Does Trump's pardon of Arpaio really stand out from past pardons?

[doreen]

@HurricaneDitka

I’m skeptical that run-of-the-mill cops got that message from this pardon. Do you think, for example, Patrolman Steve now thinks “Hey, Trump pardoned Arpaio, so if I rape this hot chick he’ll pardon me too”? I don’t.

The issue is not what Patrolman or Deputy Steve thinks. Because it doesn’t matter if he thinks Trump will pardon him for violating someone’s civil rights * if the chief/commissioner/sheriff will fire him for violating department policy. The issue what message the highest levels of law enforcement get - and I have no trouble believing that some of the hundreds or thousands of independently elected sheriffs will get the impression that the cost of violating certain people’s civil rights is lower that it was before. One thing I am certain of is that Arpaio was not the only sheriff in the US violating people’s rights. He was simply the one who received the most publicity for doing so , partly because he sought it and partly because there were just so many things he did that attracted attention - pink boxers and handcuffs, the inedible food ,the tent city , targeting of political opponents for criminal investigations, trying to enforce immigration law while sexual abuse allegations are not investigated. And that’s just what I remember offhand.

• Rape is a state crime, so the president has no power to grant a pardon.

[GIGObuster]

@HurricaneDitka

I’ll probably be more interested in these hypotheticals if they materialize. Anyways, I try to answer direct questions so: no, I doubt the current Maricopa County Sheriff would get a pardon from Trump if he continued in Arpaio’s ways. He’s not going to either, I strongly suspect, so it’s not a concern either way. Do you know of another Sheriff who has been held in contempt for telling a federal judge to get bent? One that is in danger of it? AFAIK, the Arpaio situation was rather unique and not something that’s widespread or common, or very likely to become widespread or common.

I’m skeptical that run-of-the-mill cops got that message from this pardon. Do you think, for example, Patrolman Steve now thinks “Hey, Trump pardoned Arpaio, so if I rape this hot chick he’ll pardon me too”? I don’t.

What even **Bricker **missed from my reply is that it is not just the contempt of court, but all the other abuses that were documented had a big thing in common: they were not prosecuted locally or were settled out of court… at the taxpayers expense, The pardon was to nullify the avenue were people go when there is fear and inaction from the local authorities and/or chronic abuse of power by the local authorities. The federal courts or the federal executive powers.

One reason why one is talking about all those reported abuses from Arpaio was to make the point why it was the federal government that had a remaining case against Arpaio, all other abuses were being sweep under the rug, a property of having a legislature that was mostly elected to also look away when Arpaio was doing his abuses.

[HurricaneDitka]

@doreen

… I have no trouble believing that some of the hundreds or thousands of independently elected sheriffs will get the impression that the cost of violating certain people’s civil rights is lower that it was before. …

That’s fine. It’s also a pretty far cry from “… the police may get away with any behavior in which they feel like engaging.” That’s the line I was responding to earlier.

[Lance_Turbo]

I don’t know if this is the right thread to ask this in, but I’ll give it a shot.

Between the election and the the inauguration of Trump there was a minor sideshow about the possibility of Obama pardoning Clinton. The main questions were a) is Obama going to pardon Clinton? and b) would Clinton accept the pardon? It was discussed on this board and by participants in this thread and I’ll dig up a link upon request.

The question about accepting a pardon seemed a little weird to non-lawyer me, but I was eventually convinced by posters on this board that one had to accept a pardon for it to become effective and that that acceptance was equivalent to an admission of guilt.

First, is my recollection of this concept correct? Secondly, if my recollection is correct, did Arpaio accept his pardon?

I bring this because of Arpaio’s legal attempts to get his conviction vacated. It seems like he should either have to accept the pardon and live with the conviction or decline the pardon and fight the conviction via the normal appeals process. However, it seems like he is trying to have things both ways.

Again, I’m not a lawyer so I’m not 100% sure my question makes sense and I will be happy if someone gently points out where my logic train went off the rails.

[k9bfriender]

@HurricaneDitka

I’ll probably be more interested in these hypotheticals if they materialize. Anyways, I try to answer direct questions so: no, I doubt the current Maricopa County Sheriff would get a pardon from Trump if he continued in Arpaio’s ways. He’s not going to either, I strongly suspect, so it’s not a concern either way. Do you know of another Sheriff who has been held in contempt for telling a federal judge to get bent? One that is in danger of it? AFAIK, the Arpaio situation was rather unique and not something that’s widespread or common, or very likely to become widespread or common.

We can take a look at my county sheriff, Rich Jones. I hesitate to say he is a racist, but he has certainly made many decisions that would make one wonder his bias in that regard. He certainly does not like the immigrants in the county, and has been pretty heavy handed in his enforcement of immigration status. Heavy handed enough that I know several legal citizens that were born here in the united states that have been detained in the county jail while their families fought to prove their citizenship status. He has been on record being admiring of Arpaio and his ways. Now that that police officer from UC that shot the guy has been mis-trialed again, Sheriff Jones has gone on the record with reporters talking about how he wants to hire him, that’s the sort of person that we need in our county.

In short, my county sheriff is the next Arpaio. Were it not for the fact that we have a much smaller hispanic population than they have in maricopa county, it is likely that he would have had as much fame as Arpaio.

I don’t know how many more there are, but I can point to one right next door.

I’m skeptical that run-of-the-mill cops got that message from this pardon. Do you think, for example, Patrolman Steve now thinks “Hey, Trump pardoned Arpaio, so if I rape this hot chick he’ll pardon me too”? I don’t.

Rape? Maybe not.

Crack their skull on the doorframe while putting them in the police cruiser? You bethca.

Arrest someone for being hispanic, and hold them until they can prove to your satisfaction that they are here legally? I have heard several stories of county cops throwing away the driver’s licenses of legal citizens, claiming that it was a fake, then locking them up until their family could locate their birth certificate and ss card and all to take to prove their citizenship.

In this atmosphere, where you know that your job is not to actually protect the civilians, but to instead terrorize them into obedience, I can see Patrolman Steve thinking, “Hey, what’s a rape or two, really, especially on this hot latino chic, who probably isn’t here legally anyway, and even if she is, it’s not like anyone’s going to believe her story.”

[Bricker]

@Lance_Turbo

First, is my recollection of this concept correct? Secondly, if my recollection is correct, did Arpaio accept his pardon?

(1) Yes, your recollection is correct, and

(2) It’s unclear if Arpaio has accepted his pardon in a legally meaningful way yet.

I bring this because of Arpaio’s legal attempts to get his conviction vacated. It seems like he should either have to accept the pardon and live with the conviction or decline the pardon and fight the conviction via the normal appeals process. However, it seems like he is trying to have things both ways.

Again, I’m not a lawyer so I’m not 100% sure my question makes sense and I will be happy if someone gently points out where my logic train went off the rails.

No, no, you’re generally on the money here: Arpaio IS trying to have it both ways.

Now, there are some subtleties in what he’s arguing, to be sure, that distinguish his request from earlier cases.

It might be helpful, to understand what he’s arguing, to consider this possibly alarming fact: if you’re convicted of a crime, but die during the pendency of an appeal, the conviction is vacated.

Why? Because your death basically moots the appeal, and since the appeals process is part of the guarantees of fairness that our system provides, it would be unfair to saddle the dead man’s records with a possibly flawed conviction.

So, as far as I can tell, Arpaio is trying to apply that logic to his present circumstance. He says, in effect, that he intended to appeal his conviction, and the appeal would have vindicated him, but now that the pardon exists, there’s no point in any appeal, because the pardon makes it moot, so the conviction itself should be erased from the memories of humankind.

But in my view, this motion is doing what you said: trying to have it both ways. Arpaio seeks the foreclosing effect on prosecution a pardon has, but also wants to avoid the admission of guilt that comes with accepting it.

[Bricker]

@k9bfriender

I have heard several stories of county cops throwing away the driver’s licenses of legal citizens, claiming that it was a fake, then locking them up until their family could locate their birth certificate and ss card and all to take to prove their citizenship.

I believe you may have heard such stories, but the claim doesn’t pass the smell test. There’s a 24 hour USCIS line for verification of citizenship/legal presence. While it’s true that the line can’t itself be foolproof, it would be folly for officers to throw away a valid license and fail to check with USCIS, because the eventual lawsuit would reveal that the detainee had a valid license and was legally present.

And it doesn’t pass the smell test for a second reason: if the claim was that the license was a fake, the officer would have to answer why he threw it away instead of keeping as evidence for a charge of proffering false documentation. Again, that contradiction would simply add zeros to the settlement figure at lawsuit time.

This is anecdotal scaremongering.

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

I believe you may have heard such stories, but the claim doesn’t pass the smell test. There’s a 24 hour USCIS line for verification of citizenship/legal presence. While it’s true that the line can’t itself be foolproof, it would be folly for officers to throw away a valid license and fail to check with USCIS, because the eventual lawsuit would reveal that the detainee had a valid license and was legally present.

And it doesn’t pass the smell test for a second reason: if the claim was that the license was a fake, the officer would have to answer why he threw it away instead of keeping as evidence for a charge of proffering false documentation. Again, that contradiction would simply add zeros to the settlement figure at lawsuit time.

This is anecdotal scaremongering.

My spanish sucks, I took a bit in high school, and I have worked with spanish speakers for much of my career, but I never really got fluent in it, so yeah, I could be missing something in translation, but they certainly were feeling as though their rights had been violated, and “puslo en la busura” was certainly the words they used. I am also aware that they needed to get a new driver’s license. I am not sure how much to say here, but not all of the family’s immigration status is entirely straightforward, but the guy they picked up certainly was. I know he was held for nearly a week while the family tried to get stuff together to get him out. They tried to involve me a few times to help to translate with bureaucrats. I don’t know all details, as I only understood maybe a quarter of what I was told, but I do know that he spent a few days in jail and was released once he was positively ID’d as a citizen. They also told me that this is not an uncommon thing.

As far as how anecdotal it is, I dunno, but given some of the things he has said and done, and some of the interactions I have had with his deputies, I find myself believing the hispanics over his office. I understand that most people would believe the police over a family of mixed immigration status. I understand why, even if the son is a full citizen, he would still not want to make too many waves to avoid getting family members who are not so legal deported.

Hispanics of somewhat questionable status make excellent victims for police abuse, as they cannot easily push for their rights, and file lawsuits against their local LEO, as you would have them do.

He is one of only 30 odd county sheriffs with authority to enforce immigration laws, and I think that gives him something of a power trip.

He is in the news a bit, for his controversial actions, but you should expect to see him more soon, if he becomes emboldened by this new “law and order” regime.

He is currently in the news for ordering his deputies not to carry narcan, not just that his office will not supply it, but that they are forbidden to carry it, even though they are often the first on the scene in an OD. (Butler county is probably making national headlines these days with middletown becoming the OD capital of the country right now (whee)).

Point is, to answer HD’s question, when he asked what I thought would happen due to Arpaio being pardoned is specifically that this sheriff and his deputies will no longer have any fear of those remedies that you speak of. They know that the president has their back, and anything that Arpaio did, they can do as well, with the same lack of consequence as he had.

I think the local deputies have been bending the laws for some time, in areas where they thought they could get away with it. Now, they won’t need to be so finessing, and they can just blatantly break the law and violate people’s civil rights with no consequence.

[Lance_Turbo]

@Bricker

But in my view, this motion is doing what you said: trying to have it both ways. Arpaio seeks the foreclosing effect on prosecution a pardon has, but also wants to avoid the admission of guilt that comes with accepting it.

Thank you for your reply. I am slightly surprised that my understanding of a legal technicality is generally correct.

[Bricker]

@k9bfriender

I am also aware that they needed to get a new driver’s license. I am not sure how much to say here, but not all of the family’s immigration status is entirely straightforward, but the guy they picked up certainly was. I know he was held for nearly a week while the family tried to get stuff together to get him out. They tried to involve me a few times to help to translate with bureaucrats. I don’t know all details, as I only understood maybe a quarter of what I was told, but I do know that he spent a few days in jail and was released once he was positively ID’d as a citizen. They also told me that this is not an uncommon thing.

On what charges was he held? Was he arraigned? Was he assigned counsel?

As far as how anecdotal it is, I dunno, but given some of the things he has said and done, and some of the interactions I have had with his deputies, I find myself believing the hispanics over his office.

This not a a situation in which I credit the deputies with being truthful, and therefore disbelieve the detainee(s). This is a situation in which the story has too many inconsistent aspects to it to be complete.

Now, if I were to learn that the arrest was lawful for some other reason, and that the person was denied bail while his immigration status was confirmed, we’d be on more believable grounds. Then we’d see that the arrest was lawful, the detention was still predicated on confirmation of his legal presence, and the story starts to make sense.

Point is, to answer HD’s question, when he asked what I thought would happen due to Arpaio being pardoned is specifically that this sheriff and his deputies will no longer have any fear of those remedies that you speak of. They know that the president has their back, and anything that Arpaio did, they can do as well, with the same lack of consequence as he had.

I think the local deputies have been bending the laws for some time, in areas where they thought they could get away with it. Now, they won’t need to be so finessing, and they can just blatantly break the law and violate people’s civil rights with no consequence.

Why are the state authorities powerless to act?

[begbert2]

@Bricker

I believe you may have heard such stories, but the claim doesn’t pass the smell test. There’s a 24 hour USCIS line for verification of citizenship/legal presence. While it’s true that the line can’t itself be foolproof, it would be folly for officers to throw away a valid license and fail to check with USCIS, because the eventual lawsuit would reveal that the detainee had a valid license and was legally present.

And it doesn’t pass the smell test for a second reason: if the claim was that the license was a fake, the officer would have to answer why he threw it away instead of keeping as evidence for a charge of proffering false documentation. Again, that contradiction would simply add zeros to the settlement figure at lawsuit time.

This is anecdotal scaremongering.

I’m a pasty white boy with at least three generations of pasty whiteness behind me, and I would be reluctant to take an officer to court for pretty much any reason, because the following two things have been impressed into me:

1. It will be time consuming and expensive, and
2. He’s a cop, so I’ll lose.

I can easily see how a person of non-pasty descent would have thoughts along similar lines. And I can see how officers with a desire to abuse their power might make similar assumptions and feel reasonably safe from lawsuits no matter what they do. (And what’s a lawsuit, anyway? Paid vacation?)

[Bricker]

@begbert2

I’m a pasty white boy with at least three generations of pasty whiteness behind me, and I would be reluctant to take an officer to court for pretty much any reason, because the following two things have been impressed into me:

1. It will be time consuming and expensive, and
2. He’s a cop, so I’ll lose.

I can easily see how a person of non-pasty descent would have thoughts along similar lines. And I can see how officers with a desire to abuse their power might make similar assumptions and feel reasonably safe from lawsuits no matter what they do. (And what’s a lawsuit, anyway? Paid vacation?)

Huh.

Well, I’m a Hispanic guy from multiple generations of Salvadorans. And I am well aware of the existence of the ACLU and other legal aid resources, as well as the fact that qualified immunity doesn’t cover destroying documentation. In other words, if the abuses described by k9befriender were more subtle or harder to prove, you’d have a point. But the described offenses are so blatant and relatively easily proven (at least for the purposes of a civil suit) that finding lawyers to take such a case on contingency would not be difficult.

[begbert2]

@Bricker

Huh.

Well, I’m a Hispanic guy from multiple generations of Salvadorans. And I am well aware of the existence of the ACLU and other legal aid resources, as well as the fact that qualified immunity doesn’t cover destroying documentation. In other words, if the abuses described by k9befriender were more subtle or harder to prove, you’d have a point. But the described offenses are so blatant and relatively easily proven (at least for the purposes of a civil suit) that finding lawyers to take such a case on contingency would not be difficult.

Pop culture has told me that lawyers are expensive, courts are time consuming, and the legal system is heavily weighted in favor of the police. Plus I’m not that fond of public speaking or attention, even when it’s not bankrupting me and destroying my life.

There is not a circumstance where I would instigate a court case. Ever. And yes, I’m aware I’m saying I believe the court system is utterly broken. Er, sorry?

I can’t imagine I’m the only person like this - and I imagine that people who are being actively persecuted by the police would find it similarly difficult to believe the government would take their side.

[Bricker]

@begbert2

Pop culture has told me that lawyers are expensive, courts are time consuming, and the legal system is heavily weighted in favor of the police. Plus I’m not that fond of public speaking or attention, even when it’s not bankrupting me and destroying my life.

There is not a circumstance where I would instigate a court case. Ever. And yes, I’m aware I’m saying I believe the court system is utterly broken. Er, sorry?

I can’t imagine I’m the only person like this - and I imagine that people who are being actively persecuted by the police would find it similarly difficult to believe the government would take their side.

What remedy would such a person have with an Obama or a Clinton in the White House?

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

Huh.

Well, I’m a Hispanic guy from multiple generations of Salvadorans. And I am well aware of the existence of the ACLU and other legal aid resources, as well as the fact that qualified immunity doesn’t cover destroying documentation. In other words, if the abuses described by k9befriender were more subtle or harder to prove, you’d have a point. But the described offenses are so blatant and relatively easily proven (at least for the purposes of a civil suit) that finding lawyers to take such a case on contingency would not be difficult.

He was, to my understanding, picked up in a raid on a construction site to find undocumented residents. He was held as a suspected illegal alien.

Like I said, I don’t know all the details, I was trying to not get any more involved than I needed to be, so I don’t know if there were exaggerations, and this was around 2009, so it’s been a bit, but on the other hand, your faith in the law, I find a bit naive.

It all comes down to a hispanic person’s word against an officer’s word. Destruction of documentation? “I never saw any, he didn’t present it.” Civil rights abuse? “No, I didn’t.”

Couple of things, this sheriff has been sued on several occasions for violating civil rights, and he has lost at least once. Many went into settlements, so it is impossible to tell the actual disposition of the case.

But, you tell me, if your parents and older siblings were here in a bit of less than legal status, how much noise would you be willing to make against the sheriff of your county? Would winning the lawsuit be worth having your family deported?

It is not just me that is concerned about this guy. The local news has been on him for a while now. And it’s not a new thing, Even NPR had him on theirradar in 2006.

Now, with the current conditions, with county sheriffs being pardoned for being in contempt of a court order directing them to stop violating civil rights, I have, what I feel are reasonable concerns that he will become emboldened by this, and step it up another notch.

[Bricker]

@k9bfriender

He was, to my understanding, picked up in a raid on a construction site to find undocumented residents. He was held as a suspected illegal alien.

Like I said, I don’t know all the details, I was trying to not get any more involved than I needed to be, so I don’t know if there were exaggerations, and this was around 2009, so it’s been a bit, but on the other hand, your faith in the law, I find a bit naive.

It all comes down to a hispanic person’s word against an officer’s word. Destruction of documentation? “I never saw any, he didn’t present it.” Civil rights abuse? “No, I didn’t.”

Couple of things, this sheriff has been sued on several occasions for violating civil rights, and he has lost at least once. Many went into settlements, so it is impossible to tell the actual disposition of the case.

But, you tell me, if your parents and older siblings were here in a bit of less than legal status, how much noise would you be willing to make against the sheriff of your county? Would winning the lawsuit be worth having your family deported?

It is not just me that is concerned about this guy. The local news has been on him for a while now. And it’s not a new thing, Even NPR had him on theirradar in 2006.

Now, with the current conditions, with county sheriffs being pardoned for being in contempt of a court order directing them to stop violating civil rights, I have, what I feel are reasonable concerns that he will become emboldened by this, and step it up another notch.

I ask again: was he arraigned? What charges were read at the arraignment? Did they assign counsel?

[begbert2]

@Bricker

What remedy would such a person have with an Obama or a Clinton in the White House?

I don’t understand the question. The person (that is, a person who shares my disbelief in the cost-effectiveness of suing cops) would continue to have exactly as zero personal ways to rebut the attentions of unscrupulous police. Under a less overtly evil administration there’s a possibility that the powers that be will take it upon themselves to clean their houses on their own initiative, but that would be up to them. I know that I personally would never attempt to personally petition Obama or Clinton to stomp on corrupt cops on my behalf.

[Bricker]

@begbert2

I don’t understand the question. The person (that is, a person who shares my disbelief in the cost-effectiveness of suing cops) would continue to have exactly as zero personal ways to rebut the attentions of unscrupulous police. Under a less overtly evil administration there’s a possibility that the powers that be will take it upon themselves to clean their houses on their own initiative, but that would be up to them. I know that I personally would never attempt to personally petition Obama or Clinton to stomp on corrupt cops on my behalf.

Your argument was: Because of Trump, the following bad outcomes are possible. But it seems you readily concede they are possible under any President.

[simster]

@Bricker

Your argument was: Because of Trump, the following bad outcomes are possible. But it seems you readily concede they are possible under any President.

They generally are - but in this case - Trump specifically pardoned a sherrif accused of fostering such an environment - pardoned him of a conviction of ignoring the court’s orders to stop such behaviour.

The ‘fear’ is that under Trump - now - that this pardon will exacerbate the behavior since the other Sherrifs will see this as approval (and backing) from the administration.

(IMHO)

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

I ask again: was he arraigned? What charges were read at the arraignment? Did they assign counsel?

I don’t actually know for sure the answers to your questions, I was not directly involved, most of the participants telling me the story spoke worse english than my spanish, and it was nearly a decade ago.

I do not believe he was arraigned, as I don’t think he ever saw the inside of a courtroom. He was detained on suspicion of being here illegally, and was released once his family proved that he was a citizen, using his birth certificate and ss card. I could be a bit off on this, but I believe the raid was on thursday, and he got released on tuesday, I know he was in over the weekend.

He did not have a driver’s license on him, and had to get it replaced, but he claimed that the officer had thrown it out claiming to him that it was a fake during the raid. I never talked to the officer to get his side of the story.

I’ve racked my brains for any more info involved, but that’s about all the info I have.

But, as I pointed out, this sheriff’s office has been sued, a couple time successfully, for violations of the civil rights of immigrants. I am not the only one that sees what he is doing as being illegal, the courts do too.

Now, there have only been a few successful lawsuits, and most of the others have been settled, making it hard to see the details of them, but that doesn’t put him on the right side of the law. He is a big fan of Arpaio, and I see no reason he won’t emulate him as much as possible.

As they said in Ozarks, if you catch an employee stealing, it wasn’t the first time they stole, it was the first time they got caught. So, I do believe that for every successful lawsuit, there are many other instances of abuse of civil rights that do not get even to the point of filing the suit, much less trying to get evidence that can only be provided with the cooperation of the sheriff’s department.

Ultimately, my concern is that, with the current climate in washington there is less pressure on local pd’s to do the right thing, and they will feel emboldened to violate more people’s rights more thoroughly, with little fear of consequence.

Just saying, expect to be seeing Butler county in the news the way you’ve been seeing Maricopa the last few years.

On the plus side, I have always had to think about it when I typed Maricopa county and Sheriff Arpaio, so if the next national news about controversial sheriffs is Sheriff Jones in Butler county, at least my spellcheck won’t get as much overtime.