LAPD Chief Joins Ranks of Arizona Bashers
[Guest post by Jack Dunphy]
LAPD Chief Charlie Beck is the latest to weigh in with criticism of Arizona’s SB 1070, saying that “[c]rime will go up if this becomes law in Arizona or any other state.” Sadly, in his critique of the law he resorted to a common distortion of what it actually says. Today on Pajamas Media, I respond:
Assuming the L.A. Times has accurately paraphrased Beck’s statement, we can reach either of two possible conclusions: that he is misinformed on the language of the new law, or he is deliberately distorting the truth to serve a political agenda. Neither choice is comforting.
Read the whole thing.
(And my thanks to DRJ for referring me to the story of a Houston police officer murdered last year. Two illegal immigrants, both with prior criminal records, are now on trial for the crime.)
–Jack Dunphy
the chief needs another doughnut and a nice big mug of STFU.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 5/28/2010 @ 1:16 amhowever, either or both would explain why the idiots who selected him felt he was qualified for the position.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 5/28/2010 @ 1:17 amwe can reach either of two possible conclusions: that he is misinformed on the language of the new law, or he is deliberately distorting the truth to serve a political agenda.
— I’ll choose door #3, Monty.
That would be the one wherein the chief, like the US Attorney General and the Director of Homeland Security before him, simply has not read the actual law.
Icy Texan (38edee) — 5/28/2010 @ 3:03 amThese bastards are shameless. Let’s see if we can understand his logic? Pass a law, crime will go up.
krusher (0846f8) — 5/28/2010 @ 4:25 amUnder his reasoning, if we did away with all laws, all crimes would desist. The man is a genius.
I think you’ve got it, krusher. If you don’t enforce the law, and don’t keep statistics on how often the law is broken, then the “crime rate” is “low”.
Between this nonsense, the SEIU, and O’Keefe, just to name a few things, the case could be made that if we ever were a nation of laws and not men/women, we’re not so much so anymore. The barbarians have long ago entered the gates.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/28/2010 @ 5:09 amActually, there is a third choice: he knows what the law actually says but believes the incorrect perception in the illegal immigrant community will have the same effect.
Personally, I suspect this may happen as well. It technically isn’t the law itself that might cause illegal aliens to not come forward to report crime and/or prosecution of crimes, but rather the law plus the way it has been characterized. In that case, the MSM bears probably a greater responsibility for the increased crime than the Arizona legislature, but fat chance they’ll ever own up to it.
Sean P (6f6c60) — 5/28/2010 @ 5:38 amBeck is just parroting what his bosses want him to say. He has to, if he wants to keep his job.
In LA and most large cities, the office of police chief is partly political. It’s far from a purely law enforcement role.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 5/28/2010 @ 6:38 amFunny, now MA just enacted a tough law enforcing sanctions against businesses knowingly employing illegal aliens. And we all know how wacist they are up there, right?
(crickets chirping)
The AZ law is having an impact far greater than ever imagined previously – and if all of the erstwhile detractors had just shut their pieholes when they had the chance it never would have happened.
Dmac (3d61d9) — 5/28/2010 @ 7:12 amAll true, dude.
Thought some might like a slightly expanded treatment on the subjectnull…
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Ragspierre (914d09) — 5/28/2010 @ 7:35 amI thought that the California statute effectively mirrored the Arizona law. Is the LA policy consistent with that statute? If not, since when can a municipal police force policy override a duly enacted statute? Would LA be subject to suit for nonenforcement if, by reason of such nonenforcement, a citizen can show he was harmed by a person not deported? Probably makes no difference since the City appears to be bankrupt anyway….
RAZ (996c34) — 5/28/2010 @ 7:42 amA judge just dismissed a lawsuit brought by the parents of a young, L.A. sports hero who was gunned down by a gang-bangin’ illegal immigrant within 24 hours of said banger being released from the county lock-up. The suit had been filed against L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca.
GeneralMalaise (4e741b) — 5/28/2010 @ 7:58 amA couple of years ago Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca held a press conference that revealed the number of illegal aliens being held in LA jails. Since then- absolute quiet. Pressure from liberals keeps facts like these from the public.
mhr (8908b3) — 5/28/2010 @ 8:02 am(Off topic: the next page link goes to 5/17/2010; not sure if this is Patterico’s database or some bizarre cacheing error along the way.)
htom (412a17) — 5/28/2010 @ 8:57 amSince the existence of CPC-834b swam to the surface, it has amazed me that no-one has filed suit against the L.A. Chief of Police over Special Order 40.
AD - RtR/OS! (58f7b4) — 5/28/2010 @ 9:19 amThere seems to be a direct conflict between the two, and since CA has a pre-emption statute (or is it a clause in the State Constitution), the existence of 834b would seem to pre-empt Los Angeles from regulating on the subject.
Why has this appearant conflict not been resolved?
is this thing on?
enoch_root (9548cd) — 5/28/2010 @ 11:27 amThe chief is a PC hack who wants political work after he stops being chief. Maybe Beck will be head of security for one of the studios whose chief has his lawn manicured by 20 illegal serfs?
Clean up LA chief then worry about Arizona. Think ya cain (sic) do dat chief? Beck reminds me of he PC idiot who heads the Denver, Colorado PD. Ugh…I thought you couldn’t duplicate such defective thought processes.
David Brown (69f4e8) — 5/28/2010 @ 11:39 amhtom – And all. I thought that that the issue with page 2 pointing to May 17th was an issue with my computer. Somewhat happy to know it is not just my incompetance.
I did however just find a work around. Scroll down the page to the archives and click on the May 2010 archive. From then on it will work normally.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 5/28/2010 @ 12:21 pmHmm, that doesn’t work as well as I thought it did. Recent comments don’t update and the new top post does not show. But yu do get access to older pages.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 5/28/2010 @ 12:35 pmI live in LA. My taxes pay the salary of this fool. He should enforce the law, which means arrest these CRIMINALS (which illegal aliens are BY DEFINITION).
Kevin Stafford (abdb87) — 5/28/2010 @ 2:17 pmDoes anyone have a list of cities and states that no longer hhave dealings with MA? Anyone???
Johnnycab (a199c9) — 5/28/2010 @ 3:35 pmThe quote was from a meeting Holder held with a bunch of police chiefs who all had one thing in common the the media conveniently left out of their coverage of the event:
“At first glance this all seems like a perfectly normal news story, but there was a very important piece of information left out: the meeting was arraigned by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and the police chiefs attending the meeting were members of PERF. (Holder is an “old friend of PERF, he addressed their convention in April) . In the rare cases where a news organization mentioned the PERF connection (the NPR story referenced above is the only one I could find) they neglected to mention that PERF is an organization that objects to any enforcement of immigration laws directed at the illegal alien (as opposed to an employer who hires illegals). The Forum describes itself as a “national organization of progressive police executives.”
PERF is a national organization of progressive police executives from the largest city, county and state law enforcement agencies. PERF defines racially biased policing as “inappropriate consideration by law enforcement of race / ethnicity in deciding with whom and how to interview in an enforcement capacity.” PERF works with a diverse group of law enforcement officials, community activists, civil rights leaders and academics to set their standards and policies. These include the U.S. Attorney General’s Office, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California, ACLU of Maryland, International Union of Police Associations, Union Baptist Church, and numerous law enforcement executives, partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program.
If the reporters had done some legwork they would have found the group is not just against the Arizona law, it is against any enforcement of immigration laws. For example, last July the group protested the federal program that trains local police departments to get involved in enforcing immigration law:
The PERF summit attendees also criticized implementation of the federal “287(g)” program that has involved many police agencies in civil immigration enforcement, rather than focusing on the serious criminals it was intended to address. Their analysis bolstered a recent Police Foundation report, which found that “civil immigration enforcement by local police undermines their core public safety mission, diverts scarce resources, increases their exposure to liability and litigation, and exacerbates fear in our communities.”
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/28/2010 @ 5:05 pmExactly, the same in OC. When will the media report this?
Patricia (160852) — 5/28/2010 @ 6:59 pmThe argument that asking about immigration status will increase crime is illogical on its face. There’s no link whatsoever between the two issues.
What Beck is attempting to suggest is that crimes will become harder to solve and prosecute if we determine whether a witness is here legally or not.
But this, too, is simply a false assertion.
In the real world, the immigration status of a witness is a critical fact that you learn to recognize early on in order to successfully prosecute a case. Without ties to the community or a stable paycheck, he can skip town or leave the country, and never come back. He likely has no interest whatsoever in helping you or in being a good “citizen” willing to fulfill his civic duties.
As a prosecutor, knowing that your witness is an illegal immigrant allows you to take additional precautions in ensuring his appearance at trial.
Apprised of his status, you know to contact him early on to assess his reliability and willingness to come forward voluntarily. If he doesn’t respond, which is typical, your officers have time to locate him and even take him into custody if he willfully refuses to comply with a subpoena.
sclawyer (023572) — 5/29/2010 @ 3:48 am