The person was standing with a video camera by himself, video taping cops after a shooting for apparently no reason. There was no commentary, he was just sitting there video taping cops, I would call that suspicious activity. I dont understand why you wouldnt give the cops the benefit of the doubt, I would not like it if some random guy was zooming in on me with the video camera.
So with your logic, if I steal $40,000 dollars from a bank, but then get caught, if the costs of prosecuting me and jailing me outweigh what I stole, I shouldnt be prosecuted?
Until they change the law to be in this country illegally is breaking the law plain and simple, if you want to be a citizen go through proper channels, noone has a problem with legal immigrants.
A shooting occurred. The lone shooter was caught. A man with a videocamera was filming B roll hours after the incident. That isn't suspicious. If
the man had visible press credentials, it is even less suspicious. Nobody can tell from the video. I googled "gun concealed in video camera" and there aren't a bunch of stories about murderers hiding guns in video cameras.
Regarding cops, they don't get the benefit of the doubt. Sorry. It's just a personal preference.
Regarding cost/benefit, you are following my logic. If your illegal immigrant is going to take $1 million to permanently deport him versus $999,999 to allow him to stay, it makes sense to take no action unless there is some other factor involved. <here's where you can talk about the principle of the thing
> If you could phase like Shadowcat into a bank vault and steal a certain amount of money without causing any physical or psychological damage to anybody or anything, you wouldn't be pursued as actively as a bank robber who pistol whipped a guard, shoot somebody trying to be a hero and ran over a bunch of people during a high speed chase.
So, let's go back to an earlier post.
Example 1: An illegal immigrant has a child in our schools who wasn't born in this country. Kick the kid out. Then, the kid has to be homeschooled or neglected.
Example 2: The illegal is receiving food stamps or public housing. Kick them out and cut off the aid. Then, more of the illegal's pay is spent maintaining their existence. The advantage for them to stay here is lessened.
Example 3: The illegal is sitting in an ER. Demand proof of insurance and citizenship at check in. Insurance and citizenship? Front of the line. Just citizenship? Near the front of the line. Just insurance? Near the back of the line. Neither? Last of the line.
Example 4: The illegal is somehow injured due to neglect such as hot coffee or wet floors at a McD's, obvious workplace dangers or bleeding in an ER. No ability to sue since the action occurred during the commission of the crime of being in the country illegally. Obviously, waivers for tourists would need to be in place.
Rather than creating a fascist state, let's reduce the benefit for the illegal to stay in our country.