Commentary on today’s news and opinion, from readers and newsmakers.
The Supreme Court shot down part of the controversial Arizona immigration law yesterday, but the most sensitive of the state’s provisions — requiring police to check the immigration status of anybody they detain or arrest if they have “reasonable suspicion” — remains in place for the time being. LoHud readers added their two cents on this heated issue of states’ rights:
It is so sad that one of our great national treasures is located in Arizona. Can we sever the Grand Canyon National Park and attach it somewhere else? Maybe make it a federal territory…..”
— John Taylor
The Obama administration refuses to protect the border for partisan political reasons. Arizona passed a law making violation of the federal law a violation of state law. There is no conflict with federal law; they are not trying to pre-empt federal law. They did it to protect their citizens.
The ruling is a travesty. It elevates federal policy – not enforcing laws they don’t like – over both federal and state law.”
— Joseph Latino
A Mount Vernon pit bull was shot three times and killed by police yesterday after he attacked a would-be Good Samaritan who sprung into action, believing the dog was mauling his 12 year old owner. The dog and the boy were in fact just playing, and this has led many to blame the man for the dog’s death. The debate has spilled over into the comments section on LoHud.com and the LoHud Facebook page:
“And by the way, why don’t you make the headline of this article a little more accurate? How about ‘Police kill dog who was defending himself against attacking man?'”
— Linda Rogers
“It’s a dog, people! The man mistakenly thought the animal, a pit bull, a breed known to be prone to violence, was attacking the child. He was trying to protect the child albeit mistakenly. What’s wrong with you people? He is a human being.”
— Cole Carter
“If the pit bull was that harmful and the police had to defend themselves, or I should say defend the person getting hurt, then yes I agree. But it’s how the owners are that depend on how the dog will be and react. If the dog was harmless, protecting the owner from someone they sensed was really bad or would be the one doing the harm and or wrongfully shot, then absolutely NO!”
— Jessica Knight
What are you talking about today? Leave your answer in the comments below.