Law and Order

Rebutting Lies About the New Arizona Law

blind-justice.pngGovernor Jan Brewer of Arizona signed SB 1070 into law last Friday. Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, including the ACLU and others insist the law is unconstitutional. Even our misguided President declared it “misguided” and said the DOJ would look into the legality of the new law.

Most of the concerns that have been voiced are disingenuous and completely without merit. This is a summary of a rebuttal to those lies published in an editorial yesterday in the N.Y. Times, believe it or not. The author, Kris W. Kobach, is a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City. He served as Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration law and border security from 2001 to 2003.

Here are the major points and the rebuttal to each:

It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them.

The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements. Since the federal laws aren’t being enforced, this provision is necessary and fair.

“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.

The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Nobody will be randomly stopped unless there is this totality of circumstances suspicion.

If a police officer pulls over a minivan for a traffic violation and it is crammed with a bunch of people of any color or race, the officer may have reasonable suspicion that the driver is a ‘coyote’ and the passengers are being transported illegally in a known area of immigrant smuggling.

The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling.

Actually, Section 2 of SB 1070 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.

It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license.

Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents, native or alien, to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.

State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter.

While it is true that Federal authorities hold primary responsibility for immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being preempted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.

Shopping Crime Rates in Arizona

One major consideration in Shopping Homes is the crime risk in areas where we might decide to settle. I found a real estate appraisal website, eppraisal.com, where area demographics for a given locale may be found. The crime data that they use is almost ten years old, so it has likely changed some; the data came from year 2000 census statistics. I’m sure that the crime rates, even though they may have changed, will have remained in proportion to those shown.

I chose to compare between Phoenix, the largest city in Arizona, Tucson, second largest and two neighboring smaller towns, one close to Phoenix and one close to Tucson. The numbers in the graphs are incidents per 10,000 people and break down to Personal and Property crimes. (We tend to take property crimes personal, however, but that’s beside the point.)

First, let’s look at Tucson and Marana, both in the southern Valley of the Sun and in Pima County. Interstate 10 runs through or beside both, and both are considered good places to retire. Both towns have a fairly high property crime rate but have a relatively low violent crime rate when compared to cities like Los Angeles, New York and Chicago.

pima.jpg

Note that the scale and the personal property crimes are considerably higher than in Tucson proper. Auto theft and burglaries seem to be the major problem in Marana and, to a lesser extent, in Tucson.

Next, let’s look at Phoenix and Wickenburg, closer to the center of Arizona and both in Maricopa County (think Sheriff Joe). Phoenix and the surrounding area are also considered to be nice places to retire. Again, the Phoenix Metro area experiences a lot of property crimes and has been growing in personal crimes due to illegal aliens and drug cartel problems. Wickenburg is isolated from the Northwest Phoenix metro area by virtue of a small range of hills and a distance of about thirty-five miles from the town of Surprise, AZ. Us Highway 60 connects the two.

Maricopa

The vertical scales are different between these two graphs, but inspecting the numbers reveal a very low rate of both personal and property crimes in Wickenburg. We’re inclined to believe that the combination of lower new home prices and lower crime rates makes Wickenburg our very likely choice.

Gun Ban Not Working in Binghamton

troopersPrayers go out for the victims and their families and friends in today’s horrible attack in Binghamton, NY.

Sensible gun owners now anticipate anti-gun organizations and anti-gunners in the media and government to jump on the spilled blood as leverage to eliminate dangerous guns. If there were only a few legitimate CCW permits issued to building occupants, this crime may have been over before a dozen victims were killed.

John Lott posted this sensible analysis on FoxNews.com:

Time after time multiple-victim public shootings occur in “gun free zones” — public places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The horrible attack today in Binghamton, New York is no different. Every multiple-victim public shooting that I have studied, where more than three people have been killed, has taken place where guns are banned.

You would think that it would be an important part of the news stories for a simple reason: Gun-free zones are a magnet for these attacks. Extensive discussions of these attacks can be found here and here. We want to keep people safe, but the problem is that it is the law-abiding good citizens, not the criminals, who obey these laws. We end up disarming the potential victims and not the criminals. Rather than making places safe for victims, we unintentionally make them safe for the criminal.

At some point, you would think the media would notice that something is going on here, that these murderers aren’t just picking their targets at random. And this pattern isn’t really too surprising. Most people understand that guns deter criminals. . . . .

911 Scam Alert – Be Aware of “SWATTING”

swatEvery homeowner with firearms in the home may want to pay close attention to this – a new 911 scam that exploits a weakness in the internet telephone system has been sending first responders, usually S.W.A.T. teams, to random phony emergency calls. If this happens to you, be very careful what actions you take.

The scene below takes place after 10 PM in a suburban neighborhood. A homeowner and his family are awakened by loud sirens, footsteps and a helicopter orbiting above.

The family has been SWATTED.

Doug Bates got up to lock the doors and grabbed a knife. A beam from a flashlight hit him. He peeked into the backyard. A swarm of police, assault rifles drawn, ordered him out of the house. Bates emerged, frightened and with the knife in his hand, as his wife frantically dialed 911. They were handcuffed and ordered to the ground while officers stormed the house.

The scene of mayhem and carnage the officers expected was nowhere to be found. Neither the Bateses nor the officers knew that they were pawns in a dangerous game being played 1,200 miles away by a teenager bent on terrifying a random family of strangers.

Bates said that if he had responded with a gun that he feared he would have been shot.

With that in mind, if that ever happens in your neighborhood, keep it cool with the personal armed response. Remember, we keep our guns handy just in case of a 911 emergency where the police can’t respond in time, but NOT if they’ve surrounded your house.

Read the report “New 911 fraud is duping SWAT teams.”

Some Thoughts on OJ Simpson

Click Me

Most criminal law legal experts say that OJ is going to be behind bars for a long time. Judge Jackie Glass, the judge that sentenced OJ, made it clear that the sentence being passed was for the kidnapping and weapons charges only. The fact that she gave a similar sentence to OJ’s partner in crime, Clarence “CJ” Stewart, more or less backs up the notion that the sentence was, indeed, punishment for these crimes only and not karma for something else OJ may have done.

Thirteen years ago, I stood in disbelief when that lame LA jury set OJ free. My hope for the future of this moron is that the parole board, in addition to his despicable character, takes into consideration OJ’s civil liability in the wrongful death of Nichole Brown and Ron Goldman. Throw away the key, people.

Dennis Miller, a longtime critic of post-murder-trial Simpson had this to say on Bill O’Reilly’s TV show:

“When I see O.J.’s mug shot,” Miller cracked, “he has that Mona Lisa smile – this guy is so nuts, I think he’s happy to be back in the limelight. He literally got away with murder, yet was willing to break into someone’s room to get some trading cards.”

Click on the image of Simpson, above, to hear Miller’s thoughts on OJ.

Simpson’s not smiling now, I bet.

More thoughts on OJ’s stupidity from examiner.com

What a sad spectacle and yet a lesson that can be learned by others if they take the time to watch and listen.

O.J.Simpson stood in chains and prison garb in front of the sentencing judge in Las Vegas today and pleaded for leniency. His lawyers had just finished admitting that he was stupid but that stupidity isn’t criminality.

The lawyers made the case for him that the items taken or attempted to be taken were his and there was no criminal intent when he and his little group of idiots burst through the doors of a room in a Las Vegas hotel that day in September 2007, The ownership issue is still a question according to a judge.

This should effectively end the O.J.saga in American life unless when he is released while in his late sixties he is still as stupid as he apparently is now.

OPSEC – Protect Your Personal Information

I recently got a briefing on Operational Security. The reason for the briefing is to periodically review some of the things that we should consider in our responsibility to keep information safe from unwanted disclosure.

One of the first slides the Operations Security Manager put up on the screen was that of the rear window of an SUV where someone had proudly placed a stick-figure representation of their family, complete with names.

The OSM said “How would you like it if someone who had noticed you and your little kids getting out of the vehicle and going into the store? How would you like it if that person were to entice one of your kids away by calling them by name? ‘Psst, Susie – your mom wants you to come over here with me.’ Sounds frightening, doesn’t it?”

This reminded me of the article Damsel posted on this topic last year which I re-post here.


Wouldn’t it be nice to have your beautiful family depicted in the rear window of your SUV or mini-van? With Dad, Mom, and all the kids’ names? You’ve seen those rear-window decals around.

But I’d think twice before listing my family members’ names for all to see (maybe some sicko predator would like to know your kids’ names). So this is my solution to listing our family members that I want folks to know about . . .

the-gun-family

Permission given to copy and use this graphic with link credit to capnbob.us