RedScare

Skipped enough to miss this little tidbit...

It is quite clear that you did not read the link provided.

Back to the original post. While the Economist makes our budget problem sound severe, they are taking Houston's $100 million shortfall out of context. For instance, Phoenix, a city about to attempt to arrest and incarcerate tens of thousands of illegal immigrants, had to cut $240 million from their $1.2 Billion budget, a cut of 22%. Where we may cut the police budget 1% and limit some overtime, they just booted 140 cops off the force...almost 5% of the department. Houston is trying to close a $100 million gap in a $4 Billion budget, or 5%. That's peanuts. Life is tough all over. By comparison, we are living in nirvana....even if Peter Brown is worried.

And you know what I meant by mine. By the way, if there has not been a traffic study done on the stretch of road you got the ticket on, the ticket may be no good. A traffic study basically determines the safe speed for the road. In any event, I thank you for your contribution to my city's budget, just as I am sure that you appreciate my daily donation of cigarette taxes...and I am not even violating the law.

Cops giving out tickets for going 15 over the limit. Of all the nerve! Next, they'll start growing their hair long, wearing baggy drawers, and buying dope from people without even telling them that they're cops! Maybe they'll pretend they are 13 year old girls on the internet to prey on lonely 50 year olds who just want a friend! Where will it end!

You forgot to mention that Richard Florida is last decade's news. No one (other than outdated bloggers) even listens to him anymore.

As to Ricco's questions, studies show as many as 2/3 of all arrests, and 50% of non-traffic related arrests, result from traffic stops. Additionally, in 1995, traffic crashes cost Americans $150 Billion, according to a USDOT study. ALL personal and property crimes cost Americans $19 Billion. The argument to de-emphasize traffic enforcement would appear to be an excellent way to drive down police efficiency and arrest rates, while simultaneously driving up insurance costs and traffic fatality rates.

Grant money is applied for from state or federal programs. The money generally is used to fund a position or overtime to achieve certain objectives, such as increasing seatbelt use, deterring drunk driving lowering auto theft or combatting narcotic activity. The rules of the grant require strict record keeping that the money is used only for the purpose approved in the grant. It is a violation of the terms of the grant (and usually illegal as well) to divert grant funds to other uses. Municipal court revenue, which includes fines for traffic violations, parking violations, code violations and other city ordinance violations, amounts to $36 to 38 million annually. However, it costs upwards of $24 million to run the municipal courts and pay staff and judges. Additionally, the city attorneys office, which provides prosecutors for the municipal courts, cost $17 million annually, though not all of the city attorney staff is dedicated to the municipal courts. It is probably closer to one-third, or $6 million yearly. This would leave a 'profit' of $6-8 million, which probably does not cover all of traffic division's expenses. All of this should be compared against the $675 million police budget, and the total city budget of $4 Billion.

But, then Niche posted this... Those statistics completely and utterly refuted your statement. Citykid, will you respond to the fact that your claim has been proven absolutely wrong? Can you?

It is entirely possible to support the efforts of the police without encouraging them to violate the rights of our citizens by beating them unnecessarily. This is not a zero sum game. Just because the police helped your dear old pa does not entitle them to then "even things up" by violating the civil rights of someone else. Some of us rather enjoy the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the protection from government oppression it affords us. It is what makes so many residents of India, Pakistan, China and Mexico want to emigrate here, as opposed to the other way around. I'd ask you to think about that before advocating civil rights abuses by our police.

So, there were no driveway robberies in the Heights at all then, as this location is most decidedly in Garden Oaks.

Considering that more Houstonians die on our roads than are murdered by gangsters, I do not see why we should make the traffic division even smaller. Despite your fury at traffic cops, they make up a small percentage of the force compared to the mayhem they must supervise. It should also be noted that much of the traffic duty is financed by various grants that seek to cut down on DWIs, speeding and seat belt infractions, to name just a few. And, as you noted, traffic finances much of the rest of the department through ticket revenue. Eliminating that revenue, which is paid by traffic offenders, as opposed to law-abiding taxpayers, would trigger even more cuts to the department.

That depends entirely upon whether you believe that simple numbers like "X police officers per 1,000 residents" means anything at all when it comes to effective law enforcement. Houston is currently at about 2.5 officers per 1,000, a number that is virtually identical to the staffing levels of Dallas and Phoenis, 2 similar style cities. It is well under New York's 4 per 1,000, and nearly half of Chicago's almost 5 per 1,000. Ironically, Chicago's massive police force is unable to keep its resident from committing crimes at a higher rate than Houston, but New York has a lower crime rate than Houston. So, the number of cops appears to have little correlation to crime rate, though the police chiefs will always tell you that they need more. A combination of more cops and more efficient use of resources is best. By the way, HPD is having a study done by UCLA to answer the question, 'How many cops does HOUSTON need?'

However, they WILL freeze their asses off. As long as they leave the FAs, I don't care if the stinkin' head honchos leave.

Actually, "probable cause" is a concept that has been debated, defined and refined by courts, both state and federal, for decades. It is a well defined term in the legal world. So is "reasonable suspicion". The Arizona statute has brought these terms out of the courtrooms and into the realm of public debate, and therefore, into the dialogue of those who are not familiar with the long line of court cases that define the terms. I deal with these definitions virtually every single day. But, most of the people debating the Arizona law (on BOTH sides) do not. Even non-criminal lawyers often confuse the terms and define them incorrectly. Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are not interchangeable, yet I see them used routinely as the same thing. I don't blame the non-criminal lawyers for not knowing the exact definitions. When a brick mason starts talking about bull-headers and soldier rows, I have to look up those terms myself. However, large numbers of people are forming opinions on the constitutionality of this law based on the blogged opinions of non-lawyers, and much of the legal analysis is flat wrong. To be honest, I am not too concerned with the way that the police enforce the law. If they follow the suggestions of some of the non-legal opinions I've read, Arizona will simply be sued out of existence. And, as I stated earlier, Arizona taxpayers are about to get a cruel lesson in the costs associated with arresting, and incarcerating large numbers of people in addition to the usual criminals they round up. It will bankrupt them (an example can be found in Texas regarding drivers with suspended drivers licenses. There are so many out there that most big cities refuse to arrest them anymore. They simply write them a ticket and tow their car). I am more concerned with the ramifications of individual states deciding to take over federal responsibilities. While the anti-immigrant crowd sees no problem with it on the issue of immigration, once usurpation of federal powers is allowed once (known as setting precedent), where will it end? Will states be able to field armies and navies if they deem the federal military to have not done its job (note that the State National Guards currently answer to the President as Commander In Chief)? Will states begin regulating their borders with other states (for example, what if Arizona decides that other states that do not round up illegals cannot be trusted to have an open border with Arizona)? Will they enter trade agreements with other countries in competition with the United States? Will they issue their own currency? It could easily spiral out of control, once the precedent is set. I look forward to the legal debate on this issue, as well as the attempt by Arizona to actually carry out the mandate they have enacted upon themselves.

You're contradicting yourself. If the other carriers' fares are low, then AA's fare are already in line with those other carriers. I think what you meant to suggest is that fares are too low across the board because of an oversupply of seats. A merger will shrink the number of planes in the air and routes flown, allowing all carriers to raise fares for the remaining seats. And, I agree. The airlines have been over-supplied for decades, and they have lost money for decades because of it. A little shrinkage in the industry will be good for them, albeit bad for the flying public.

Since I am already allowed to carry a handgun in my driveway, as well as my vehicle, I don't see what more a CHL would do...except perhaps to talk tough on the internet.

As the estimates of oil leaking from the broken well were quintupled, oil began washing ashore tonight. http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=7412867

Frankly, I believe there are some real world practicalities that will blunt much of the urge to profile Hispanics solely for an opportunity to check status. The obvious first reality is that civil rights groups will be looking for excuses to file 1983 actions against abusive agencies. These suits are expensive to defend in normal times, but much worse in this economic climate. Home values in Phoenix have dropped over 50%, crippling tax revenue. Home construction, Phoenix's number one industry, has been crippled. Crime is already up in Phoenix, making arrests of maids and gardeners for status offenses a questionable use of police resources. State and local jails must hold the arrestees until ICE takes possession of them. ICE will be in no hurry to take custody of non-violent status offenders (they already take and depot felons) with their own limited jail space, prosecutors, agents and immigration courts, especially since this law was enacted as an insult to immigration officials and the federal government. Therefore, Arizona governments will incur huge expenses to stop, detain, arrest and house thousands of non-violent status offenders, and must find a way to pay for it. I believe that law enforcement will quietly attempt to arrest as few as possible, while still appearing to be enforcing the law, and local politicians will be vocal about how much this is costing. They will then let the taxpayers tell them which is more important, rounding up non-violent illegals or their skyrocketing tax bills. I find that to be more interesting than whether the courts allow states to usurp federal law.

Then, why is Chicago promising so many incentives?

Actually, arresting people on mere "suspicion" of committing a crime is a violation of both the Texas and United States constitutions...and more than likely Arizona's. A person may only be arrested in Texas with a warrant based on probable cause signed by a judge, or under those exceptions enumerated in Chapter 14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Reasonable suspicion only gives an officer the right to stop a person to investigate further. The part that has everyone so riled up is that 30% of Arizonans are US citizens of Mexican descent (you may recall that Arizona was once Mexico). This law virtually compels police to violate the rights of nearly one-third of Arizona's citizens (since a police department that doesn't try hard enough to arrest illegals may be sued by private citizens), simply for looking Mexican. Some people become very offended when stopped by the police for what they perceive to be an unjust reason. I recall that even a HAIF poster started a thread a few months back complaining that HPD stopped him, even though he admitted violating the law, however slightly. Imagine what that person would do if he felt that police could stop him simply for looking white. BTW, I am confident that "lawful contact" is defined elsewhere in Arizona's criminal codes. Hmmm....I take that back. "Lawful contact" apparently is not defined. Conservatives seem to be suggesting that it means a stop for some other infraction, such as a traffic violation. However, an Arizona legislative staffer states that it means ANY contact police have with individuals in the normal course of business. So, that would include traffic stops, but also witnesses at a crime scene, victims calling for help, or even a person asking a police officer for directions.

That statute is fine when the immigrant is caught crossing the border. When the immigrant is already here, and there is no way to prove how he got here, where he did it, and when he did so (critical elements for determining jurisdiction and limitations), the only offense that can be proven is being present without documentation. That is a civil offense.

Umm..."mirroring" federal law and enforcing it for any reason is usurping federal law. Immigration is clearly the purview of the federal government. It is not at all clear that a state may undertake to enforce it. And, which "federal law" does this apply to, criminal violations or civil? Many of the immigration violations are simply expirations of various visas. Do they count? Undocumented aliens themselves...the ones everyone is in an uproar about, are not committing a criminal violation. It is a civil violation, punishable by a fine. The "black and white" comment is especially amusing coming from a conservative. Do you now admit that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" open to interpretation? Before you answer, remember that this is the position of liberals.

Because state and local law enforcement agents do not have the authority to enforce federal law. HOWEVER, there is no reason that the game warden cannot arrest the fisherman on the fishing infractions. Once at the jail, the jailers may notify ICE that the arrestee may not be legal. Once ICE confirms same, a hold is placed on the illegal fisherman. For a lawyer, you sure have a weak understanding of law...especially the Constitution.

I blame Lisa Gray.