View Full Version : Trump pardons Sheriff Arpaio
Darrell KSR
08-25-2017, 09:11 PM
Mr. Rule of Law President just pardoned a racist Sheriff who was ordered by a federal court not to engage in racist, unconstitutional profiling--and he did, was tried, convicted, removed.
And now pardoned.
These things are not good, boys and girls. I know a little about this kind of area. These things are not good. Total and complete contempt for the law.
kingcat
08-26-2017, 12:47 AM
B A L D E R D A S H.....W E ..M U S T ..F O L L O W ..H I M !
:)
I did not follow the Sherriff Arpaio case but based on recent rulings, I certainly do not have anywhere near the respect for the courts rulings I once did when it comes to their definition of racism etc......
dan_bgblue
08-26-2017, 05:27 PM
One person's opinion of the verdict rendered in the Arpaio trial. (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/08/26/trumps-pardon-ex-sheriff-joe-arpaio-was-right-and-courageous-thing-to-do.html)
dan_bgblue
08-26-2017, 05:38 PM
Another opinion on the same issue (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/08/26/ex-us-treasurer-arpaio-pardon-is-one-more-insulting-anti-hispanic-move-by-trump.html)
Crazy4Blue
08-26-2017, 07:39 PM
The left didn't bat an eye when BHO pardoned 160 racist terrorists, but all of a sudden this is ground zero for racism. The hypocrosy is atrocious.
Darrell KSR
08-26-2017, 07:42 PM
Action is receiving bipartisan criticism and should.
Apparently he checked with Sessions before the sheriff was prosecuted to see if he could stop the prosecution before it began.
Sessions advised wouldn't be wise. Or abuse. Or something like that. Something fairly reasonable.
Good background here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/trump-asked-sessions-about-closing-case-against-arpaio-an-ally-since-birtherism/2017/08/26/15e5d7b2-8a7f-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html
CitizenBBN
08-26-2017, 07:58 PM
Action is receiving bipartisan criticism and should.
I'm not going to pass judgement on the case yet, I don't know enough, but with this President I don't take bipartisan opposition as having any real meaning b/c Trump was elected on an agenda that is nearly as much at odds with the GOP establishment as it is with the Democrats.
Many in the GOP disagree with Trump on immigration and fear alienating Hispanics. Politically they'll oppose this move b/c it's the political move they think is best, it doesn't tell us much about the merits.
It tells us the move is politically likely unwise, as it will appeal to Trump's core base but not many others, but this case was always about politics. He may have been guilty of what he did, maybe not, but the Obama DOJ brought the charges where no doubt they have overlooked other equally serious violations of the law that happened to benefit their view of how things should be, like not notifying ICE of holding illegals they would want detained, etc.
So I see this as just politics as usual. Obama went after a guy who was rounding up illegals by profiling Hispanics, Trump will now go after cities who are trying to shield them from the law. If the situations were reversed no doubt Obama would have gone after the cities and Trump would have prosecuted Arpaio. It's just politics b/c a real adherence to the law would probably go after them both.
Doesn't make Trump right, just all part of the same hypocrisy to me.
Catonahottinroof
08-26-2017, 08:17 PM
to me, Arpaio enforced the law when the federal government would not. Politics at play. I understand why he was prosecuted, and I also understand why he was pardoned.
I'm not going to pass judgement on the case yet, I don't know enough, but with this President I don't take bipartisan opposition as having any real meaning b/c Trump was elected on an agenda that is nearly as much at odds with the GOP establishment as it is with the Democrats.
Many in the GOP disagree with Trump on immigration and fear alienating Hispanics. Politically they'll oppose this move b/c it's the political move they think is best, it doesn't tell us much about the merits.
It tells us the move is politically likely unwise, as it will appeal to Trump's core base but not many others, but this case was always about politics. He may have been guilty of what he did, maybe not, but the Obama DOJ brought the charges where no doubt they have overlooked other equally serious violations of the law that happened to benefit their view of how things should be, like not notifying ICE of holding illegals they would want detained, etc.
So I see this as just politics as usual. Obama went after a guy who was rounding up illegals by profiling Hispanics, Trump will now go after cities who are trying to shield them from the law. If the situations were reversed no doubt Obama would have gone after the cities and Trump would have prosecuted Arpaio. It's just politics b/c a real adherence to the law would probably go after them both.
Doesn't make Trump right, just all part of the same hypocrisy to me.
UKHistory
08-26-2017, 09:21 PM
Joe had a tent city jail for folks arrested who could not make bail. People died there awaiting trial.
One man who was tortured there was a parapalegic who needed a catheter to urinate. The deputies restrained than man in a chair for six hours injuring him pretty bad.
Joe referred to this outdoor holding pen as his own concentration camp. One might say he was kidding
Police really should not joke about having their own concentration camp.
Phoenix paper has detailed stories
Not a good decision. Frankly an immoral one
85 year old men can be criminals.
Bad day for justice in America.
UKHistory
08-26-2017, 09:27 PM
If a policeman pulls you over to check your papers and the only reason is the colour of your skin, that is a problem. It is a civik rights issue.
If he arrests you and treats you poorly while incarcerated that is a crime too.
You judge a society by how it treats its felons and Jose in jail.
Some people are sick and evil. Others are not. Under the law all people should be treated humanely.
Joe is a pig and a disgrace to badge he wore.
Catonahottinroof
08-27-2017, 08:51 AM
I can only tell you about what affects my employer in Arizona and New Mexico. Car theft in those 2 states are the highest in the US. Not to mention the drug and human trafficking that occurs due to the porous border in those 2 states.
I know many of the cars stolen in Arizona cross the border at Nogales, some even at the actual border crossing because the driver has legit credentials, I've seen the video in claims that I have had to handle. (maybe faked documents, not sure).
The failure to control the border there results in crime that local law enforcement had to deal with in epic proportions.
Arpaio dealt with it. You may not like his approach, but the failure of the Feds to control the border caused a lot of problems in his jurisdiction and because he dealt with it he was prosecuted due to it. In my mind he was an easy political target, and also an easy political pardon for Trump.
UKHistory
08-27-2017, 09:12 AM
Not like his approach? Sheriff joe violated people's civil rights. Call me picky but The Bill of Rights and the concept of probable cause means something to me
If you got stopped and harassed you might think differently. I know people, law abiding US citizens who won't drive in certain areas after dark. Not because of crime but because of police.
I read about how Joe's prisoners were treated. I read about their conditions incarcerated in his tent jail. How his department failed to follow up on allegations of sexual assault in the community.
i am not sure he got the job done.
UKHistory
08-27-2017, 09:17 AM
Trump disregarding a courts findings and pardoning this guy couple with his very public recommendation to rid the senate of arcane rules that require deliberation and compromise, go to support my position that trump is the single greatest threat to the Republic. He is the Imperial President who wants to make make America his personal Empire. He has no regard to the rule of law.
He is a villain. A dastardly villain who may prove a democracy's greatest threat always lies from within.
Catonahottinroof
08-27-2017, 09:23 AM
And you would get a very lengthy legal argument over what illegal aliens have as "legal" rights. Like I said, failure to control the border created this problem. I didn't tie it to Obama because it existed before him with Bush, with Clinton etc.
UKHistory
08-27-2017, 09:28 AM
I agree that border security has been an issue that has not been properly addressed.
We as a nation said all people in this country must be treated humanely. That all people have rights even non-citizens.
It makes our system superior to other countries.
Catonahottinroof
08-27-2017, 09:33 AM
I differentiated between human rights and legal rights. He was fair game for violating civil rights. However, he was prosecuted for enforcing law against illegal immigrants by the prior administration.
CitizenBBN
08-27-2017, 09:43 AM
Trump disregarding a courts findings and pardoning this guy couple with his very public recommendation to rid the senate of arcane rules that require deliberation and compromise, go to support my position that trump is the single greatest threat to the Republic. He is the Imperial President who wants to make make America his personal Empire. He has no regard to the rule of law.
He is a villain. A dastardly villain who may prove a democracy's greatest threat always lies from within.
They really don't support it at all in my view.
First, every President has pardoned people. Obama pardoned convicted murderers and convicted terrorists, Clinton pardoned numerous felons. Arpaio was convicted of a misdemeanor. The other stuff may be bad and may not be (he was re-elected many times while running the jail the way he ran it and honestly abuses occur in every jail whether stone or tents), but it wasn't really applicable to this case.
Obama pardoned a man who killed people, was behind dozens upon dozens of terror attacks in the 1970s, and he's out leading parades as a hero. So no I don't think pardoning an 85 year old man who was going to serve no more than 6 months for a misdemeanor crime is any evidence of being "the greatest threat to the Republic" when put in the context of Presidential pardons.
But I will admit I do love watching those on the Left complain about the "Imperial President" thing after covering Obama's executive excesses for 8 years.
Obama repeatedly threatened to act without Congressional approval, and expanded the role of the bureaucracy in pushing his agenda when Congress wouldn't pass laws. Has Trump tried to shift the balance of powers between the branches? I haven't seen it. This one pardon is completely within his power, and every President has used it. No Constitutional risks here at all.
Respect for the law? Really? Obama's AG refused to cooperate with a Congressional investigation, there were numerous massive coverups of wrongdoing and we're still seeing lawsuits just to get the information from these agencies, he used the EPA and others to vastly expand federal authority and control without the approval of Congress or the People, and your'e telling me Trump has no respect for the law?
what has Trump done, specifically with his policies or executive orders that has so undermined the law?
It's all a matter of perspective. I could take your post and cut and paste one just like it from jazy or suncat or others here they made about Obama just a year ago. Same exact arguments and perceptions.
Oh, and as for Senate rules it was Harry Reid who started us down the path of eliminating Senate rules to get things done, and arguably Trump is right as many Constitutional scholars think the Senate has become too bogged down with procedures and rules that prevent even the smallest of actions. I'm more for government inaction than anyone I know, but it's gotten so bad they can't even get people confirmed to run the government now. They did it to Obama which is why Reid changed the rules, and the Dems are doing it now to Trump. It has become absurd.
Trump has nominated 40 people for the judiciary and b/c of the delays there are now more vacancies than when he took office in January. One of them was delayed for months by the dems, the guy was originally put on the bench by Obama, and in the end the Senate voted unanimously for his confirmation. UNANIMOUS. But the Dems still insisted on delaying it as long as possible in order to clog the system and slow down nominations generally.
At some point the government does have to function a little, and the Senate has become arcane to the point of absurdity. Google on the "blue slip" courtesy they are observing for judicial nominations. It's not even a rule of the Senate and they're using it slow things down. I hate government but they do have to be able to do at least a little bit of something.
Another opinion on the same issue (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/08/26/ex-us-treasurer-arpaio-pardon-is-one-more-insulting-anti-hispanic-move-by-trump.html)
This one spent more time attacking Trump than discussing the pardon, which comes as no surprise.
The left didn't bat an eye when BHO pardoned 160 racist terrorists, but all of a sudden this is ground zero for racism. The hypocrosy is atrocious.
They also didnt bat an eye when the charge to Apario came 2 weeks prior to the election but they sure made a HUGE issue about the release of Hilary's info 2 weeks prior, claiming how inappropriate it was and how it cost her the election.
Action is receiving bipartisan criticism and should.
Apparently he checked with Sessions before the sheriff was prosecuted to see if he could stop the prosecution before it began.
Sessions advised wouldn't be wise. Or abuse. Or something like that. Something fairly reasonable.
Good background here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/trump-asked-sessions-about-closing-case-against-arpaio-an-ally-since-birtherism/2017/08/26/15e5d7b2-8a7f-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html
IMO that was the correct way to go. He should not have interferred as that isnt his responsibility . However he does have pardon powera to whomever he sees deserving.
As for congressional criticism, like I care what these a-holes think. They can't do their job so why the hell are they criticizing the job he is doing? Maybe if they spent less time worrying about the optics of Trump and more about doing what the electorate sent them to Washington to do them maybe I'd give a crap, and maybe they would have an approval rate that wasnt skirting single digits
Joe had a tent city jail for folks arrested who could not make bail. People died there awaiting trial.
One man who was tortured there was a parapalegic who needed a catheter to urinate. The deputies restrained than man in a chair for six hours injuring him pretty bad.
Joe referred to this outdoor holding pen as his own concentration camp. One might say he was kidding
Police really should not joke about having their own concentration camp.
Phoenix paper has detailed stories
Not a good decision. Frankly an immoral one
85 year old men can be criminals.
Bad day for justice in America.
If that is accurate then be should have and likely would have been charged with something other than contemp for violating a court order...unless the Obama administration decided to give him a pass. That always a possibility.
PS- please note the sarcasm
If a policeman pulls you over to check your papers and the only reason is the colour of your skin, that is a problem. It is a civik rights issue.
If he arrests you and treats you poorly while incarcerated that is a crime too.
You judge a society by how it treats its felons and Jose in jail.
Some people are sick and evil. Others are not. Under the law all people should be treated humanely.
Joe is a pig and a disgrace to badge he wore.
Last time we drove thru Arizona (last summer) we were stopped several times. I'm not latino nor is any member of my family, but I think my car was made in Mexico. They asked for my driver liscense which I produce, and then went on my way. In Arizona, they stop EVERYBODY at the roadblocks, of course that doesnt sound as outragous as "where are your papers?" which involkes 1938 Nazi Gemany. Some might claim a roadblock as unreasonable or no probable cause, and that might float but they stop everybody and ask everybody so its not as presented
Trump disregarding a courts findings and pardoning this guy couple with his very public recommendation to rid the senate of arcane rules that require deliberation and compromise, go to support my position that trump is the single greatest threat to the Republic. He is the Imperial President who wants to make make America his personal Empire. He has no regard to the rule of law.
He is a villain. A dastardly villain who may prove a democracy's greatest threat always lies from within.
The courts finding was ingoring a court order (contempt). There is nothing concerning anything else.
Catonahottinroof
08-27-2017, 10:57 AM
Within 100 miles of the border, ICE and border patrol can roadblock and check for a multitude of things. Check YouTube and see the video proof of what happens when you are uncooperative.
Last time we drove thru Arizona (last summer) we were stopped several times. I'm not latino nor is any member of my family, but I think my car was made in Mexico. They asked for my driver liscense which I produce, and then went on my way. In Arizona, they stop EVERYBODY at the roadblocks, of course that doesnt sound as outragous as "where are your papers?" which involkes 1938 Nazi Gemany. Some might claim a roadblock as unreasonable or no probable cause, and that might float but they stop everybody and ask everybody so its not as presented
Within 100 miles of the border, ICE and border patrol can roadblock and check for a multitude of things. Check YouTube and see the video proof of what happens when you are uncooperative.
So don't be uncooperative. You can elect to be a dick to somebody doing their job or you can be polite and show your license. Hey, its annoying but why take it out on the agent doing their job and what he was told to do? Granted I didnt like the road block and I wish I didnt have the inconvenience of it. If i lived near one it would be particularily annoying however Im sure those who do are recognized by the agents and get waived thru routinely. But when you have states and cities that tolerate illegals then there have to be means to identify and remove them.
Catonahottinroof
08-27-2017, 02:37 PM
https://youtu.be/wnicMKKSReY
https://youtu.be/wnicMKKSReY
And Id suggest that if we didnt have so many illeval aliens in this country already, people given sanctuary status by certain states and municipalities, and we had adequate border security, then perhaps roadblocks 60 miles inside the country would not be needed. If we treated people who broke the law and sneaked into this country and ignored our immigration laws as the crimminals that they are, then maybe we could claim our country back.
The SCOTUS ruled checkpoints were legal. If those manning them are overstepping their authority then that need to be addressed. If Americans want.to change the laws then elect people who are for it but hopefully they can find an alternate and more effect method of identifying and ridding this nation of illegals.
Persoanally, I would question the effectiveness of these interior checkpoints. I wonder how often they turn up any illegals. As a permenant location, it seems an illegal with even the lowest IQ would be smart enough to avoid them. Ditto for people moving contraban.
As a resident of a city like Tombstone AZ which has one right outside, it might be nice from a security standpoint, almost like a gaited community that discourages "riffraff" and illegals who might pilfer jobs from local citizens, but as far as capturing any, I doubt they make any impact at all
Edit to add: apparently there are 33 of these permenant internal checkpoints which resulted in a mere 1,800 "interdictions" (I believe over a 3 year period). Likewise it seems that only the one listed above has had issues which seems more a management issue
ukblue
08-28-2017, 04:10 PM
A good number of the people Obama pardoned were terrorist and cocaine dealers. The guy Trump pardoned crime amounted to contempt of court. If this concerns people and what Obama did with the people he pardoned I would wonder about people's convictions.
kingcat
08-28-2017, 04:57 PM
If referring to Chelsea Manning, the former U.S. Army soldier convicted of leaking military documents, and Oscar López Rivera, a former leader of FALN, a Puerto Rican paramilitary group responsible for the deaths of six Americans, the president did not pardon them. Their crimes are still a matter of record.
He commuted their sentence. Trump pardoned this guy and wiped his record clean.
kingcat
08-28-2017, 05:26 PM
If referring to Chelsea Manning, the former U.S. Army soldier convicted of leaking military documents, and Oscar López Rivera, a former leader of FALN, a Puerto Rican paramilitary group responsible for the deaths of six Americans, the president did not pardon them. Their crimes are still a matter of record.
He commuted their sentence. Trump pardoned this guy and wiped his record clean.
ukblue
08-28-2017, 05:27 PM
Go to justice.gov and you can see the pure pos that he pardoned. From the number of people that he pardoned that had cocaine convictions you would think that Obama was business dealings.
Darrell KSR
08-28-2017, 08:31 PM
Really good piece here doing a good job of explaining why this pardon was beyond abysmal.
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/will_bunch/trump-joe-arpaio-presidential-pardon-hurricane-harvey-20170828.html?mobi=true
Indefensible action. Folks, join the two GOP Senators from Arizona and condemn the action. It is the only right thing here.
ukblue
08-28-2017, 09:29 PM
Bullshit Darrell. The president has complete freedom to pardon just as he has complete authority over immigration. Some people may want to beat their chest with a ashen sack and say it ain't so until it goes before the supreme court.
Darrell KSR
08-28-2017, 10:00 PM
Bullshit Darrell. The president has complete freedom to pardon just as he has complete authority over immigration. Some people may want to beat their chest with a ashen sack and say it ain't so until it goes before the supreme court.
With this jackass comment, I'm done with the Barber Shop.
I wish some would have the ability to put partisanship aside and understand just how bad what he did was. This isn't about the person he pardoned.
With this jackass comment, I'm done with the Barber Shop.
I wish some would have the ability to put partisanship aside and understand just how bad what he did was. This isn't about the person he pardoned.
I wish there had been equal criticism for many of Obamas pardons. There have in my house. Several that my wife was involved in sending to jail were released courtesy of the last President, without any national criticism. I believe that is the point that was attempting to be made, albeit very poorly.
Personally I believe the charge and conviction were highly politically motivated. Now that doesnt mean it was a wise pardon
DanISSELisdaman
08-29-2017, 12:43 AM
A good number of the people Obama pardoned were terrorist and cocaine dealers. The guy Trump pardoned crime amounted to contempt of court. If this concerns people and what Obama did with the people he pardoned I would wonder about people's convictions.
This!!! Which was worse, Trump giving Joe a pardon or Obama giving one to the drug dealer that killed his ex-girlfriend and her 2 young daughters shortly after he got his pardon?
UKHistory
08-29-2017, 06:40 AM
While there is merit to look at historical comparisons to evaluate presidents, the primary defense of trump is to look at the dems or bash the media.
It is like UofL fans saying everyone did it.
Let's look at what trump says and does. Judge it on his own. Let's try not. To excuse his inarticulate comments and dismiss his more shameful comments as jokes.
Take him at his words and deeds.
This!!! Which was worse, Trump giving Joe a pardon or Obama giving one to the drug dealer that killed his ex-girlfriend and her 2 young daughters shortly after he got his pardon?
But the flip side is one has nothing to do with the other. I often say what this person did is not relevent to what someone else does. However it does illustrate an inequity in the treatment or how each is treated or viewed. IMO there is no doubt in my mind that many of the individuals pardoned by BHO were far far worse individuals who had committed far worse crimes than anything Sherriff Joe did yet there is wide criticism for Trump's single pardon but little for Obama multiple ones
UKHistory
08-29-2017, 06:48 AM
This!!! Which was worse, Trump giving Joe a pardon or Obama giving one to the drug dealer that killed his ex-girlfriend and her 2 young daughters shortly after he got his pardon?
Can you provide a link or the name of the pardoned person?
Catonahottinroof
08-29-2017, 08:40 AM
I'm curious about the name too. It's the source of mucho amounts of manufactured news. Google the name James G Winters and see what you get.
This!!! Which was worse, Trump giving Joe a pardon or Obama giving one to the drug dealer that killed his ex-girlfriend and her 2 young daughters shortly after he got his pardon?
CitizenBBN
08-29-2017, 09:53 AM
Really good piece here doing a good job of explaining why this pardon was beyond abysmal.
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/will_bunch/trump-joe-arpaio-presidential-pardon-hurricane-harvey-20170828.html?mobi=true
Indefensible action. Folks, join the two GOP Senators from Arizona and condemn the action. It is the only right thing here.
I'm sorry Darrell, though I'm not an attorney, I don't see much in that article that makes a legal case that it's a "Constitutional Crisis" as the article headline states.
First, most of the article is a list of wrongs by the sheriff, none of which were part of this case or conviction. If he was running the jail in a way that was inhumane then he should have been charged with that, by the DOJ or whoever else would have standing. He and the city should have faced numerous lawsuits for wrongful death and cruelty. If he was guilty he should go to jail, but none of that was charged in this case.
Honestly I don't know why it wasn't, but it wasn't.
the other most serious claim in the article is that he used his power to protect a political supporter. OK, I agree there, and I don't agree with Presidents doing it, but that's separate from it being a crisis b/c that has been done by PResidents using this mechanism time and again.
I'm not for any of these things, from pardons to communting of sentences except where some clear travesty of justice has occurred, it can be documented and there's simply no other legal recourse to overturning a case. But that's dang rare.
So I can condemn Trump for the pardon, personally I think it was bad politics as well as just part of a system I don't support, but to act like it's vastly out of the bounds of what most every PResident has done is overstating the situation. Most have had the good political sense to wait till the end of their terms to do it, but it's hard for me to see how this is the worst guy that ever got a break from a President using this mechanism.
Most of the complaints about Arpiao are about his other actions as sheriff, and for those if those things happened he should be prosecuted criminally and civilly.
This has the feel of an Al Capone case, where we know he committed other crimes, but we can't get him for the big stuff, so we get him for tax evasion. Maybe that's OK and right, but I do think that's some of what is going on.
FWIW I do think Trump should have waited to even get a sentence in the case and then at the most commuted the sentence rather than pardon the crime. I have no issue with people who want the conviction on the books, but I do have doubts about the timing the DOJ used to bring the charge, etc. I see politics in both sides, but that may not change the fact that he should have been found guilty.
Catonahottinroof
08-29-2017, 10:10 AM
The timing of it reeks, I agree.
kingcat
08-29-2017, 12:18 PM
In the case of Obamas pardons and commutations the information I found was that it was handled this way. First the President stated concern about the sentencing for non violent drug offenses, and the disproportionate amount of minorities serving mandated 10, 20, etc.. year sentences for such crimes. He then asked for a way to screen the potentials.
So several advocacy groups — including the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Bar Association and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers — formed a consortium called the Clemency Project, to help screen applicants.
Many law firms joined the effort, assigning lawyers to evaluate the clemency applications and to forward deserving cases on to the White House. Violent offenders or those who otherwise did not meet the criteria set out by the Justice Department were set aside. Others were forwarded to government lawyers for review and, potentially, onto the president.
I'm not defending each and every pardon or sentence commute since there are variables with every case unreported, such as rehabilitation programs and such. Only the process.
DanISSELisdaman
08-29-2017, 06:20 PM
But the flip side is one has nothing to do with the other. I often say what this person did is not relevent to what someone else does. However it does illustrate an inequity in the treatment or how each is treated or viewed. IMO there is no doubt in my mind that many of the individuals pardoned by BHO were far far worse individuals who had committed far worse crimes than anything Sherriff Joe did yet there is wide criticism for Trump's single pardon but little for Obama multiple ones
Which is exactly my point!
DanISSELisdaman
08-29-2017, 06:24 PM
I don't know if this is true or not, but I read somewhere that He requested a jury trial and the judge denied him one. I thought that was a right that we all have.
badrose
08-29-2017, 06:42 PM
BTW Amazon Prime has a video called The Joe Show. I'm not sure how it leans but it's 1hr 40 mins long. It's about this topic.
Here's the IMdB link for more info: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2668234/?ref_=nv_sr_3
PedroDaGr8
08-30-2017, 11:51 AM
Arpaio is a monster of the highest order. He is a prime example of what happens when ideology trumps common sense (another being the War On Drugs). Walking proof that for many, as long as ONE of the ends are something they believe in, any and all means attempted are justified and acceptable. For many Conservatives, their hatred of illegal immigrants extends to the point that they view them in essence as human garbage. That because they broke the law by coming here and are still breaking it by being here, they deserve anything that comes to them up to and including death. Being such a divisive topic, view points exist across the spectrum but I have heard this mentioned many many times both implicitly and explicitly.
His office had a running order that any car that looked like it had more than a couple Latino looking individuals was to be stopped. The goal being that they hoped to find an illegal, they claimed that more than one or two Latino looking individuals in a car was suspicious and that they might be smuggling illegals. This was the documented in the lawsuit that ruled against them. He, and his deputies, are then documented misconstruing the court order and insisting that it should be business as usual. During the DoJ investigation into this, Arpaio adamantly said he would not cooperate in any form with the DoJ. This was the first time in DoJ history that a police department did not cooperate with a civil rights investigation. They were forced to sue Arpaio and his office, to compel their cooperation. When the court ordered an independent compliance monitor, he refused to accept it. Across the board, his hatred of Latino's was a matter of established fact. The only way he could have been MORE racist was if he was wearing a white hood.
More importantly, he was not the "law and order" sheriff as the image he actively cultivated claimed. He routinely ignored wide swaths of issues so that he could strictly focus on harassing any and all Latinos in hopes of catching Latino illegal immigrants. The following is an expansion on a collection things that I had researched on him earlier this year when discussing him with someone else.
Hundreds of rape cases were closed, as solved, improperly, a high percentage of them with Latino victims (and many victims children). This is the source of the claim that he ignored child predators. He attempted to use an FBI rule that cases which are unsolvable and without sufficient evidence can be closed. His office did this just to get them off the books, closing rape cases without even a cursory investigation and many times before the DNA evidence even came back. These victims were considered in essence undeserving of police protection. The FBI ruled that more than 400 cases were closed improperly, if not more. It is suspected that as many as 75% of rape and sexual assault cases were cleared improperly. For example, while providing police services for El Mirage, Arizona, Arpaio's office failed to follow through on at least 32 reported child molestations, even though the suspects were known in all but six cases. Many of the victims were children of illegal immigrants. It was viewed as a waste of their time. In a famous legal case,
When gangs were going around and violently robbing illegal immigrants, his office refused to investigate.
In 1998, he and his officers manipulated a local drug addict into attempting to assassinate Arpaio. This was an attempt to bolster his popularity for the upcoming election. His employees provided the addict with food and conviced him that he should attempt to assassinate Arpaio. They even provided him with the pipe bomb making materials. When this was uncovered by a conscientious objector, the judge in the case ruled it was a text book example of entrapment.
His office had a Latina woman, Alma Chacon, give birth while in handcuffs after being arrested for resisting arrest for being profiled as illegal. She asked why she was being put into shackles. She was hit and banged on her car hood in her driveway by sheriff deputies three times despite being nine months pregnant. They then told her that if no one claimed her baby they would demand it to state authority. Turned out she was an American citizen. I believe this resulted in a judgement against Arpaio's office.
He boasted that his tent city was like a concentration camp, which is caught on video. After he gained a bit of commonsense and realized how it sounded, he now lies, denying that he ever says that. Ignoring the video that exists.
Arpaio has said his jails are meant as places for punishment, and that the inhabitants are all criminals. This is despite the fact that MOST members of his tent city were awaiting trial, not yet convicted. This is mostly used as a holding jail, many of these people are not yet guilty of a crime but they are treated as less than human.
Abuse runs rampant in his jails and is done so with instruction and his tacit approval. Guards are told that they should make the lives of inmates as bad a possible while there. I get it, jail isn't supposed to be easy, but it sure as hell should be humane and it SURE as hell shouldn't be torture. TWICE so far, his jails have been ruled to violate the constitutional rights of the inmates as a whole (this excludes the individual claims that have also been brought about).
He bragged that he feeds the inmates for less than he feeds his dogs. There have been several lawsuits around him feeding inmates rotten and inhumane food.
His jailers have a restraint chair, designed for them, which they use to "control" unruly prisoners. I am unsure of the design but clearly it isn't a simple chair, there have been a number of injuries to inmates in this chair and even one death. One parapalegic inmate requested a catheter so he could urinate. The jails response was to lock him in that chair, despite the inmates insistence that it would cause damage to him as a parapalegic. They left him there for 6 hours, which caused so much damage to his lower paralyzed extremities, that he required over four months of treatment.
He denied even routine medical treatment to prisoners in his "concentration camp". One inmate with severe Crohns Disease was denied any and all medicine, despite a doctors prescription. This medicine kept his disease at bay. Without the medicine, his Crohns flared up horribly. He was repeatedly told by guards that he was faking it. His symptoms progressed over a matter of months, with several trips to the prison hospital. On the fourth trip he had major exploratory surgery (cut from pelvis to ribs), because they were convinced he didn't have Crohn's. Even when he was vomiting blood, bleeding profusely from the anus and passing out from a lack of blood, the guards refused to attend to him for over three hours. As a result, he lost his entire colon and now must use a colonoscopy bag. This was covered in a lawsuit which he won.
In a related case:
the plaintiff's attorney cited numerous reports commissioned and paid for by Maricopa county, dating back as far as 1996, detailing a "culture of cruelty" where inmates are routinely denied humane healthcare at Maricopa County jails run by Arpaio. Testifying in this case, Arpaio stated that he could not deny making the statement that even if he had a billion dollars he wouldn’t change the way he runs his jails.
When a woman died at his jail, he and his deputies attempted to destroy incriminating hard drives that the court had been ordered they preserve.
After his office was found guilty of racial profiling, he hired private investigators to try to dig up dirt on the judge presiding over the case, and his wife. The clear goal was to attempt to intimidate the judge, a finding that alone should have had him removed from office. This is third world dictator type stuff.
His intimidation isn't limited to judges. When several reporters who were critical of him, continued to investigate him, he had them arrested on trumped up charges. They later sued and won millions. This is insanity. Anywhere else in the world, the sheriff would lose his job over this.
Truthfully, this is only around 1/3 of the things that I had written down previously. I am just too frustrated and angry to keep going and updating it. This man is scum without measure, he hides (like many powerful criminals) behind a veneer of "you can't prove that I ordered this explicitly myself". He is a criminal and a tin-pot dictator. Much like the CEO who orders his subordinates to do things, without documentation, he hides behind this veneer. If you support fighting illegal immigration, I get it. You want somebody to take up your cause. Arpaio should NOT be that person because when you support him you are supporting all of his actions. You are supporting a man with a well documented racist bent, a man who views illegal immigrants as less than human, a man who encourages his employees to commit repeated civil and human rights abuses, a man who attempts to actively suppress dissent. You are supporting and excusing the actions of a monster, all because he supports fighting illegal immigration.
Full disclosure, I honestly believe we need to enforce illegal immigration policies more strongly, but not without losing our humanity. I also am supportive of dramatically increasing the amount of legal immigration.This is a topic I could expand on heavily but now is not the time or place.
I don't know if this is true or not, but I read somewhere that He requested a jury trial and the judge denied him one. I thought that was a right that we all have.
There is no constitutional right to a jury trial for things like criminal contempt charges. There is in general rule that the 6th ammendment"petty" offenses, ones which have a jail time less than 6 months. That these kinds of offenses do not have a constitutional right to trial by jury. This is due to the recognition that trying any and every little crime by jury would be impossibly burdensome on the court system. This is an accepted legal fact, with significant Supreme Court precedent, and a fact that even Arapaio agreed to. In attempting to convert it to a trial by jury, he attempted to claim exception to this general rule because:
Many of the actions of the referring judge will become an issue in the case, calling into question the objectives and motives of Judge Snow. A public official’s actions and motives should and must be decided by an impartial jury of the elected official’s peers.
He is in essence arguing that the Judge was prejudiced against him and significantly overstepped their bounds, resulting in him having to commit contempt. The court denied their claim:
The Court finds that this case is appropriate for a bench trial. This case focuses on the application of facts to the law to determine if Defendant intentionally violated a court order.
Basically saying, since there is no right to a jury trial and no compelling reason to grant a jury trial (finding no merit to his argument of judicial impropriety), that a bench trial is the most appropriate action in this case.
Of course Fox News spun this as he was illegally denied his right to a trial by jury. Ignoring the fact that in this case, that right does not exist. Never let the truth stand in the way of a good narrative though.
kingcat
08-30-2017, 12:37 PM
Yeah Pedro..but couldn't he still be a pretty good guy? :confused0053:
UKHistory
08-30-2017, 01:11 PM
Yeah Pedro, but what about other atrocities committed by other people? As long as someone else is doing something bad (not necessarily as bad) that I can write about and use as a strawman argument to change the subject, this guy should be ignored. There are already countless examples of bad people who have gone unpunished (in my view) that must be dealt with first by the biased media before we even discuss the well intended actions of a straight shooter who doesn't even use butter "liberally" on his hotcakes.
kingcat
08-30-2017, 04:19 PM
I honestly agree with Darrell that this about WAY more than the quality of the individual. I don't know these people personally. Not any of them. I dont know what rehabilitation programs, conversion of conviction, mitigating factors and/or aggravating factors apply. I know people who committed crimes that were way outside their normal character. Christian people who were influenced by drugs, personal pain, and emotional stress, and I believe that "mercy" applies under law and without first hand knowledge we had best be careful how we side.
That said, this pardon is another animal imho. The timing was intentional and a spit in your face action directed at the United states legal system and non whites.
I'm only certain of that much.
CitizenBBN
08-30-2017, 04:32 PM
Out of curiosity I'm going to see if we can find any common ground, or at least understanding on this.
To do so I'm going to ask both sides some questions. Let's see if we can move past the partisan sides and find out what's going on here.
Anyone can answer any question, but I do have some for each side in this that may highlight the issues.
First, for those who have issue with Arpaio and/or this decision:
1) Do you think this conviction is in part some kind of justice for the other acts he has committed as laid out by Pedro and others in this thread?
2) If so, do you think the 6 months he was facing is sufficient or is it more that he was at least convicted of something, anything, to reflect his mis-deeds?
3) If the judge had come back and said he was guilty but there would be no jail time, would that be minimally acceptable in any way?
CitizenBBN
08-30-2017, 04:38 PM
Now for those who hgenerally are favorable on Sheriff Joe and/or the pardon:
1) If Arpaio did the things as described so well by Pedro, would you support him being prosecuted for any/all of those activities?
2) Would you support stopping cars of Latino looking people without other cause just to see if they are illegals?
3) If Arpaio had not been pardoned, and served 6 months or whatever it would be for his crime, would you feel that was unjust in a significant way?
Catonahottinroof
08-30-2017, 05:10 PM
His misdeeds were contempt of court according to the pardon. We're he prosecuted for what Pedro listed, he'd be toast in any venue as he's not bigger than the court system of his own jurisdiction. That's why I read that post as less than accurate because he would have been prosecuted criminally for those actions.
PedroDaGr8
08-30-2017, 07:09 PM
Out of curiosity I'm going to see if we can find any common ground, or at least understanding on this.
To do so I'm going to ask both sides some questions. Let's see if we can move past the partisan sides and find out what's going on here.
Anyone can answer any question, but I do have some for each side in this that may highlight the issues.
First, for those who have issue with Arpaio and/or this decision:
1) Do you think this conviction is in part some kind of justice for the other acts he has committed as laid out by Pedro and others in this thread?
2) If so, do you think the 6 months he was facing is sufficient or is it more that he was at least convicted of something, anything, to reflect his mis-deeds?
3) If the judge had come back and said he was guilty but there would be no jail time, would that be minimally acceptable in any way?
1. Depends on what you mean by justice. Do you mean it is suitable and fair justice for all of the other stuff he did? No. Is it justice in his criminal contempt case, yes. He committed criminal contempt by directly rejecting, ignoring, and trying to subvert a judges orders. He was actively lying about facts of law and using that to try to continue his policies. His punishment would have been small compared to the scale of crimes he and his organization committed.
2. Not at all sufficient for everything he did. Sufficient for criminal contempt as the law is written. There is a small sliver of justice in at least he was convicted of something, but considering it is well deserved for a crime already is not much.
3. Truthfully, as discussed before, even the maximum penalty would not have been enough. The conviction though was better than nothing, it was a bit like trying Capone for tax evasion (just the penalties were less). He was able to inculcate enough plausible deniability to ensure that he was seldom directly charged for the crimes he and his organization committed. Organizations are like that, it is easy to spread just enough of the blame around to make it difficult, if not near impossible to charge any one person. More importantly, it would mean that he would have to follow the orders from the judge in the outcome of his civil rights case. Orders which required him to implement systems to prevent this from happening at an organizational level and have it independently verified. As it is now, because of the pardon, he literally does not have to do anything no matter WHAT the judge said/says on that case. The judge can lay down ANY penalty he wants and now Arpaio doesn't have to oblige. This means that the behavior can in essence continue. Previously, if he kept ignoring the judge, then he could be repeatedly found in contempt until he changed. Now, he can do as he wishes. Most importantly, since he is basically immune from punishment in this case they would have to build a new case from scratch to institute the changes and punishments requested, as I believe all old evidence would fall under the domain of this previous case. For certain, based on his behavior, he will not stop violating peoples civil rights now. Building a new case of this scale from scratch would require years of additional abuses to build the case. That is a large number of people (of which many are US Citizens) suffering at his hands, just so they have enough evidence to build this new case and affect the change
His misdeeds were contempt of court according to the pardon. We're he prosecuted for what Pedro listed, he'd be toast in any venue as he's not bigger than the court system of his own jurisdiction. That's why I read that post as less than accurate because he would have been prosecuted criminally for those actions.
Every single thing that I listed has been well documented and it is ONLY the tip of the iceberg, this man is a horrible horrible person. I can dig up multiple sources for pretty much everything I stated (there is enough documented, that I ignore anything that is hearsay that can't be documented). For many of the crimes he committed, short of an outright admission or a smoking gun document, building that case against him as an individual would be very very very difficult. It is quite easy to hide behind a veneer of plausible deniability, many many many CEOs and crime bosses have gotten away with this MO, time and again. By giving undocumented approval to actions, tacit approval, not rebuking organizational member behavior, etc. you can spread the blame around enough that it is difficult to criminally charge any one person all while controlling the outcome and actions of the organization. More importantly, he and his organization, have been found guilty repeatedly in civil court, where individual plausible deniability is not a shield. Very few of these facts are in dispute and the pattern is clear, just getting the evidence to the level that he can't escape with plausible deniability is very difficult when crimes are committed within an organization, especially when the organization is non-compliant and not looking to improve, as his office was.
As for those that think this pardon was somehow unconstitutional, it was not. The pardon was explicitly on the criminal contempt charges, not for the constitutional rights violations he and his organization committed. Every single case I have seen built around unconstitutionality has brought in those crimes. This pardon in essence makes him impossible to punish for these violations or affect change in the organization, but does not excuse the violations themselves. As such, criminal contempt is an offense fully pardonable by the president and I don't think there is any debate on that. If he had pardoned Arpaio or his office for the civil rights violations, that's where things would get more interesting but it did not happen.
Edit: I just read an interesting argument about constitutionality. Basically it says that in order for courts to function as the constitutional check and balance enforcement, as the founders intended, they must retain the ability to effect change for constitutional violations. In other words, if the president can pardon anyone who defies court orders to enforce constitutional protections, then those constitutional protections are rendered meaningless. It in essence weighs two different constitutional powers against each other. It is an interesting legal argument, but I'm not sure how much weight it holds.
kingcat
08-30-2017, 07:35 PM
I don't find it uncommon at all for certain individuals possessing more than the average political clout to escape serious charges and eventually face a lesser charge (such as contempt of court) to reign him in. It happens
So probably, to #1. There are always more goings on than are made public in such a case. Id have to hear exactly what was discussed among the lawyers to answer correctly. As does anyone else here to know why he wasn't prosecuted before hand.
I do know it is common for law officers (with clout) to escape deserved penalties. Some may serve some pretend time in a southern retirement facility. Like the Sheriff in Shively, I believe it was, did years ago. Those from the area knew he had his hands dirtier than the record shows.
To be clear, I am for the liberty of every American citizen...with zero preference and will stand for each of them having equal rights to any other citizen..be it an officer of the law, a Senator, or the President of the United States.. And for them to be treated with no less respect from each other while being protected by our inalienable rights. Profiling is a thinly defined thing and it seems we have allowed the scope of it to broaden to a point that infringes on the liberty of citizens. The interment camps and such are embarrassing to me.
But I digress.
To me, there is one question to be asked and this thread was intended to address that I believe.
Why did President Trump pardon him and was it done in an amicable, innocent, non partisan, and ethical way?
I'm sure there is common ground otherwise. I think we would all admit that we dont have all the facts about what led to this individual case.
PedroDaGr8
08-30-2017, 08:13 PM
Through more reading, it became clear many (including to some degree me) misunderstand how a pardon functions. It does not wipe away the conviction, it just prevents the courts from enforcing punishment on it. It is this enforcement, meaning ability to enact change, which has been removed by the pardon. As I said in a previous post, without this ability to punish, the courts have limited means to enforce compliance with constitutional rights.
Meanwhile, Arpaio has requested the courts wipe the conviction too. It is unclear if this will happen, but is not within the grounds of a pardon nor can it be a requirement of a pardon. This is important, because acceptance of a pardon can be considered an admission of guilt according to the 1915 Supreme Court case of Burdick v. United States. Evidence that can be possibly used in further civil proceedings. In essence he would be admitting that he continued to violate people's civil rights against a court order. This could be used in other cases. That being said, it's not 100% cut and dried. As the are degrees of guilty and what he was found guilty of and how the pardon is worded all play a role.
CitizenBBN
08-30-2017, 08:25 PM
Pedro, I don't deny or agree with the allegations, but it does beg the obvious question why none of that was prosecuted. Surely the full power of the DOJ with such a long list of wrongs can get him on more than the profiling charge. Not to mention state and civil options.
He has been national news for decades, and I've seen entire shows on his tent jail and such. It's not like he was hiding, and it's in a big city.
Now it's possible his city or his office was as corrupt as Chicago etc., but Chicago regularly still does have successful prosecutions. Where were his?
Now I'm not defending him, I have no dog in this fight honestly b/c I haven't done the research. But we're talking about decades of serious, serious charges, and it's not like he's only monitored by the NCAA.
I do appreciate you guys answering the questions. I'm just curious if we're really all that far apart or not on this, but I need to know what's really at the heart of the issue.
My guess is those who really have issue with the pardon see it in a broader scope of his list of wrongs, and that's OK, but it's about more than just this contempt charge. Though they can still have issue with just the pardon, I think it's the fact that Sheriff Joe will walk for all of these things. I get that being a big problem.
CitizenBBN
08-30-2017, 08:27 PM
Through more reading, it became clear many (including to some degree me) misunderstand how a pardon functions. It does not wipe away the conviction, it just prevents the courts from enforcing punishment on it. It is this enforcement, meaning ability to enact change, which has been removed by the pardon. As I said in a previous post, without this ability to punish, the courts have limited means to enforce compliance with constitutional rights.
Meanwhile, Arpaio has requested the courts wipe the conviction too. It is unclear if this will happen, but is not within the grounds of a pardon nor can it be a requirement of a pardon. This is important, because acceptance of a pardon can be considered an admission of guilt according to the 1915 Supreme Court case of Burdick v. United States. Evidence that can be possibly used in further civil proceedings. In essence he would be admitting that he continued to violate people's civil rights against a court order. This could be used in other cases. That being said, it's not 100% cut and dried. As the are degrees of guilty and what he was found guilty of and how the pardon is worded all play a role.
That last part could get very interesting.
And IMO that seems a perfectly valid option for the situation. If these things happened those people do have possible cases and he and the city should have to deal with them.
Catonahottinroof
08-30-2017, 08:33 PM
If he's guilty of what is alleged here, there are much bigger problems that just Sheriff Joe. I still don't see how if all that is visible and provable that he wasn't criminally prosecuted.
Arpaio is a monster of the highest order. He is a prime example of what happens when ideology trumps common sense (another being the War On Drugs). Walking proof that for many, as long as ONE of the ends are something they believe in, any and all means attempted are justified and acceptable. For many Conservatives, their hatred of illegal immigrants extends to the point that they view them in essence as human garbage. That because they broke the law by coming here and are still breaking it by being here, they deserve anything that comes to them up to and including death.
Once I got here, I pretty much stopped reading as it was clear that where the bias was. So manyconservatives see illegals as "human garbage" worthy of death? Got it. I know many consevatives but don't know a single one who views illegals as trash worthy of death. I know many who want our borders secure from all illegals regardless of their ethinicity. I'll be sure to let my conservative friends know that rule book we were using was the out dated one. I'll also be sure to inform my brother in law who LEGALLY immigrated here, did all that he was required to do, followed the laws and regulations, etc, that he was an idiot because doing things legally means little and the rule of law is actually the rule of suggestion when it comes to immigration.
Is Joe Arpailo a low life POS? Might be. In fact he problably is. However his conviction was for contempt of a court ruling. Not a big deal in most cases especially compared to the numerous heroin and cocaine dealers that were granted pardons over the last 8 years (and I can give names... or one can google search). I suspect there are many far worse crimminal in Washington right now, several of who criticized Trump for this pardon. Personally I care as much about this as I do all the dope dealers that Obama released (I don't). I just find the massive criticism is 99% driven by the obcessive hatred that 50% of this nation has for Trump based on their being poor losers which is ironic considering how they spent the last 8 years rubbing the noses of the GOP in democratic victory and being poor winners.
If he's guilty of what is alleged here, there are much bigger problems that just Sheriff Joe. I still don't see how if all that is visible and provable that he wasn't criminally prosecuted.
That is something to consider huh. Of course lots of things that most would consider crimes, and would logically be crimes, yet are not seen as crimes. Just aske her
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Official_Portrait_of_U.S._Secretary_of_State_Hilla ry_Rodham_Clinton_%283328305563%29.jpg/220px-Official_Portrait_of_U.S._Secretary_of_State_Hilla ry_Rodham_Clinton_%283328305563%29.jpg
PedroDaGr8
08-30-2017, 09:47 PM
Pedro, I don't deny or agree with the allegations, but it does beg the obvious question why none of that was prosecuted. Surely the full power of the DOJ with such a long list of wrongs can get him on more than the profiling charge. Not to mention state and civil options.
He has been national news for decades, and I've seen entire shows on his tent jail and such. It's not like he was hiding, and it's in a big city.
Now it's possible his city or his office was as corrupt as Chicago etc., but Chicago regularly still does have successful prosecutions. Where were his?
My guess is those who really have issue with the pardon see it in a broader scope of his list of wrongs, and that's OK, but it's about more than just this contempt charge. Though they can still have issue with just the pardon, I think it's the fact that Sheriff Joe will walk for all of these things. I get that being a big problem.
You ask an important and provoking question. The answer is that the DoJ almost never levels criminal charges against individuals when dealing with department scale civil rights violations. Pretty much the only cases I have seen in my limited research are when there is a direct and obvious link between a perpetrator and a victim. For example, a police officer who beats a suspect or a government official who harassed an employee. In these cases there is a clearcut link between victim and aggressor. When encountered with a pattern or practice of civil rights violation that appears to be department scale, they tend to go against the organization itself. This is partly due to the difficulty of assigning blame in a departmental setting (in criminal charges, you can't have partial blame, it is the same as no blame), partly due to issues that can arise against a locally popular leader (hard to get a jury to convict) , and partly because rather than lose focus chasinh individual actors they want to excise the problem as a whole and inculcate change to prevent it from ever happening again. This does not prevent aggrieved individuals from pursuing the department and its individuals in civil court, just the DoJ has been mandated with ensuring organizational change when it comes to departmental civil rights violations. Even, the FBI asked for the DoJ to press charges over civil rights violating abuses of power against Arpaio and others as part of the larger investigation. The DoJ declined citing insurmountable burden of proof. Instead, they chose to focus on enacting change within the department. This reluctance to file charges is very common, and not limited just to Arpaio, which is why civil suits are so often used. Any aggrieved party can bring a civil suit, though the DoJ has significantly more power to enact change in theirs than other groups. There have been a high number of civil rights cases brought against him and his office in civil court. An astounding number of verdicts against him, resulting in over $100 million in damages. So in answer to your question, him not being charged is actually pretty normal as a whole. Unlike more traditional criminal charges like bribery (which Chicago prosecutes regularly), if charges were to be filed, it would mainly be against his officers that directly abused someone else. Not him in the high seat controlling the reigns. Not a pleasant thought, that those in power responsible get away easily, but it is what it is.
Truthfully, I can think of some value reasons for handling cases like this in this way. Cases where there is a clear departmental pattern but directly assigning and proving blame is more difficult. A prime one being to avoid encentivizing it as tool to coerce leadership.
My problem was that he pardoned him and called him a great man. This man was, in essence, lauded for the evil he did. Not only was he lauded but the pardon was written in such a way to prevent the government from ever enacting change to enforce peoples civil rights. He wasn't pardoned from this time of contempt, he was pardoned from any future contempt charges relating to this case as well. Certainly his list of wrongs are part of it, in that he is lauded for these wrongs; but the blocking of change and the fallout of this are arguably worse.
Once I got here, I pretty much stopped reading as it was clear that where the bias was. So conservatives see illegals as "human garbage" worthy of death? Got it. I'll be sure to let my conservative friends know that rule book we were using was the out dated one. I'll also be sure to inform my brother in law who LEGALLY immigrated here, did all that he was required to do, followed the laws and regulations, etc, that he was an idiot because doing things legally means little and the rule of law is actually the rule of suggestion when it comes to immigration.
Nice job manipulating my words so that you can conveniently dismiss what I'm saying without thought. Just because you don't like what something says doesn't mean it's wrong. I chose my wording there carefully. I specifically said many, not most, not all. While it is not an uncommon view with conservatives, it is also not a view inherent to conservatism. If you had bothered to read the rest of what I said you would have also seen :
Full disclosure, I honestly believe we need to enforce illegal immigration policies more strongly, but not without losing our humanity. I also am supportive of dramatically increasing the amount of legal immigration. This is a topic I could expand on heavily but now is not the time or place.
That being said, even if I were biased it does not change the factual basis for anything else I said. Doing so is the appeal to bias form of an ad hominem informal logical fallacy. Everything I mentioned was documented fact. Most was covered and detailed in court cases and governmental documents. I specifically attempted to avoid hearsay and sources which were less than reputable. Did I get every single little thing correct? Its possible that I made made a mistake or two. But even a few mistakes would not invalidate the long and tangled pattern of offenses this monster leaves.
Edit: Since you added this:
Is Joe Arpailo a low life POS? Might be. In fact he problably is. However his conviction was for contempt of a court ruling. Not a big deal in most cases especially compared to the numerous heroin and cocaine dealers that were granted pardons over the last 8 years (and I can give names... or one can google search). I suspect there are many far worse crimminal in Washington right now, several of who criticized Trump for this pardon. Personally I care as much about this as I do all the dope dealers that Obama released (I don't). I just find the massive criticism is 99% driven by the obcessive hatred that 50% of this nation has for Trump based on their being poor losers which is ironic considering how they spent the last 8 years rubbing the noses of the GOP in democratic victory and being poor winners.
Do many behave that way, yep without a doubt. Not me. Contempt of court was because he was resisting the punishments on his department and the punishments on himself. As I explained in another post, this pardon prevents him from being charged with contempt ever again for this particular civil rights case brought against him. He is basically free to offend again and again. The judge can say, bring in an independent monitor to oversee retraining. A common ruling and logical one considering the circumstances, which the judge in this case did do. Arpaio can say no and there is nothing else that the judge can do to him. Period. This is what some people, like me, have a problem with. That and Trumps comment calling him a good man and saying he was being charged just for doing Police work. The latter is offensive because either he says all police regularly violate civil rights or he is saying if you are a citizen they are not your rights, it is ok for the police to violate them because they are police.
And I'll choose my word carfully. I know of zero consevatives who view illegals as pieces of trash who are worthy of death, and is that not because I dont live among them. S. Fl is teaming with illegals and I deal with them on a daily basis. The stereo typical labelling is insulting and classic partisian politics at its finest (or worse).
If a conservative dares to say they want to secure our borders to keep the radical faction of the Islamic faith out because MANY of them are terrorist hellbent on killing Americans, and can support that by showing jihadists flying planes into towers, shoving explosives into their underwear, planting bombs at marathon, etc....those people are called Islamaphobes by those on the left. If a conservative wants to tighten our security to keep out illegals who bring in drugs across our southern border, utllize this nations resources, take jobs, and commits crimes such as murder and rape, they are labelled as racist despite there being MANY actual incident where that occurred. Yet it seems perfectly OK for Liberals to lump consevatives into big groups and participate in "conservativaphobia" without batting an eye, even though there are no actual incidents of conservative wanting illegals dead for the simple reason that they are here illegally, or that they are "garbage".
PedroDaGr8
09-01-2017, 03:15 PM
And I'll choose my word carfully. I know of zero consevatives who view illegals as pieces of trash who are worthy of death, and is that not because I dont live among them. S. Fl is teaming with illegals and I deal with them on a daily basis. The stereo typical labelling is insulting and classic partisian politics at its finest (or worse).
It is funny how anywhere but on here, I am considered a Conservative, even in southern Virginia I was still a Conservative. Certainly more center-conservative but solidly a conservative. I just don't follow any ideals blindly. As for the comments about conservatives, I say it because I have heard it many times both online and in person. You might not hear it within your local group and if so, you are in with a good group of people. Much like the general population, there are a substantial group that are NOT good people this isn't limited to just conservatives. While they might not explicitly always say that illegal immigrant lives are not valuable, their actions do. For example, when some aid groups were setting up water in the desert, because illegal immigrants were dying of heat exposure and dehydration. I heard quite a few protests, that this was being soft on illegal immigration that it was somehow encouraging it instead. When I asked, if they would rather the illegal immigrants die because they are going to make the trip anyways, the response from many was in essence "Screw em, they are breaking the law and they got what they deserved." This was NOT limited to one or two people, it was a solid number. Similarly, I have heard views that we should cut off all utilities to immigrants, that they should be bared from any housing, etc. All things that are essential needs of a human being (food, water, shelter) and the response is without fail the same: "Screw em, they can either deal with the risk to their life or leave. Nobody is keeping them here." No matter how much someone talks the talk, if their actions actively deny the necessities of life, then they are rejecting the illegal immigrants humanity. You can argue all you want about "well they never said that" but their actions speak louder than their words. Like I said before, crack down on illegal immigration. Increase the fines for employing illegal immigrants, tie verification of ID to biological authentication factors (like fingerprint), etc. If you want to crack down on illegal immigration do it in a smart way, remove the incentive to come here (work) and things will solve themselves. Additionally, increase legal immigration and make it easier to do, encourage it to solve the job needs as they are. Encourage it so that immigrants who have worked here long enough have a path to citizenship if they so desire. You don't have to deny someones humanity to encourage proper immigration and immigration policy. Maybe it is a bit of nostalgia, but the Republican party in the 80s and 90s was dramatically more compassionate and humane than the party of today. Much like the Democrats were much less fatalistic than they are today.
If a conservative dares to say they want to secure our borders to keep the radical faction of the Islamic faith out because MANY of them are terrorist hellbent on killing Americans, and can support that by showing jihadists flying planes into towers, shoving explosives into their underwear, planting bombs at marathon, etc....those people are called Islamaphobes by those on the left. If a conservative wants to tighten our security to keep out illegals who bring in drugs across our southern border, utllize this nations resources, take jobs, and commits crimes such as murder and rape, they are labelled as racist despite there being MANY actual incident where that occurred. Yet it seems perfectly OK for Liberals to lump consevatives into big groups and participate in "conservativaphobia" without batting an eye, even though there are no actual incidents of conservative wanting illegals dead for the simple reason that they are here illegally, or that they are "garbage".
Very few people reject being tougher on those who want to hurt us. They reject painting 1/5 of the worlds population as terrorists until proven otherwise, just because a small number are crazy radical nutjobs. When you are 1/5 of the worlds population, even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction are a lot of people. It still doesn't justify treating the bulk as the fraction of a fraction. This is what most people have a problem with, not the fact we need to find ways to accurately find those who want to hurt us. Blanket bans on certain countries, with no actual changes in immigration procedure or screening, were ENTIRELY hamfisted and did nothing to improve our safety. Hell, you bring up 9/11. How many of the 9/11 hijackers were from countries involved in this ban? Zero. Not even a single one of the 19 were from a country that Trump proposed banning. In fact, how many terrorist attacks on US soil would this ban have prevented in the past? Out of a quick list of more than two dozen radical Islamist attacks since the 80s with over 50 attackers there was ONE attack with ONE perpetrator that this ban would have prevented. This was the attack at Ohio State, where the student drove his car into the crowd on campus and killed no-one but injured 13 people. So in essence, out of over 24 attacks, involving over 50 ppl, resulting in thousands of list lives, Trumps travel ban would have prevented ONE previous attack, prevented one terrorist from entering the country and prevented ZERO loss of life. You want to make a ban, justify it in reality not just because someone is Muslim and from a country you don't like then they are guilty. He intentionally left off most of the countries that are actually responsible for attacking us (there are theories on why, but with him who knows). Just as importantly, they denied people with valid means of immigration discriminating against them strictly because they are Muslim. In the entire time the ban would have existed, nothing major was changed within the USCIS. Either the ban was going to be renewed every 6 months, to make it more palatable, but in reality was intended to be a continuous ban on certain regions of Muslim immigrants or Trump didn't actually know how to fix it when it started and/or it was going to take much longer than he realized. Even now, the changes they have made are a joke. So far, their only changes for immigration have been expanding the number of questions they asked in the I-129F, I-485 and a few other forms. They are now also requiring all employment-based green card holders to go through an interview, 9 times out of 10 these individuals have been living in the USA on an H1b for YEARS before the company sponsors the green card. Kinda too late at that point. Plus none of this is going to stop a terrorist from entering the USA if he wants to. Much like the stupid TSA, it is security theater. Show me real things they are doing, that are NOT hamfisted and can't be summed up as ALL Muslims are evil until we say so. I have said before I agree with cracking down on illegal immigration. I agree in doing it compassionately and improving legal immigration so as to not ham-string farms and other small businesses by preventing them from finding employees.
The only other part I agree with you is that many liberals do engage in "conservativaphobia" it is a complete double standard. It is frustrating and illustrates their closed-mindedness.
As for the other comments about some conservatives OK with the death of illegal immigrants. I already addressed this, just because it is inconvenient for you and you have experienced it in your local group doesn't mean it doesn't exist. maybe you need more evidence: A few years ago, give or take, you had the Texas MinuteMen and the related border groups who said things like and I quote: "You see an illegal, you point your gun right dead at them, right between the eyes, and say, ‘Get back across the border, or you will be shot' " Sounds pretty much like a death threat to me and these guys were the darlings of much of the Conservative movement at that time. So don't tell me that no Conservatives want illegals dead, they actively defended groups that did. Now maybe they didn't want to kill illegal immigrants themselves, but they were fine supporting others who were advocating for it (even if they didn't actually kill any). I think in reality you just chose to interpret my word many as most, which was never my intent, yet you still want to argue like it was. Acting if I was painting ALL conservatives with that brush. My wording was very clear, you interpreted it wrong. I have seen you using your flawed interpretation of what I said elsewhere on here too. Now either you don't want to admit that you were wrong or you don't want to accept that there are members within a group you and I (in my opinion, maybe not yours) belong are pretty crappy human beings.
You can continue to distort my character and manipulate what I said in order to discredit me, just because you don't like the message. I stand by every single fact that I have stated. Especially when it comes to Arpaio, I have done more due dilligence than almost anyone else on here. I have researched and reserached and researched, this man is a MONSTER!
I never considered you either a liberal or conservative. I certainly didn't convey that classification anywhere in my post and would not make such an assumption. I only noted that labelling is a classic partisan political tactic used by both sides. As an example, I'm often called "PRO-ABORTION" because after all I routinely go out and solicite pregnant women to get an abortion. Nothing makes me happier than a women getting an abortion because, hey, an abortion is a great thing to get. Its not about pro-choice. Its about pro-abortion. Its not about me and my wife deciding what we do with our bodies and family (note the sarcasm--but then the left's claim that the government should not be involved medical choices holds no water either with me either since the implimentation of Obamacare which has an incredible amount of intrusion in ones medical choices. See, both sides take out out both sides of this mouth, so much so that they can't get out of their own way)
The idea that we should set up water stand for illegals who are entering this country is mind boggling. The fact that anybody would do anyway to make it easier for illegals to enter this country is an interesting concept. What's next, guns in banks for robbers? Free condoms to rapists? Hey, they are going to do it anyway so we might as well make it easier for them and make sure they don't spread disease!
Now as for terrorist being a fraction of a fraction of a fraction. Oh, I totally agree, which was my point. But then one dope in Texas who proclaims " ‘Get back across the border, or you will be shot' " can't speak for all Conservatives because you see he too is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction, its just that his fraction of a fraction of a fraction isn't a minority in this country. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the actions of a few Islamics DON'T paint the entire group then claim the actions of a few conservative DO paint the entire group. However, I do know the actions of few Islamic terroris killed over 3,000 Americans in a span of 2 hours. I'm not sure that same can be said about the actions of a few conservatives in a span of 20 years.
I'll add that I think the Sheriff is a loser, monster, douchebag, etc... I stated such above. But I also believe what he was convicted of was small beans relatively speaking. The ONLY thing he was convicted of was contempt of a court order. Not murder, not civil rights violations, not anything else. If all these other ALLEGATIONS were true, I'm sure that Obama and his crew would have gone after him fully. I also believe that the heroin and cocaine dealers that were released under Obama simply because they were black, were as evil as Sherrif Joe yet the criticism for their release was not there.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.