Running on a different set of rules than the rest of us.

[devilsadvocate]

This ain't right

Scott Bundgaard, the majority leader of the Arizona state Senate, was briefly taken into custody on suspicion of domestic violence Friday but was released because he was immune to arrest under rules of the Arizona state Constitution.

In 1988, Gov. Jan Brewer, then a state senator, was involved in an alcohol-related car crash.
Department of Public Safety officers, after learning that Brewer was in the legislature, told her that she had immunity from arrest. No charges were filed in the case. Brewer said at the time she had been drinking but was not impaired.

I'm not commenting on if they were guilty or not. I'm saying that they should be treated like everyone else and shouldn't have immunity from arrest. Of the people, by the people

[megabyteme]

Thompson said although Bundgaard was not arrested Friday "it does not mean that he will not face those charges."

Thompson said Article Four, Part 2, Section 6 of the state Constitution allows for immunity for members of the Legislature unless it is a "felony, act of treason or breach of the peace." The immunity is only allowed during a legislative session or 15 days before it begins.

The alleged incident between Bundgaard and Ballard "did not rise to a felony," Thompson said. Thompson wasn't sure of the implication of Bundgaard waiving his immunity. "The only immunity was against him being arrested at that point," he said.

I believe this "immunity from arrest" is in place so that politicians cannot be kept from making important decisions, or placing votes. If they were not protected, it would not be too difficult for one politician (or group) to have another detained while a close vote was taking place.

They still face criminal charges, just are not held in jail/detained before a judge sets a court date. Prosecutors do have a chance to review the circumstances, and can charge them for sub-felonies. Felonies are not immune in the same manor- although there are occasional scandals that occur due to too much privilege being granted.

[devilsadvocate]

Yes I read the article and it doesn't change one thing. Public officials should be subject to the EXACT same rules as the rest of us. An arrestable offense for us should be an arrestable offense for them.

[clocker]

Quelle surprise.
The "us v. them" application of the law is nothing new and only gets more inequitable as the scope of the crime grows.

[999969999]

Thompson said although Bundgaard was not arrested Friday "it does not mean that he will not face those charges."

Thompson said Article Four, Part 2, Section 6 of the state Constitution allows for immunity for members of the Legislature unless it is a "felony, act of treason or breach of the peace." The immunity is only allowed during a legislative session or 15 days before it begins.

The alleged incident between Bundgaard and Ballard "did not rise to a felony," Thompson said. Thompson wasn't sure of the implication of Bundgaard waiving his immunity. "The only immunity was against him being arrested at that point," he said.

I believe this "immunity from arrest" is in place so that politicians cannot be kept from making important decisions, or placing votes. If they were not protected, it would not be too difficult for one politician (or group) to have another detained while a close vote was taking place.

They still face criminal charges, just are not held in jail/detained before a judge sets a court date. Prosecutors do have a chance to review the circumstances, and can charge them for sub-felonies. Felonies are not immune in the same manor- although there are occasional scandals that occur due to too much privilege being granted.

Yes, Megabyteme is exactly right about this.

The same thing would have happened if it had been a Democrat senator.

This also shows how wrong it is for the Democrats in Wisconsin to flee the state to avoid doing their jobs by voting. They are making a mockery of representative government just because they don't like the outcome of the tea party victories in the November election in their state.

[devilsadvocate]

Yes, Megabyteme is exactly right about this.

The same thing would have happened if it had been a Democrat senator.
No shit Sherlock, you think that hadn't occurred?
It still makes no difference. If lawmakers think they are so indispensable perhaps they should stay within the rule of law. "sorry you can't arrest ME, I have to vote on police search and arrest procedures"
This also shows how wrong it is for the Democrats in Wisconsin to flee the state to avoid doing their jobs by voting. They are making a mockery of representative government just because they don't like the outcome of the tea party victories in the November election in their state.

Do you think the filibuster should be done away with?

Is it fair that Wyoming with a population of just over half a million gets the same amount of senators as California with a population of 37 million? Why do you think it was set up that way?

You finished high school, yes?

[mjmacky]

Chiming in again, finishing high school or even going to college does not in any way signify some basic intelligence. I question the analytical capabilities of many of the students on campus nowadays. However, to hear that he/she has not finished high school would not come as a surprise.

[999969999]

Yeah, just insult me, and don't even deal with this...

"I believe this "immunity from arrest" is in place so that politicians cannot be kept from making important decisions, or placing votes. If they were not protected, it would not be too difficult for one politician (or group) to have another detained while a close vote was taking place."


Whether you like it or not, there are other points of view in this country, and you can try to shut them up by insulting them, but what does that prove?

[devilsadvocate]

Yeah, just insult me, and don't even deal with this...

"I believe this "immunity from arrest" is in place so that politicians cannot be kept from making important decisions, or placing votes. If they were not protected, it would not be too difficult for one politician (or group) to have another detained while a close vote was taking place."

Okay let's run with that. We are talking about arrest here, not immunity from prosecution. Assuming your theory is valid Why would there need to be immunity 15 days before the senate is in session? Why would there need to be immunity at midnight if the lawmaker wasn't actually on his way to "work"? Do you want lawbreakers making laws?


Whether you like it or not, there are other points of view in this country, and you can try to shut them up by insulting them, but what does that prove?

I'm sorry my line of questioning insulted you, but after reading yet another radio/blogger/talking head talking point I had to challenge you on if you actually know why the system is set up the way it is. It's not even high school stuff, it's intermediate or middle school at best.

[999969999]

Yeah, just insult me, and don't even deal with this...

"I believe this "immunity from arrest" is in place so that politicians cannot be kept from making important decisions, or placing votes. If they were not protected, it would not be too difficult for one politician (or group) to have another detained while a close vote was taking place."

Okay let's run with that. We are talking about arrest here, not immunity from prosecution. Assuming your theory is valid Why would there need to be immunity 15 days before the senate is in session?

But see, that's the problem. It is in session. And much to my chagrin, they are passing all sorts of stupid laws that don't make any sense, rather than focusing on what they were sent there to do.


Why would there need to be immunity at midnight if the lawmaker wasn't actually on his way to "work"?

That is a good point. This particular senator seems to abusing this provision in the law, but it was put there for a reason. He will eventually have to face charges for this crime, and hopefully, he will lose the next primary election over this scandal.



Do you want lawbreakers making laws?

No. I would say after this, he will have a difficult time getting re-elected. I certainly wouldn't vote for him after this.



Whether you like it or not, there are other points of view in this country, and you can try to shut them up by insulting them, but what does that prove?

I'm sorry my line of questioning insulted you, but after reading yet another radio/blogger/talking head talking point I had to challenge you on if you actually know why the system is set up the way it is. It's not even high school stuff, it's intermediate or middle school at best.

...