[Kosh]

How about you brighteyes tell us how to solve gang problems then, instead of ragging on someone whose solving them the only way he knows how.

The problem is prisons in America are full of gangs, and often non-gang bangers who get sent to jail for non-violent stuff end up having to join gangs and become violent because that is the environment they live in. Cramming them into Hoovervilles or overcrowded prisons isn't going to help that. For a lot of these people violence and crime is all they know, so unless they are taught differently what do you expect them to do?

In actuality most people who go to jail, end up coming back to jail. The revolving door of justice keeps turning full swing, and that is one of the biggest problems. There are more than a few who try to get a job and live straight, but they can't because their criminal record denies them access to jobs pushing them right back into crime. Our justice system is failing miserably as a deterrent. We have 5% of the total world's population and 25% of the world's PRISON population, per capita more people are in jail in the US than anywhere else in the world. What is wrong with this picture?

[Uchuujinsan]

Never said it was a sane law or I approved of it just said it existed and you can be stopped and cited for it.  You must give your valid name and information to the police which they verify (this was recently upheld by either a federal or the supreme court). If you fail to do so it's a crime and you are arrested for falsification.  You don't give it it's obstruction of justice.  So you better have ID or be able to recite your SSN and other info from memory or your SOL.

Iirc in the US, only active obstruction of justice is a criminal offense, like lying - just refusing to help (that should include refusing to give an ID) - cannot be charged that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

I remember a one hour long lawyer course about the right to remain silent (viewable online) where it was specifically mentioned that "obstruction of justice" is often used to intimade others, while having no legal ground for that charge.
I'm no expert on that topic, but I would do some research if you can REALLY be charged for not giving out an ID.

[Iss Mneur]

Never said it was a sane law or I approved of it just said it existed and you can be stopped and cited for it.  You must give your valid name and information to the police which they verify (this was recently upheld by either a federal or the supreme court). If you fail to do so it's a crime and you are arrested for falsification.  You don't give it it's obstruction of justice.  So you better have ID or be able to recite your SSN and other info from memory or your SOL.

Iirc in the US, only active obstruction of justice is a criminal offense, like lying - just refusing to help (that should include refusing to give an ID) - cannot be charged that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

I remember a one hour long lawyer course about the right to remain silent (viewable online) where it was specifically mentioned that "obstruction of justice" is often used to intimade others, while having no legal ground for that charge.
I'm no expert on that topic, but I would do some research if you can REALLY be charged for not giving out an ID.

Is this what you are thinking about?

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1
Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2

[Mongoose]

Cruel and unusual punishment: making inmates wear pink underwear.

...seriously?

[Uchuujinsan]

Is this what you are thinking about?

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1
Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2

Yep, that's it :>

[BS403]

well technically aren't you supposed to have your social security card with you at all times?  I seem to remember that when I got mine, not that I carry it.  I really see no reason not to carry an ID if you have one, unless you are planning on doing something illegal.  I know I always have my ID unless I'm drinking underage, or something like that.  I see know problem with checking inmates citizenship.  I believe that police should be checking for illegal immigrants, but I'm not saying this guy is necessarily right. He shouldn't be striking fear into legal latino's.  As for the pink underwear, well as long as they are wearing clothes over it, who cares? its underwear.  I don't know if he's making just wear underwear, that would be wrong.

[iamzack]

I don't understand the underwear thing anyway. It's just a color. If it's torture for the inmates, well, they deserve it, then. If it's pink fiberglass underwear, well, that's a problem.

No one in my family carries their SS card. Losing it would be very inconvenient, and you only need it occasionally, like when signing the papers for employment or things like that where you need to prove citizenship. People shouldn't expect to have to prove citizenship randomly in day to day life. That's ridiculous. Besides, what kid below the driving age would be allowed to carry their SS card? Usually all they have is a school ID, if that. I know I never carried most of my student IDs (bad picture).

[Thaeris]

well technically aren't you supposed to have your social security card with you at all times?  I seem to remember that when I got mine, not that I carry it.  I really see no reason not to carry an ID if you have one, unless you are planning on doing something illegal.  I know I always have my ID unless I'm drinking underage, or something like that.  I see know problem with checking inmates citizenship.  I believe that police should be checking for illegal immigrants, but I'm not saying this guy is necessarily right. He shouldn't be striking fear into legal latino's.  As for the pink underwear, well as long as they are wearing clothes over it, who cares? its underwear.  I don't know if he's making just wear underwear, that would be wrong.

Ummm, no. I never carry that thing around. It is a security risk to yourself to carry it about, especially if your wallet, etc., is stolen.

Furthermore, a law enforcement individual is a PROFESSIONAL. Just like a soldier, especially an officer, is a professional.

A real professional, an honorable person, treats any individual, regardless of who they are, with dignity. Of course, there's a time and a place for everything; you're rough with a criminal as you want to stop him/her from engaging in whatever infraction they're participating in. Once that's over, though, you revert to honor and discipline. If that sheriff isn't up to those standards, then he's not qualified for that position. That's not necessarily easy to live up to, but that's my understanding of things after AFROTC. And I'm not wrong.

[Mongoose]

Yeah, carrying your SS card around is a rather colossally stupid idea.  Keep that thing in a secure place, preferably a fireproof safe if you have one.

[mxlm]

I would just like to say that I completely believe our esteemed conservative boarders who are both participating in this thread and defending the sheriff in question when they say they're all about the Constitution, small government, and civil liberties.

Completely. Believe.

By which I of course mean that, actually, I think the right in this country, or rather a very significant portion of the right, is really about the authoritarianism, and I think this particular example illustrates that point beautifully.

On the subject of how to deal with 'gang problems': COIN, it's not just for foreigners.

[iamzack]

Social conservatives tend to think like this: "I wouldn't choose that and I think it is wrong/immoral/bad for society/etc, so I think the option should be removed. People can't make good decisions without my help."

[Liberator]

Social conservatives tend to think like this: "I wouldn't choose that and I think it is wrong/immoral/bad for society/etc, so I think the option should be removed. People can't make good decisions without my help."

Correction to remove personal bias.

Also, by the opposite token, social liberals generally think the following:"I don't think it's wrong or harmful and I know best, everyone else is to stupid and undereducated to see the wisdom of my thinking.  I'll just make a law so I'm right!  YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!  WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE!!???!!??"

Which one sounds like a spoiled rotten child and which one sounds like an adult.

[General Battuta]

Also, by the opposite token, social liberals generally think the following:"I don't think it's wrong or harmful and I know best, everyone else is to stupid and undereducated to see the wisdom of my thinking.  I'll just make a law so I'm right!  YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!  WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE!!???!!??"

Wait, hang on. Doesn't a social liberal say "I don't think it's wrong or harmful, but I will let everyone decide for him or herself, and I will enshrine the right to choose in law?"

The only one who comes off as sounding like a child here is you.

[Blue Lion]

The caps are what sold me on it.

But to answer the question on who sounds like a spoiled brat, the answer is you.

Damn you GB, damn you.

[iamzack]

You sound like the child. Social liberals are more apt to say "I wouldn't make this decision, but since it doesn't actually affect me or anyone but yourself, for that matter, it is not my place to try to pass a law preventing you from making that choice."

See, social conservatives want laws passed based on their own morals and choices, but social liberals want people to have the freedom to make choices for themselves, even destructive ones so long as the choice involves consenting parties only.

Supposing a social liberal and a social conservative who both think recreational drugs or gay sex are harmful and bad, the conservative would argue for a law against gay sex or drugs. The liberal would say "I wouldn't make that choice, and I will suggest that you don't either, but it isn't my place to dictate what you do with your own body so long as no one else is harmed."

[Nuclear1]

Well, since everyone has already jumped on it...

Social conservatives are honestly some of the most hypocritical retards I've ever seen.  It's depressing the number of people who scream "Fascism is bad!  Hitler/Mussolini/Stalin/Mao/Saddam was a bad guy for depriving people of freedom!"  are the same ones who vote to ban gay marriage because some 2,000 year old book that justified mass murder of people you don't like said gays are evil, and the same ones who oppose hate crime legislation on the off-chance that, God forbid, it could open the floodgates to giving more and more people they don't like freedom to do what they want.

Basically, they hate fascists, but only the ones with funny names and/or that America has gone to war with.

[Liberator]

"Fascism is bad!  Hitler/Mussolini/Stalin/Mao/Saddam was a bad guy for depriving people of freedom!"  

Hitler - responsible for the mass imprisonment and murder of something like 6 million jews and God know's how many others.
Mussolini - a thug and a fool, he was 100% with Hitler in spirit if not execution
Stalin - himself responsible for millions of deaths and disappearances of political rivals and opponents
Mao - no one is exactly sure how many millions he's responsible for murdering, the lowest credible number is 40 million
Saddam - was like a kid with a gun, he killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of his own people because he could

So, no, those weren't "bad guys" at all...

[iamzack]

Way to misunderstand the point of his post and skip over my response entirely.

[Nuclear1]

And the straw flies EEEEVVVVEERRRRYYYYWHHHHEEERRREEEE!

I wasn't saying they weren't bad people.  I was making a point that social conservatives point and scream "BAD GUY!" only so long as it's some foreign dictator with a funny name committing the atrocities, not the guy sitting next to him in Congress voting to keep homosexuals as second-class citizens, or the guy voting to keep a harmless drug like marijuana illegal, despite all evidence to the contrary.

There's freedoms being stripped away right in our own borders, but there's no outcry from the people who are willing to throw hundreds of billions of dollars into wars to get rid of foreign dictators;  in fact, those same people are often the ones attacking the social liberals who want to give these people freedoms.  I'm not saying social conservatives are inherently bad people, but they need to keep their lifestyles to their own damned selves.  You have no right to "define marriage" when heterosexuals have been making a joke of that institution for the past umpteen years or tell me I can't smoke marijuana when it's been medically proven to do less damage to me and those around me than alcohol and tobacco.

[MP-Ryan]

No one in my family carries their SS card. Losing it would be very inconvenient, and you only need it occasionally, like when signing the papers for employment or things like that where you need to prove citizenship. People shouldn't expect to have to prove citizenship randomly in day to day life. That's ridiculous. Besides, what kid below the driving age would be allowed to carry their SS card? Usually all they have is a school ID, if that. I know I never carried most of my student IDs (bad picture).

A social security card is NOT proof of United States citizenship, contrary to popular myth.  Anyone legally entitled to work in the US can get one, with a few minor caveats.