DoJ sues Sheriff Arpaio for civil-rights abuses; anyone care to take Arpaio's side here?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

What's to argue?

Whether Sheriff Arpaio's or his department's actions, if true as alleged in the lawsuit, are defensible in any terms -- legal, political, social or moral.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Yeah, that was a helluva swim. The Rio Grande is nothing, I tell you. Nothing!

Never seen the Rio Grande, but I understand that most of the year, you can walk across it without getting your socks wet.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Never seen the Rio Grande, but I understand that most of the year, you can walk across it without getting your socks wet.

I haven't seen most of it, but the two places I have seen it at it was in a deep canyon, or artificially channelized. Both were in the summertime and there was still plenty of water in it.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Whether Sheriff Arpaio's or his department's actions, if true as alleged in the lawsuit, are defensible in any terms -- legal, political, social or moral.

Of course, "They must have made up all that shit!" is also a position open for debate.

But, not in "They say that, let them prove it!" terms, because, of course, it's a lawsuit, and we must assume the DoJ prepared to try.

The GD is a court of public opinion, not of law. We have our own evidentiary standards.

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Well, of course not, if the laws are such that the only work they can find is in the underground cash economy.

An economy that seems to provide a much better life then in Mexico. Additionally, they also get other supports. Food Stamps etc.

I daresay they only do that so they can work. It doesn't mean they'll ever draw Social Security. So, they're paying in to the system for nothing, just for the chance to pick your beans at minimum wage or less. And you begrudge them even that?!

Did I ever say I begrudge them? You seem to be insinuating that I am against their presence. If you believe that, come out and say it. You wont offend me.

Then, we need more Mexicans, don't we?

Not necessarily. We need people willing to do that sort of labor. If they happen to be Mexican, so be it. But I wont classify that as Mexican work. That would be racist.

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

What's to argue?

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Whether Sheriff Arpaio's or his department's actions, if true as alleged in the lawsuit, are defensible in any terms -- legal, political, social or moral.

Or, whether the DoJ is being retaliatory for Arpaio's very public scrutiny of Obama.

[Bridget Burke]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

Or, whether the DoJ is being retaliatory for Arpaio's very public scrutiny of Obama.

Please, tell us more!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

You will find many of the hispanic culture support Joe because they are tired of the bigotry they get because of Illegals. Additionally, many resent illegals for not going through what they went through to get citizenship.

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

This reminds me of the old joke that the definition of an environmentalist is someone who already has a house in the woods.

It reminds me of a cartoon I once saw titled "A Short History of Immigration":

PANEL 1:
Guy 1: What a beautiful spot!
Guy 2: Hey, I was here first!

PANEL 2:
[they fight]

PANEL 3:
G2: [puff-puff] All right . . . you can stay . . .

PANEL 4:
G3: What a beautiful spot!
G1 & G2 together: Hey, we were here first!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

Or, whether the DoJ is being retaliatory for Arpaio's very public scrutiny of Obama.

You can't seriously be talking about Arpaio's Birther crap.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

Did I ever say I begrudge them? You seem to be insinuating that I am against their presence. If you believe that, come out and say it. You wont offend me.

Whether you are against the presence of undocumented immigrants who use fake SSNs to work in the U.S.? I inferred that you are against it, certainly; please advise if that's not true.

[E-Sabbath]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Close. Hendershott's testimony can't be introduced into evidence in a criminal trial of someone else -- it's hearsay.

(snip)

Agreed. There's more than enough there to justify an indictment, and more than enough there to justify a conviction (if believed by a jury and if there's no defense counter).

Part A: You said criminal. Remember, Sheriff Joe is facing a civil trial here. Any differences?

Part B: Indictment/conviction of whom? Civil? Criminal?

I'll wait till you're done reading the whole ugly thing. I should point out there is a subsection to the charges against Sheriff Joe: the part _after_ the part I quoted points out how they take Federal money under title blah blah so certain acts become a federal case blah. Not sure on all of that, but it might be relevant.

I'm going to _try_ to find out who testified specifically that it was Sheriff Joe that came up with these evil plans to deny people their rights. Might be a bit tricky.

[florez]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

You will find many of the hispanic culture support Joe because they are tired of the bigotry they get because of Illegals. Additionally, many resent illegals for not going through what they went through to get citizenship.

I imagine that every group has it's Uncle Tom types, and the strategy of "divide and conquer" is often very successful.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

Or, whether the DoJ is being retaliatory for Arpaio's very public scrutiny of Obama.

The DoJ has been investigating Arpaio for several years prior to Arpaio's imvolvement in the Birther CT. If the DoJ has that much foreknowledge, it should probably be able to spot all the coyotes before they get to the border.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

You will find many of the hispanic culture support Joe because they are tired of the bigotry they get because of Illegals.

I can't say they don't think this, but it's really dumb. Arpaio's policies institutionalize this bigotry. It would get worse, with people reporting you all the time.

[IntelliQ]

Obama deserves the birthers and their investigations.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ti...o-be-a-kenyan/

He deserves Sherrif Joe too.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

Obama deserves the birthers and their investigations.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ti...o-be-a-kenyan/

He deserves Sherrif Joe too.

Hah! That didn't take long to disseminate. And dropped into the discussion at hand sans relevance too.

But while we're here, I do so love that a writer for a major national broadsheet is complaining about the failings of the "mainstream media".

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Hah! That didn't take long to disseminate. And dropped into the discussion at hand sans relevance too..

Obama's own actions had eventually given rise to that birther stuff. It's extremely relevant to the consequences he's facing now with people like that Sheriff.

Originally Posted by Gyrate

But while we're here, I do so love that a writer for a major national broadsheet is complaining about the failings of the "mainstream media".

ABC isnt complaining at all. Try reading it again.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

Obama's own actions had eventually given rise to that birther stuff. It's extremely relevant to the consequences he's facing now with people like that Sheriff.

No they didn't - if they had, this would hardly be the first time we would be hearing about this, would it?

And no it isn't - Sheriff Joe's birtherism is a minor sideshow to his bigger problems, already discussed at length here.

ABC isnt complaining at all. Try reading it again.

ABC? You've linked to a blogger from the Daily Telegraph. The headline is "Obama's literary agent says he was 'born in Kenya'. How did the mainstream media miss this?. Did you read your own link?

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

No they didn't - if they had, this would hardly be the first time we would be hearing about this, would it?

And no it isn't - Sheriff Joe's birtherism is a minor sideshow to his bigger problems, already discussed at length here. ABC? You've linked to a blogger from the Daily Telegraph. The headline is "Obama's literary agent says he was 'born in Kenya'. How did the mainstream media miss this?. Did you read your own link?

It's not a sideshow - it stems from real life, documented, conflicting information about the president's past.

My fault on that link, sorry, here is what Im looking at from ABC. I find it impossible to believe the Kenyan bio was a misstatement, a mistake, a clerical error, etc. It was put there on purpose to provide a specific persona to advance his goal. So he deserves what he gets especially after the nauseating speechifying over the past few years on bringing in a new era of change, honesty, transparency, blah blah blah. He is no better than most sleazy politicians and Im glad people are seeing it, even if they do continue to goose-step.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

It's not a sideshow - it stems from real life, documented, conflicting information about the president's past.

It's certainly a sideshow to the subject under discussion here. And are we talking about what the Clinton campaign presented? Because I'm pretty sure Obama didn't write that either.

My fault on that link, sorry, here is what Im looking at from ABC. I find it impossible to believe the Kenyan bio was a misstatement, a mistake, a clerical error, etc.

I'm sure you do. But your desire to accept an unsupported and heavily skewed interpretation of the facts (that Obama was somehow deliberately presenting himself as born in Kenya) over the statements of the people involved (the literary agent has admitted that Obama was not responsible for the incorrect bio) does not in itself constitute a compelling argument.

It was put there on purpose to provide a specific persona to advance his goal. So he deserves what he gets especially after the nauseating speechifying over the past few years on bringing in a new era of change, honesty, transparency, blah blah blah. He is no better than most sleazy politicians and Im glad people are seeing it, even if they do continue to goose-step.

Except that all that requires accepting that it was Obama who promoting the erroneous bio. Not even Breitbart says that. But hey, believe what you want.

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

Obama deserves the birthers and their investigations.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ti...o-be-a-kenyan/

He deserves Sherrif Joe too.

From the linked article:

Originally Posted by Tim Stanley, the Telegraph

If The Washington Post is going to write about how Mitt Romney once cut the hair of a guy it presumes was gay (because, well, his hair needed cutting)

The bolded statement tells me exactly how little of a shit I need to give about the article writer's opinion.

And for the record, no one deserves that asshole Sheriff Joe.

[Gyrate]

Speaking of ABC...

Originally Posted by ABC News

Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients.

"This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me--an agency assistant at the time," Goderich wrote in an emailed statement to Yahoo News. "There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more."

But of course she would say that.

And of course Sheriff Joe has said what he would say, to the news organ we would most expect to print it.

Originally Posted by WND

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose special investigative unit already has found probable cause that Barack Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery, says the discovery of a 1991 literary brochure listing Obama’s birthplace as Kenya “puts more smoke out there.”

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

Obama deserves the birthers and their investigations.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ti...o-be-a-kenyan/

He deserves Sherrif Joe too.

Yeh, about that . . .

This.

[tomndebb]

The idiocy about the Dystel & Goderich publishing blurb has no point in this thread. Take any references to that silliness to the thread that is currently snorting at it.

[ /Moderating ]

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

The idiocy about the Dystel & Goderich publishing blurb has no point in this thread. Take any references to that silliness to the thread that is currently snorting at it.

[ /Moderating ]

OK, but I think this crap is pretty thread-relevant -- Arpaio's involvement is indirect, but real.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

OK, but I think this crap is pretty thread-relevant -- Arpaio's involvement is indirect, but real.

Unless you have a recording of Arpaio saying that he was going to use attacks on Obama to further his violations of the rights of Hispanics in Arizona, you are wrong.

This thread was an invitation for posters to attempt to defend Arpaio against the charges of specific violations of the rights of people in Arizona, not simply a grabfest of "We hate Arpaio" stories.

You are free to open a substantive discussion of Arpaio's Birther activities in GD or the Pit, but this thread already has a focus and a purpose and Arpaio-as-Birther (or supporter-of-Birthers), is not it.

[ /Moderating ]

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Unless you have a recording of Arpaio saying that he was going to use attacks on Obama to further his violations of the rights of Hispanics in Arizona, you are wrong.

This thread was an invitation for posters to attempt to defend Arpaio against the charges of specific violations of the rights of people in Arizona, not simply a grabfest of "We hate Arpaio" stories.

You are free to open a substantive discussion of Arpaio's Birther activities in GD or the Pit, but this thread already has a focus and a purpose and Arpaio-as-Birther (or supporter-of-Birthers), is not it.

[ /Moderating ]

I understand. Let us not debate the merits of Arpaio's Birtherism here. But, the fact of it is relevant, because this thread invites defenses of him, and we've already seen dngnb8's post #206 -- the "defense" that this DoJ lawsuit is politically-motivated retaliation for same, and that (it is implied) discredits its substance. (And I daresay there must be a whole lot of RW Arizonans muttering -- or screaming -- exactly that from the moment they heard of the lawsuit.) I fear that these two completely unrelated issues, unfortunately, cannot be cleanly disentangled -- that is the nature of the current political environment in AZ, apparently.

[BrainGlutton]

Despite the lawsuit, Arpaio remains the front-runner for re-election.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, 79, will vie for reelection in November. The five-term Phoenix-area sheriff appears to remain the frontrunner, unfazed by a sweeping federal lawsuit filed against his office last week. But he faces five opponents and emboldened opposition from political and civil rights groups.

“He is kind of a 21st century Bull Connor,” said the Rev. Warren Stewart Sr., pastor of First Institutional Baptist Church in Phoenix and chairman of the National Immigration Forum, an advocacy group.

<snip>

“Arpaio doesn’t let dogs out on people," Stewart said. “But he does go after and target people of color. He goes after Latinos and does it often with a vengeance and an arrogance if anyone dares to question him. It’s ‘I’m Sheriff Joe Arpaio and I’m in charge and nobody tells me what to do. I will not back down.’”

Of course, Bull Connor, even after all the shit he did with the dogs and the firehoses, etc., and even after losing a lawsuit and being forced out of office (that is, Birmingham voters voted to change to a Mayor-Council form of government, ending Connor's office of Commissioner of Public Safety; he sued to have the election overturned but his suit was thrown out), was elected to state office in 1964 and re-elected in 1968.

HOMER SIMPSON: D'oh! When are people going to learn?! Democracy doesn't work!

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

The GD is a court of public opinion, not of law. We have our own evidentiary standards.

Tits or GTFO ?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Tits or GTFO ?

Let us have no more evocations, please, of any image involving Sheriff Arpaio's tits.

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Whether you are against the presence of undocumented immigrants who use fake SSNs to work in the U.S.? I inferred that you are against it, certainly; please advise if that's not true.

Im not against migrants being here.

I am against identity theft, taxes not paid.

However, Im not just against migrants doing that, I am against everyone doing that, not just migrants.

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

The DoJ has been investigating Arpaio for several years prior to Arpaio's imvolvement in the Birther CT. If the DoJ has that much foreknowledge, it should probably be able to spot all the coyotes before they get to the border.

I realize that. Then Joe retaliated with his pseudopolitical examination of a piece of paper that wasnt paper, but was a Jpeg and gave his astounding conclusion.

Now the DoJ has fired back.

I wholly expect Joe to fire back with a Fast and Furious comment.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

HOMER SIMPSON: D'oh! When are people going to learn?! Democracy doesn't work!

That was Kent Brockman.

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Despite the lawsuit, Arpaio remains the front-runner for re-election.



Of course, Bull Connor, even after all the shit he did with the dogs and the firehoses, etc., and even after losing a lawsuit and being forced out of office (that is, Birmingham voters voted to change to a Mayor-Council form of government, ending Connor's office of Commissioner of Public Safety; he sued to have the election overturned but his suit was thrown out), was elected to state office in 1964 and re-elected in 1968.

HOMER SIMPSON: D'oh! When are people going to learn?! Democracy doesn't work!

Until you live in South AZ, it is difficult to understand the political environment.

The negative information regarding illegals for the ordinary citizen far outweighs Joe's stepping all over peoples Rights.

I dont like it, but that is the case. The people here want the border secure, and will do just about anything to get it done. It is the major campaign issue. the only reason why a moron like Brewer would get re-elected is because of her psuedo-Obama rants about immigration (in front of cameras coincidentally). She rides those little public displays like Slim Pickens rode the nuke.

The Arizona border is as secure as the St Louis Rams defense last season.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Miller

That was Kent Brockman.

I recall Homer saying it when a pro-immigrant referendum (on the ballot for Apu's sake) failed (this being The Simpsons, the irrelevance of any local referendum or election to a matter of federal law was blithely glossed over; as in Arpaio's mind, apparently . . .).

[Lust4Life]

Originally Posted by Stanislaus

Oh, for crying out loud.

From the Home Office:

So this is the guidelines issued to police in regard to how they carry out stop and search, with reference to their duty to record ethnicity among other things.

Here are the relevant paragraphs:



Bolding is mine.

Lust4Life's original claim was:



Para 4.12 above shows that the first part of this is false: police do not have to record everyone they speak to in the street. They do have to record everyone they search.

Para 5.1 and 5.3 above show that the second part of Lust4Life's claim is also false: the police have to monitor their stats so that they - and we - can be sure that where people of any ethnicity are being disproportionately subjected to Stop and Search then this has been done with good reason - but there is absolutely no requirement to keep the numbers even across all ethnicities.

At any rate, L4L can now refer to the appropriate regulations when asking his mate. Or, we could drop this hijack.

Good post, but we don't have a national police force, so there wouldn't actually be a national requirment .

But I'll shut up now, as you say this was a hijack.

[BrainGlutton]

Arpaio appears to have suspended his department's controversial "immigration sweeps".

[BrainGlutton]

Meanwhile, Sheriff Arpaio's office arrests a 6-year-old girl on suspicion of being an undocumented immigrant.

[Typo Negative]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Meanwhile, Sheriff Arpaio's office arrests a 6-year-old girl on suspicion of being an undocumented immigrant.

"I suspect that this is politics to get the Hispanic vote," Arpaio said. "It's sad to use the kids as a political tool to get a certain segment of our society's vote."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...#ixzz1yG6Ey8B4

That's how I like my irony!

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Meanwhile, Sheriff Arpaio's office arrests a 6-year-old girl on suspicion of being an undocumented immigrant.

In the other thread where you posted the exact some post (without any any commentary—again), another poser followed up with this:

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

I don't see how that's relevant, notwithstanding Arpaio's grandstanding. What were they supposed to do with her?

Perhaps you care to answer the question here. Or there.

[runner pat]

Originally Posted by magellan01

In the other thread where you posted the exact some post (without any any commentary—again), another poser followed up with this:



Perhaps you care to answer the question here. Or there.

I've never heard of a child being removed from a dangerous situation and placed in some kind of protective custody/foster care as being arrested.

Sheriff Arpaio is a psychotic asshole if he has no problem arresting children for crimes that don't understand.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I've never heard of a child being removed from a dangerous situation and placed in some kind of protective custody/foster care as being arrested.

Are you assuming, solely based on the article's use of the term "arrest", that they stuffed her in the county jail?

Originally Posted by Lust4Life

Good post, but we don't have a national police force, so there wouldn't actually be a national requirment .

But I'll shut up now, as you say this was a hijack.

Well, to bring it back within the confines of the thread, we don't have a national police force either*. However, individual state and local police agencies are occasionally forced to monitor their own statistics relating to possible racial profiling. A study undertaken by the Maryland state police (as part of a settlement in a civil suit) found that something like 66% of Maryland highway patrol stops involved black drivers, although they were only 18% of traffic.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Are you assuming, solely based on the article's use of the term "arrest", that they stuffed her in the county jail?

That's what the word means, so yes. Okay, not county jail, but at least some sort of juvie thing. If they meant something more akin to putting her into a foster home situation while they figured out what to do with her, then that's what they should have said.

To arrest a child in that situation is an immoral thing to do, full stop. Making excuses for them like you are doing honestly sickens me.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by BigT

That's what the word means, so yes. Okay, not county jail, but at least some sort of juvie thing. If they meant something more akin to putting her into a foster home situation while they figured out what to do with her, then that's what they should have said.

To arrest a child in that situation is an immoral thing to do, full stop. Making excuses for them like you are doing honestly sickens me.

It all depends what the "arrest" entails. She was handcuffed, if that's what you're thinking. I assume that it is a procedural move for the police to take possession of her. Nothing more.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by magellan01

It all depends what the "arrest" entails. She was handcuffed, if that's what you're thinking. I assume that it is a procedural move for the police to take possession of her. Nothing more.

Is it really a mandatory procedural move? Because it seems totally ludicrous to handcuff a 6 yo.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by BigT

That's what the word means, so yes. Okay, not county jail, but at least some sort of juvie thing. If they meant something more akin to putting her into a foster home situation while they figured out what to do with her, then that's what they should have said.

To arrest a child in that situation is an immoral thing to do, full stop. Making excuses for them like you are doing honestly sickens me.

Who's "they"? I'm no fan of Arpaio- being both brown and an immigrant- but shoddy reporting isn't his fault.

Originally Posted by clairobscur

Is it really a mandatory procedural move? Because it seems totally ludicrous to handcuff a 6 yo.

Handcuffing policies are generally set by individual law enforcement agencies. If the stop in question was made by one or two officers, it wouldn't be outlandish for them to handcuff everyone. They are generally empowered to take such actions to ensure their own safety.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

They are generally empowered to take such actions to ensure their own safety.

Because 6 year old girls are the number one danger cops face.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Who's "they"? I'm no fan of Arpaio- being both brown and an immigrant- but shoddy reporting isn't his fault.

I don't see an argument with either of us if you think she wasn't actually arrested. The problem was that you seemed to be defending the wording as given. And that would be sickening.

[BrainGlutton]

Arpaio just announced that Obama's birth certificate is definitely a forgery.

Submitted without comment.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Arpaio just announced that Obama's birth certificate is definitely a forgery.

From the article:

Mike Zullo, the posse's chief investigator, said numeric codes on certain parts of the birth certificate indicate that those parts weren't filled out, yet those sections asking for the race of Obama's father and his field of work or study were completed.

Zullo said investigators previously didn't know the meaning of codes but that the codes were explained by a 95-year-old former state worker who signed the president's birth certificate. Zullo said a news reporter who has helped out in the probe let investigators listen in on an interview he concluded of the former state worker.

They found a former worker.
For the state of Hawaii.
Who worked with birth certificates.
And who had signed Obama's birth certificate.

And this somehow means it's a forgery? There are just no words for the great, steaming piles of stupidity that this represents.