the rug. I wonder why that is(?).
What does this have to do with the conversation we were having?
Dan, we covered this. I’m not going to keep going in circles. It gets rather tiring. I do appreciate you participating though. We should have a beer summit
Hey Dan and Nick….just catching up on here. Good stuff. All I can add is ‘dillusional’ on the part of Dan. Nick – good supporting argument based upon known facts; Dan – not so much. Good job though on trying to apply movie information to reality….well, maybe not.
Hey Danny Boy,
they just found two shot dead this morning at the SAME known illegal crossing the Pinal County Deputy was shot. You think perhaps these guys shot each other to death to spark more flames to 1070?
No, but it certainly sounds like someone is seriously dropping the ball if in fact this is a ‘know corridor’. Do they need volunteer help? Why don’t you die hards go for your ride alongs and shoot you some Mexicant’s?
I love how Joe acts like this objective third party observer, as if it would just take one or two thoughts to convert him eithr way as if he is acting unbiased. But these silly conversations always end up with dialn and joe backing each other up in a good ole boy way. Conservatives will never get it. They are struggling to regain power, but they will not get it. They might have power in Arizona, but they will soon be shut down by the federal government and the rest of the world.
Well, after much careful thought and listening to both sides of the argument, I’ve concluded that SB 1070 should be passed, and that the borders should be sealed to protect honest hard-working Americans.
Thanks for pounding out discussions with me.
Fantastic…
I shared this on reddit….