Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Democrats Start Aiming Loaded Weapons At Their Feet

By Greg L | 26 February 2008 | DPVA, Crime | 21 Comments

I know plenty of Democrats that want to ensure that law enforcement has the tools they need in order to protect us from criminals, just as I know plenty of Democrats who think it’s an outrage that illegal aliens and those who unlawfully hire them are actively protected from facing the consequences of their unlawful actions under current state and federal laws.  Still, some are determined to cement a relationship between Democrats and the crowd that wants to ensure that criminals — illegal aliens and otherwise — are provided the highest degree of deference possible from law enforcement.  This, depending on your political perspective, is either the best or the worst thing that could ever happen to the DPVA.

Case in point:  Delegate Jackson Miller introduced HB 436 that would restore the discretionary powers of police officers to detain persons suspected of committing Class 1 and Class 2 misdemeanors instead of issuing them a summons and releasing them.  Some examples of conduct that would apply here are vandalism, stalking, manufacturing fraudulent documents, violating a protective order, obstructing a police officer, concealment or removal of a child from a juvenile court hearing, assault or battery by mob, reckless handling of firearms, and sexual battery.  Police officers previously could use their discretion and place suspects under arrest until a recent court ruling that took that power away.  HB 436 would restore the powers of police officers to what they were prior to this ruling.

The blog Democratic Central, responding to the gnashing of teeth by the ACLU has decided that it’s really important for people to oppose this, and is calling on readers to contact members of the Senate Courts of Justice Committee and ask them to oppose HB 436.  The rationale given for this position is “because racial profiling exists in Virginia, HB 436 will disproportionately increase the number of arrests and searches of of minorities.”  This bill passed 87-12 in the House of Delegates, with even Northern Virginian “progressive” Democrats Brink, Caputo, Poisson and Amundson voting in favor of it.  Were there really a plausible rationale that this would cause racially-based policing, there’s no way these folks would have voted in favor of HB 436.

If “progressives” such as those running “Democratic Central” are successful in convincing enough Democrats on the Senate Courts of Justice Committee to vote against this bill, it should set up an interesting political dynamic within the Democratic Party.  Will they really want to defend the notion that requiring catch-and-release of “peeping toms” is good policy in Virginia?  That’s not going to play well at all state-wide.  The Democrats are still struggling to define what they stand for as a party, and votes like these can really help determine whether the left-wing, or relative moderates within the party are going to be calling the shots, and how much ammunition they will effectively hand to Republicans for use in future elections.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.

21 Comments

  1. Advocator said on 26 Feb 2008 at 4:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    You’re speaking of Dumbocrats, not Democrats.

  2. Johnson said on 26 Feb 2008 at 5:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    To the Dems, the Racism “Boogeyman” is the go-to guy to ladle out the guilt. Wah, get over it. Racism among whites is a thing of the past. Stop blaming your shortcomings on the color of your skin while guilting the “Man” into more handouts. Stand up and be an American.

    *Whew!* That felt good…have at it!

  3. es_la_ley said on 26 Feb 2008 at 5:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Dhimmicrats” works as well.

  4. Krutis said on 26 Feb 2008 at 7:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Creative talents at work.

  5. HEARTBLEED said on 26 Feb 2008 at 8:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    DID YOU GUYS EVER TAKE A GOOD LOOK IN THE MIRROR WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT YOUR ALMIGHTY RULE OF LAW? SOME OF US WHO LEAN TO BEING DEMOCRATS HAVE NO INTEREST IN ATTRACTING THEM TO THE PARTY………WE SIMPLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FOLLOW THE RULE OF LAW ….AND NOT BY BARTERING WITH OTHERS…..WHAT A WASTE OF TIME THE RESOLUTION HAS BEEN…CANT WE EVER GET OVER THE FACT THAT THEY ARE HERE? FIGURE OUT HOW MANY CONSUMER DOLLARS ARE SPENT EVERY DAY BY 12 MILLION PEOPLE…..AND HOW WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DEPORT THEM!!! AND REMEMBER…GEORGE BUSH IS A REPUBLICAN……AND AT LEAST HE SHOWED SOME GOOD SENSE IN TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE RESPONSIBLY TIL HE GOT SHOT DOWN BY HATE RADIO………YOU STAND UP AND BE AN AMERICAN JOHNSON……AND IT AINT BY WAVING YOUR FIST AT HISPANICS!! AND WHINING ABOUT WHAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN……DEPORTING THEM…..YOU FOLKS WILL GO A LONG WAY IN CREATING AN UNDERCLASS THAT WE CAN THEN SORT OUT FOR THE NEXT HUNDRED YEARS!! PEACE BROTHERS….

  6. es_la_ley said on 26 Feb 2008 at 8:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    Indubitably!

  7. es_la_ley said on 26 Feb 2008 at 8:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    HEARTBLEED so eloquently said on 26 Feb 2008 at 8:15 pm:

    DID YOU GUYS EVER TAKE A GOOD LOOK IN THE MIRROR WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT YOUR ALMIGHTY RULE OF LAW? SOME OF US WHO LEAN TO BEING DEMOCRATS HAVE NO INTEREST IN ATTRACTING THEM TO THE PARTY………WE SIMPLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FOLLOW THE RULE OF LAW ….AND NOT BY BARTERING WITH OTHERS…..WHAT A WASTE OF TIME THE RESOLUTION HAS BEEN…CANT WE EVER GET OVER THE FACT THAT THEY ARE HERE? FIGURE OUT HOW MANY CONSUMER DOLLARS ARE SPENT EVERY DAY BY 12 MILLION PEOPLE…..AND HOW WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DEPORT THEM!!! AND REMEMBER…GEORGE BUSH IS A REPUBLICAN……AND AT LEAST HE SHOWED SOME GOOD SENSE IN TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE RESPONSIBLY TIL HE GOT SHOT DOWN BY HATE RADIO………YOU STAND UP AND BE AN AMERICAN JOHNSON……AND IT AINT BY WAVING YOUR FIST AT HISPANICS!! AND WHINING ABOUT WHAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN……DEPORTING THEM…..YOU FOLKS WILL GO A LONG WAY IN CREATING AN UNDERCLASS THAT WE CAN THEN SORT OUT FOR THE NEXT HUNDRED YEARS!! PEACE BROTHERS….

    1) You’re illiterate.
    2) Your diatribe is nonsensical.

    But, you have some gumption, I’ll give you that. Now, if you can reformulate your words to actually make some sense I’d be willing to take some time to actually listen to what you have to say. Otherwise, buzz off.

  8. Thumper said on 26 Feb 2008 at 8:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, I guess someone hasn’t study a court ruling properly nor law regarding misdemeanor arrests. The court ruling was simply stating Police HAVE BEEN breaking the law. It wasn’t judical activism or whatever you believe.

  9. MP Resident said on 26 Feb 2008 at 9:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    3) It’s considered shouting to type in all caps.

  10. Anonymous said on 26 Feb 2008 at 10:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    HEARTBLEED said on 26 Feb 2008 at 8:15 pm:

    …..AND HOW WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DEPORT THEM!!! AND REMEMBER…GEORGE BUSH IS A REPUBLICAN……AND AT LEAST HE SHOWED SOME GOOD SENSE IN TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE RESPONSIBLY TIL HE GOT SHOT DOWN BY HATE RADIO………

    ENFORCE THE LAW AND THEY WILL DEPORT THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    HE WAS SHOT DOWN AS YOU PUT IT BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO MADE THEIR WILL KNOWN WHEN THE SENATE TRIED TO PASS THEIR ASSENINE AMNESTY BILL.

    AS ES_LA_LEY SAID: BUZZZZZ OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  11. park'd said on 27 Feb 2008 at 7:23 am:
    Flag comment

    haha! Heartbleed’s post and the subsequent replies have made me laugh hysterically. I was like WTF when I read that post too and then read es_la_ley’s comments and almost spit out my coffee on the monitor. Good stuff. My pet peeve is bad speeeling andf grammer. ;)

  12. ThinkAboutIt said on 27 Feb 2008 at 8:02 am:
    Flag comment

    DID YOU GUYS EVER TAKE A GOOD LOOK IN THE MIRROR WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT YOUR ALMIGHTY RULE OF LAW? SOME OF US WHO LEAN TO BEING DEMOCRATS HAVE NO INTEREST IN ATTRACTING THEM TO THE PARTY………WE SIMPLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FOLLOW THE RULE OF LAW

    So in your opinion, it is ok to break the law such as illegally entering this country.

    ….AND NOT BY BARTERING WITH OTHERS…..WHAT A WASTE OF TIME THE RESOLUTION HAS BEEN…CANT WE EVER GET OVER THE FACT THAT THEY ARE HERE?

    Just like I should get over the fact that people kill people and therefore it should be ok.

    FIGURE OUT HOW MANY CONSUMER DOLLARS ARE SPENT EVERY DAY BY 12 MILLION PEOPLE…..AND HOW WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DEPORT THEM!!!

    Hmmmm….I would bet that doesnt offset the costs of the services that they require through our public safety offices and our school systems. Let us not forget that little Johnny or Suzy are falling behind because the teacher is having to go over again and again the same stuff until it is either understood (nope) or the teacher gives up (bingo).

    AND REMEMBER…GEORGE BUSH IS A REPUBLICAN……AND AT LEAST HE SHOWED SOME GOOD SENSE IN TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE RESPONSIBLY TIL HE GOT SHOT DOWN BY HATE RADIO………

    See a few posts above.

    YOU STAND UP AND BE AN AMERICAN JOHNSON……AND IT AINT BY WAVING YOUR FIST AT HISPANICS!! AND WHINING ABOUT WHAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN……

    I will stand up as well. We waived our fists and made a few changes in our history, you seem to think we cant do it again. Ever wonder why your not ruled by a King or Queen. Because we Americans stood up. It is not about hispanics my dear boy….it is about illegal activity. I dont care if your name is Juan, Sung, or Muhammed if your here illegally.

    DEPORTING THEM…..YOU FOLKS WILL GO A LONG WAY IN CREATING AN UNDERCLASS THAT WE CAN THEN SORT OUT FOR THE NEXT HUNDRED YEARS!! PEACE BROTHERS….

    WTF??? Did this even make sense to the voices in your head? The solution is first closing the boarder….then we address who is supposed to be here and who isnt. Yes, yes, yes, I know. We all came from somewhere else a long time ago. Its just that my family did it the legal way.

  13. Johnson said on 27 Feb 2008 at 9:56 am:
    Flag comment

    My fault, folks. I did say, “Have at it.” T’was a diatribe to be proud of. Sprinkle it with some more rhetoric and it could be a campaign promise. I think somebody hasn’t filled their prescription for a while…

  14. /\/\3|)iç 64 (Winner of the BVBL 40k and 50k post award) said on 27 Feb 2008 at 11:13 am:
    Flag comment

    See Johnson, it is YOUR fault. You left the door open and see what came in?? j/k ;)
    *******************

    HEARTBLEED said on 26 Feb 2008 at 8:15 pm:

    Uhhh, WHAT? You ramble on without much purpose here. What are you trying to say? Is it OK to continue breaking the law just because you are here and we are just suppose to accept it and everything is kum ba yah? UHHH, NO!!!

    Move along, nothing for you here!!!

  15. Bl said on 27 Feb 2008 at 5:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Does any of the open Borders crowd know the different s between Illegal Immigration & Legal Immigration? Also if it is ok to be invaded from the South then it should be ok to be invaded from any Nation or race in the world. There are 100,s of millions probably billions from Africa, India, China, etc. that would like the same right as Latinos to Invade this Nation, have the tax payers pay their Medical bills, Educate their Children in their own language while they break numerous laws and Rape, Rob, Kill thousands of Citizens every year. As for as hate Crimes there are many more Americans citizens of all races killed by Illegal Latinos every year then is killed by American citizens. Like the ethic cleansing in LA of Black by illegal Hispanics!
    MEXICO,S Immigration LAWS!
    Mind you, this is the law of the land in Mexico, the third-world nation that has encouraged millions of it’s citizens to invade America.

    It is also the same country that threatened to take the U.S. to the UN for building a fence on American soil!
    Mexico’s Immigration Law:
    Let’s Try It Here at Home

    Reference:
    http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/waller5-8-06.html#top

    By J. Michael Waller
    Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

    That’s too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

    At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve
    our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

    * in the country legally;

    * have the means to sustain themselves economically;

    * not destined to be burdens on society;

    * of economic and social benefit to society;

    * of good character and have no criminal records; and

    * contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

    The law also ensures that:

    * immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

    * foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

    * foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

    * foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

    * foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

    * those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

    Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens — and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or
    General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country’s immigration policy.

    It is an interesting law — and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a
    crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

    If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

    We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let’s look at Mexico’s main immigration law.

    Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

    * Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)

    * Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)

    * Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)

    * The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)

    Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

    * Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

    * A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

    * A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

    Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

    * Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

    * Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

    Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

    * Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

    * Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

    * Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working without a permit — can also be imprisoned.

    Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

    * “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)

    * Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

    * Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)

    Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

    * A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

    * Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

    All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico’s immigration practices versus its American immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government’s agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.

    Let’s call Mexico’s bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let’s propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico’s own law as a model.

  16. Krutis said on 27 Feb 2008 at 5:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    BI @ 5:19 pm - Of course people from other continents would try to get here if there wasn’t so much water to cross. Cubans try for Florida, North Africans try for Spain, Albanians try for Italy but where there’s an OCEAN to cross it gets a little tricky.

    It’s geography that makes the Central and South Americans come here. Rio Grande isn’t all that grande in most places.
    Fences won’t do much good. East Germany tried to keep people IN, but those who wanted out made it anyway or died trying. We’re dealing with WILL and STUBBORNNESS and DESIRE for a better life.

  17. Johnson said on 28 Feb 2008 at 9:48 am:
    Flag comment

    It’s a shame that their “will and stubborness and desire for a better life” isn’t coupled with courage, integrity and the desire to improve their own country instead of invading ours. Therefore, they are cowards and criminals. We took on the world’s superpower (at the time) and won. The British knew what they had in the colonies of America. Their cruelty and greed was their downfall, worldwide. I see that same cruelty and greed in the current Republican adminisration. And I’m a conservative! I can only hope that the Dems are more patriotic than socialist. FDR led us through a global war that ended with the use of atomic weapons. Let’s hope that the current Dems have the guts to do it again, this time against the Islamists. I don’t see Mexican troops in Afghanistan or Iraq, so we need to give them back their citizens. Mexico doesn’t want them, because when they do return, they’ll want jobs, free health care, education and the pursuit of happiness. Maybe they’ll have learned enough from us to fight for it.

    Let’s face it. The have-nots want what the haves have. They want to have it without earning it. That’s stealing. We don’t see the whole rest of the world clamoring to get into Mexico.

  18. /\/\3|)iç 64 (Winner of the BVBL 40k and 50k post award) said on 28 Feb 2008 at 9:55 am:
    Flag comment

    Bl said on 27 Feb 2008 at 5:19 pm:

    I agree, let’s use their model. If the jobs are dried up and the incentives have been removed, employers being HEAVILY fined for hiring ILLEGAL aliens, we will see a decrease in border crossings. There will be nothing here for them to desire. Once the laws to give consequences to the employers are enacted and enforced, we will continue to see this problem. Once they become laws and are properly enforced, we will start to see self deportation. It is already happening in OK and AZ. It works!! We just need to keep after it and not worry about the whinny apologists!

  19. Roy_B said on 28 Feb 2008 at 11:30 am:
    Flag comment

    Sorry, guys, you have it wrong. You said that HB436:
    “would restore the discretionary powers of police officers to detain persons suspected . . . Police officers previously could use their discretion and place suspects under arrest until a recent court ruling that took that power away. HB 436 would restore the powers of police officers to what they were prior to this ruling.”
    This is not so. Unlike most of your readers, I was present when the law was passed, back in the seventies. It was the clear intent of the legislators at that time to reduce the waste of police/magistrate/lockup resources that result from actually arresting, rather than merely issuing a summons to, people who have committed misdemeanors. They crafted the new law very carefully, and it says that officers *** SHALL *** issue summonses rather than arrest unless one of several exceptions apply. This has been the law for many years, and as Senator Stolle points out, is how the law has been taught to police officers in at least one jurisdiction. Look it up:

    If there are other circumstances where actual arrest is needed, rather than just issuing a summons, it’s easy to add other exemptions, rather than leave the decision entirely up to the officer involved. However, after hearing testimony on this for two years now, it’s obvious that what is wanted is the power to SEARCH people who commit minor crimes, in the hope of finding something that can be used to arrest them on more serious charges.

    If you really think that there would be no abuse of this power, no “profiling”, then you must think that every single police officer in the Commonwealth is entirely free of biases and prejudices. If so, then I have this bridge for sale . . .

  20. Johnson said on 28 Feb 2008 at 12:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    Those rascally Law Enforcement officials! There they go, being human again! The nerve!

  21. Roy_B said on 28 Feb 2008 at 4:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    The discussion is moot for this year.

    A few minutes ago, Senate Courts carried the bill over until next year.

    By that time, the US Supremes will likely have decided the appeal from the Virginia Supremes.

    If the bill gets revived, there are two questions that no one has looked at, in any of the hearings I’ve attended.

    First is, we keep hearing that 45 states already give officers this discretion. If so, then how are the other five handling the situation? Are they disaster cases, or do their systems work?

    Second is the cost. Fiscal impact statement looks at an average cost for keeping someone in jail, but does not address the issue of differential cost of an arrest vs summons irrespective of jail time, if any. This would include at least couple of hours of the arresting officer’s time, the lock-up and fingerprinting costs, the magistrate’s time, and other incidentals. I’ve heard estimates from a few hundred bucks up to $2,000.

Comments are closed.


Views: 1390