Only in states notorious for corruption is it illegal to record a conversation that you are party to. As far as I know, those states are Maryland, Illinois, and Mass.
There are only 5 jurisdictions that allow you to enter the bar without law school in the US now. California, surprisingly, has the most well-developed program to become a lawyer without law school, and that requires 4 years of study (basically free labor) under a practicing lawyer or judge.
It can be argued, using the Declaration of Independence as an example, that a country begins when people forming it says it begins - and that since we have been under self-government since July, 1776 (although during the Revolution we gained and lost territory depending on what was going on in the war), and that since the same authorities that declared Independence also spawned the legal chain of continuity that govern this country to this day, then, indeed, July, 1776 IS when our independence should be dated to. The Continental Congress became an independent provisional government that then authorized the Articles of Confederation and then subsequently the US Constitution.
Thank you. I read the whole article wondering, "how can these over-sensationalistic idiot writers spend half the article talking about TDL4 and interviewing Kaspersky employees, and yet not bother to mention the very excellent, and very free, TDSSKILLER tool from Kaspersky that kills TDL4 dead?" If I was one of the Kaspersky guys interviewed, I'd be pissed.
No, I am saying it is the height of hypocrisy that a racist, exploitative, oppressive barbaric regime like Mexico is suing us in Federal court over the relatively mild requirements of SB1070.
Again, no offense, but you are unaware of Arizona law. Seat belt use is a "secondary offense" in Arizona; a police officer cannot pull you over if he sees you driving without a seat belt (unlike most other states). They may ONLY cite you for a seat belt violation if they have pulled you over for a different offense. Of course, this is no defense against the stereotypical rogue cop who smashes your taillight with his baton and says, "your tail light is out, let me see your license", but the same can be said for any law.
Scottsdale cops are getting better. They have never quite recovered from the image of being a joke of a department after they botched the Bob Crane case. Scottsdale still has some cowboy cops who are arrogant punks.
Most other AZ cops are pretty good. The rank and file MCSO deputies are usually ok (and I'm speaking as someone who was arrested on trumped-up charges by one many years ago), the upper management Sheriff Joe flunkies are corrupt as hell.
Bad AZ cops usually wind up getting in trouble sooner or later. I have noticed, too, traveling to other states, our AZ cops seem to be more polite and respectful than cops in other states - I really think it helps that the cops know that a ton of people here are packing heat themselves and the AZ cops don't go looking for a fight.
As for Andrew Thomas, he's no racist. I think he bought too much into Joe's bullshit and got in over his head, and screwed up his legal and political career beyond repair due to his abuses of power. However, given that he is very devoted to his very Hispanic wife, calling him a racist doesn't jibe.
Arpaio isn't a racist. He's a blustering, arrogant, abusive, power-hungry prick who I have publicly denounced on his home turf in the past, but the man is not racist. He is after power, not persecuting people just because they're brown or some other color. He truly doesn't give a damn about what skin color a person has, although if you're Italian you will get to hear him share Italian jokes with you...he's actually got some good ones.
So, basically, you're saying that no nation on earth has the right to give its police officers the right to determine if a person is in a country illegally?
Go tell that to Mexico, where it's a felony not to show evidence of being in the country legally upon demand by any government officer.
Arpaio is an abusive prick who routinely made a career of arresting his political opponents on trumped-up charges.
I support SB1070, but I will not defend Arpaio. I support the right of his office to do anti-illegal immigration sweeps, but I don't support the man himself. He's a blustering opportunist.
You obviously haven't read SB1070.
It's funny. Mexico is SUING Arizona over SB1070, which makes it a state misdemeanor to be in the country illegally. They claim racism.
But, if you are an illegal immigrant in Mexico and you're WHITE, you get your ass thrown in jail for a period of time, and charged with a felony. And God help you if you're HISPANIC in Mexico - if you're from Guadamola or some other Hispanic country, and are there illegally, they will throw your ass in a darker, danker cell, and you will be there for a longer period of time than the white guy.
It's such hypocrisy.
Not quite true. There are many liberals and conservatives who bend over for the corporations that give them a funding reach around.
There is, however, one declared Socialist, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and the corporations want nothing to do with him.
Not that I agree with him, I'm a Republican conservative myself, but I respect Rep. Sanders because he's a fundamentally honest guy and shames us into doing better when so many self-professed "conservatives" are actually corporate whores looking for any excuse to shovel taxpayer money or government power towards their pet megacorp.
No, there's lots of other illegals here, too. Hispanic illegal immigrants are certainly the largest group, but there's plenty of white Europeans and Indians who have overstayed visas to work here. And, although they were not illegal, the September 11 hijackers attended flight school in Arizona, and there's concern about increasing Islamic fundamentalist presence in Arizona.
Saying something doesn't make it true. The law requires probable cause, not just "looking at someone".