Sheriff Joe gets Pardon

[Ford]

The silver lining in this pardon (if there is one) is that this is Joe's last moment in his beloved spotlight. He's out of office. His infamous Tent City is being shut down. Pink underwear and chain gangs are gone. Soon there's going to be no reason for the news media to cover old Sheriff Joe anymore. His glory and fame (or infamy - he enjoyed both) are now all in the past. He may not be going to jail, but his punishment will confine him more than any cell. He'll be imprisoned in ever-increasing obscurity.

He has already announced he is considering political office. No doubt fucking Trump has already promised him something

When I met him - and this was 10 years ago - he struck me as borderline senile. I mean, this friend of mine worked as his phone screener on his radio show, and he didn't even remember her. Of course, she's Columbian, so...

 

[Derec]

Of course, she's Columbian, so...

What do you mean? She lives in DC or she attends/works at Columbia University?

- - - Updated - - -

He has already announced he is considering political office. No doubt fucking Trump has already promised him something

As I mentioned in another thread, Donald, first of his name, titles, titles, Protector of the Realm, could appoint Ser Joe Arpaio as first Lord Commander of the Night's Watch once the Wall is built.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't claim it's "pure racism"...

pure racism

Argumentum ad nauseam.

 

[Derec]

You are obviously misinformed. Arpaio wasn't convicted for chasing and retaining illegals. He was convicted because he ordered his deputies to randomly stop people without cause based on their appearance and to ask for their papers. This is unconstitutional. He was ordered to stop doing this by a federal judge. He refused to do it. This is a federal crime, a felony, to defy a lawful order of a federal judge. It is especially bad for a law enforcement officer to commit a felony.

He was ordered by a federal judge to stop immigration enforcement altogether, as I understand. From here.

In December 2011, amid a long-running racial profiling case, U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow ordered Arpaio’s deputies to stop holding individuals solely on the belief they were in the country illegally. They only were to detain those who were accused of a state crime.

The judge took exception to Arpaio enforcing federal law, not that were detaining people solely for looking Hispanic. RavenSky posted one case of a citizen being detained like that, but those were ICE agents (in 2015, so under Obama, not Trump), and in Colorado, not Arizona.

Also, Arpaio was only convicted of a misdemeanor, not a felony. Where do you get the felony bit from?

Even if he considers his interpretation of the constitution to be superior to that of a federal judge, his only legal option was to obey the order and to appeal it.

That is true. He did violate the order. Hence the pardon. Pardons are, for the most part, for the guilty.
And president has nearly unlimited power to parson for federal offenses. That also is part of the constitution.

This doesn't even raise the question of why Arpaio was trying to enforce a federal class 3 misdemeanor law under which no one in over a half century has been ticketed and fined for.

And then one wonders why we have 20 million illegals in the country. Illegally coming to the state should be class 1 misdemeanor for the first offense and a felony thereafter. And it should be more rigorously enforced.

It is a less serious misdemeanor than speeding on a government reservation or putting your household garbage in a national park trash can.

Again, that's a big part of the problem with current immigration system. And because federal government was inactive, Arizona wanted to do something about it by passing SB1070.

Arpaio would have a much larger impact if he decided to enforce the federal laws against hiring illegals, which is a felony.

I don't disagree with you on that.
Similarly, if you want to argue against Joe Arpaio, you should focus on abysmal conditions in his tent city jail for example. But by focusing on him targeting illegals, you are making him a more sympathetic figure because many Americans think that the permissive attitude toward illegal immigration (they get free K-12 education, often free healthcare, driver's licenses, instate tuition to state universities etc.).= You can't have a country without enforcing the borders, and this erasing of distinctions between legal and illegal immigration is insane.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it is different. It is worse when an elected official who is sworn to uphold the law and the US constitution deliberately and persistently violates an order by a federal judge.

I disagree. Terrorism is worse. Quid-pro-quo is worse.

 

[RavenSky]

He was ordered by a federal judge to stop immigration enforcement altogether, as I understand. From here.

In December 2011, amid a long-running racial profiling case, U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow ordered Arpaio’s deputies to stop holding individuals solely on the belief they were in the country illegally. They only were to detain those who were accused of a state crime.

The judge took exception to Arpaio enforcing federal law, not that were detaining people solely for looking Hispanic...

Your "understanding" is completely wrong.

Joe Arpaio is not ICE. It was not within his job duties to hunt for people suspected of being in the country illegally. His job was to enforce state criminal laws, and IF someone they properly arrested someone for a state crime then appeared to be an undocumented immigrant (based on, for instance, forged ID - NOT the color of their skin), then Arpaio could hold said person for ICE.

The quote you just posted (without any link whatsoever) even indicates that distinction:

Judge G. Murray Snow ordered Arpaio’s deputies to stop holding individuals solely on the belief they were in the country illegally. They only were to detain those who were accused of a state crime.

Arpaio was overstepping his jurisdiction and authority by arresting people for no other reason than he believed they were undocumented immigrants, and he did this only on the basis of their skin color.

Basically, he was ordered by the court to do HIS job and stop trying to do the federal U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's job. It would be the same as a local sheriff pretending to be an F.B.I. agent - different types of law enforcement and one is not supposed to be doing the job of the other.

 

[RavenSky]

MARCH 27, 2010:

That's the word from the elephant's mouth after an MCSO raid on four area McDonald's yesterday that netted an American citizen, Viridiana Ramirez, who was cuffed and held for four hours as she pleaded with MCSO thugs that she was born in this country and could prove it.

What was Arpaio's response to the news that his Kris Kobach-trained deputies has violated the civil rights of a single mother and terrorized her no end?

"That's just normal police work, " he shrugged in a news conference following the raid. "Sometimes you do have probable cause, you do take people in for questioning, and they're released."

So it's arrest 'em if they're brown first, and sort 'em out later. False arrest and imprisonment be damned.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/blog...e-into-custody-release-citizens-later-6500152

 

[RavenSky]

The context and full article Derec did not want you to see:

This stems from a 2007 racial-profiling case, Melendres v. Arpaio, in which Hispanic plaintiffs alleged that sheriff’s deputies discriminated against Latinos in traffic stops.

In 2013, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow found the sheriff’s office engaged in systemic racial profiling of Latinos in its anti-illegal-immigration efforts. Snow ordered the agency to stop detaining people solely because they were suspected of being undocumented.

But Arpaio resisted. He was charged with, then convicted of, criminal contempt of court for intentionally violating Snow’s order.

The bolded is some of the context Derec conveniently left out above.

Here is the full article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-illegal-immigration/?utm_term=.ef121db43629

Whether you view Arpaio’s policies as a success is based on your view on illegal immigration, and how far an elected law enforcement official will push legal boundaries for the issues they value. But as we’ve chronicled, Arpaio has had a decade-long history of legal woes stemming from his policing policies on illegal immigration, and a federal judge found his sheriff’s office had engaged in systemic racial profiling of Latinos.

Arpaio’s agency employed systemic racism in the name of immigration enforcement, targeting Latino drivers and detaining them solely based on a suspicion that the driver may be in the United States illegally. He willfully rejected the order to stop these tactics...

 

[RavenSky]

August 19, 2009:

The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arizona filed a lawsuit today challenging the illegal arrest and detention of a U.S. citizen and a legal resident by Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) deputies. The two men were driving down a public roadway when they were stopped and arrested without justification, and transported to the site of an immigration raid.

https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-sues...gal-arrest-and-detention-us-citizen-and-legal

This is what Arpaio and his employees were doing to innocent U.S. citizens:

Julian Mora was driving to work when, without provocation, an MCSO vehicle cut in front of him forcing him to stop abruptly. MCSO deputies then ordered the father and son out of their vehicle, then frisked and handcuffed them. Although the deputies had no reason to believe that the Moras had broken any law or were in the country unlawfully, they transported the Moras to Handyman Maintenance, Inc. (HMI), where MCSO was conducting a raid that morning. For the next three hours, the Moras were held at HMI, where they were denied food and water and forbidden contact with the outside world. They were not released until they were interrogated.

The ordeal was particularly humiliating for 66-year-old Julian Mora who, due to his diabetic condition, has difficulty controlling his bladder and had an urgent need to use the bathroom. MCSO personnel, however, rejected his repeated requests. Eventually, deputies escorted him outside where he was made to urinate in the parking lot. MCSO personnel later mocked his son Julio when he had to use the bathroom, because he had difficulty going with his hands still cuffed.

Pure racism.

 

[RavenSky]

"They hate me, the Hispanic community, because they're afraid they're going to be arrested," Arpaio boasted to a TV interviewer in 2009. "And they're all leaving town, so I think we're doing something good, if they're leaving."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0902/15/sotu.01.html

Note how he says "Hispanic community" - not "illegal immigrants" or anything similar. By his own words:

"They hate me, the Hispanic community, because they're afraid they're going to be arrested. And they're all leaving town, so I think we're doing something good, if they're leaving."

pure racism

 

[jab]

I guess if you can't get your racist way at the judicial or legislative level,

What "racist way"? Enforcing immigration laws and going after people in the country illegally is not "racism".

Irrelevant, as Joe the Schmo was going after people in the US legally.

 

[RavenSky]

Sheriff Joe Arpaio turned off one of his "jail cams" that showed female inmates using a toilet, a view that could be accessed via the Internet.

The decision followed complaints from inmate rights groups and the state attorney general.

Donna Hamm, director of Middle Ground, an inmate-rights group in Tempe, said Thursday that the camera exploited the women and was linked to pornographic sites on the Internet. She asked the Justice Department to investigate for civil rights violations.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/28/news/mn-56746

 

[fromderinside]

Joe suffers from too much hair around his arse. I understand it's fatal to those 85 and older.

Put him in the Ollie North bin where those who usually give to evangelicals give to extremists instead.

 

[Derec]

Sheriff Joe Arpaio turned off one of his "jail cams" that showed female inmates using a toilet, a view that could be accessed via the Internet.

The decision followed complaints from inmate rights groups and the state attorney general.

Donna Hamm, director of Middle Ground, an inmate-rights group in Tempe, said Thursday that the camera exploited the women and was linked to pornographic sites on the Internet. She asked the Justice Department to investigate for civil rights violations.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/28/news/mn-56746

Did the cam catch any hot girl-on-girl action?

 

[Derec]

pure racism

Repeating it does not make it so.

If anything, saying that Hispanics can just swim across Rio Grande and get treated like lawful residents, while all other groups have to go through proper channels to immigrate is what's actually "pure racism" (except that Hispanics are not really a race, so "ethnicism" would be better).

We need to bring back Operation Wetback.

 

[Derec]

This is what Arpaio and his employees were doing to innocent U.S. citizens:

Sometimes mistakes are made. Joe Arpaio, warts and all, at least was doing something.
Unlike say law enforcement in sanctuary cities like San Francisco or New York who are actively preventing ICE from detaining and deporting illegals, including criminal illegals.

 

[Derec]

The bolded is some of the context Derec conveniently left out above.

The bolded part is irrelevant to my point that the same judge thought that Joe Arpaio enforcing immigration law in any way was "unconstitutional", even if there were no allegations of profiling. Even though there is no part of constitution preventing that. Must be those "emanations from the penumbra" or whatever creative nonsense judges come up with to invent stuff from whole cloth. I think they rather looked at the partial eclipse too long and are now seeing things that are not there.

One more note on the supposed profiling. Vast majority of illegals, especially in southern border states like Arizona, are Hispanics, particularly from Mexico and Central America. Thus in any illegal sweep, vast majority of suspected illegals will be Hispanics from Mexico and Central America. That is not evidence of "profiling" or of any selection bias because the population of illegals is already skewed.
The idiotic doctrine of "disparate impact" holds that such a result is inappropriate simply because it affects more Hispanics than others, regardless of why.

 

[RavenSky]

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/28/news/mn-56746

Did the cam catch any hot girl-on-girl action?

So typical and disgusting of you, lawbreaker

- - - Updated - - -

pure racism

Repeating it does not make it so.

If anything, saying that Hispanics can just swim across Rio Grande and get treated like lawful residents, while all other groups have to go through proper channels to immigrate is what's actually "pure racism" (except that Hispanics are not really a race, so "ethnicism" would be better).

We need to bring back Operation Wetback.

pure racism

- - - Updated - - -

This is what Arpaio and his employees were doing to innocent U.S. citizens:

Sometimes mistakes are made. Joe Arpaio, warts and all, at least was doing something.
Unlike say law enforcement in sanctuary cities like San Francisco or New York who are actively preventing ICE from detaining and deporting illegals, including criminal illegals.

pure racism

 

[RavenSky]

The bolded is some of the context Derec conveniently left out above.

The bolded part is irrelevant to my point...

context was completely relevant, and your point was wrong.

Joe Arpaio is a racist from the beginning. It never had anything to do with immigration with him. He was under investigation for racism to his co-workers LONG before he figured out how to hide it behind his lies about immigration.

But I am not even a little bit shocked that you would defend a racist misogynist like Arpaio, lawbreaker.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is what Arpaio and his employees were doing to innocent U.S. citizens:

Sometimes mistakes are made. Joe Arpaio, warts and all, at least was doing something.
Unlike say law enforcement in sanctuary cities like San Francisco or New York who are actively preventing ICE from detaining and deporting illegals, including criminal illegals.

You see him focusing on illegals.

You ignore his wiping his ass with the Constitution and sweeping serious crime under the rug to focus on harassing Hispanics.

To describe him as scum would be to insult scum.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So... if he accepts the pardon, is that an admission of guilt?

I mean, aside from the fact that he's bragged about ignoring the injunction, is this a legal step that will have consequences in the civil suits levied against him? A pardon means he doesn't serve, but it doesn't absolve him of any crimes, right?

 

[LordKiran]

This is what Arpaio and his employees were doing to innocent U.S. citizens:

Sometimes mistakes are made. Joe Arpaio, warts and all, at least was doing something.

So the next time you want to complain about a leftist elected official, can I just use this and you'll just have to accept it and move on? Because if so I can just take this answer at face value. If not, then sod off with your Hillary-type apologia "She made a mistake, but she's ready to learn and move on!"



Also you're flatly wrong. Calling it a mistake implies the result wasn't intended.