# DoJ sues Sheriff Arpaio for civil-rights abuses; anyone care to take Arpaio's side here? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 12, 2012, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726 "2012-05-12T20:42:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726/261 "2012-07-18T20:27:27Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Don’t you get it?! The birther-story is thread-relevant **now** because of the **timing** of Arpaio’s latest birther-announcement: [The first court arguments in his DOJ lawsuit are to be heard **tomorrow,** July 19.](http://newamericamedia.org/2012/07/lawsuit-could-sideline-arpaios-anti-immigration-crusade.php) This announcement obviously is a feeble effort to divert public attention from that. He doesn’t seem to get that the only name that stands out in the birther-story any more is “Arpaio,” not “Obama.” Reported. Along with your previous flouting of **tomndebb’s** moderation. Perhaps those interested in this aspect of Arpaio’s activities will respond in the other link you also posted the link in. The one about the actual subject and not your _theory_. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726/262 "2012-07-18T20:40:34Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Don’t you get it?! The birther-story is thread-relevant **now** because of the **timing** of Arpaio’s latest birther-announcement: [The first court arguments in his DOJ lawsuit are to be heard **tomorrow,** July 19.](http://newamericamedia.org/2012/07/lawsuit-could-sideline-arpaios-anti-immigration-crusade.php) This announcement obviously is a feeble effort to divert public attention from that. He doesn’t seem to get that the only name that stands out in the birther-story any more is “Arpaio,” not “Obama.” Yes, it would’ve been much clearer if you’d explained this earlier. But even if the theory in the article is true, the Birther discussion belongs in another thread. There are several of those in Elections. If you want to talk about this any more, post to one of those threads. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726/263 "2012-07-18T22:42:15Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [Arpaio just announced that Obama’s birth certificate is definitely a forgery.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/joe-arpaio-birther-probe-_n_1681428.html) > > Submitted without comment. I have a comment: You were told that you were perfectly free to open a new thread on the topic to which you linked, but that it was a hijack to this thread and that you were to refrain from pursuing this off-topic discussion, here. This is a Warning to avoid hijacking threads and to avoid ignoring staff instructions. = = = > [@magellan01](#): > > Submitted with one comment: :rolleyes: If you see a violation, report it; do not use it to attack other posters. Knock it off. = = = EVERYONE: Any discussion of Arpaio’s Birther idiocy is to be taken up in a separate thread. Do not comment upon it further, here–not even as a reply to another post. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726/264 "2012-07-18T22:57:27Z")
I would venture to say that limiting this discussion is just dick swinging. There’s no debating left to do; just move it to the pit and butt out. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2012, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726/265 "2012-09-03T17:35:23Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Does anyone care to make a case here that Arpaio should not be sued, or that he has Done the Right Things, or at any rate things a sheriff should be allowed to do? From Huffington Post’s link to the [Arizona Republic’s story:](http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20120831arpaio-case-feds-unraveled.html) > [@](#): > > At 5 p.m. Friday, before a long holiday weekend, a brief note went out from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Phoenix, saying without explanation that the office would not file federal or state criminal charges against “current and former members of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.” > > In recent months, it had become increasingly apparent within the legal and law-enforcement communities that criminal charges likely would not come out of an investigation that began four years ago under President George W. Bush and spanned the tenures of several Arizona U.S. attorneys. > . > . > . > Ironically, among the findings against Thomas in other legal proceedings is that he filed criminal charges without probable cause. But as Fontes points out, most prosecutors won’t bring charges unless they are convinced they can get a conviction. > > “Does this rise to a level of criminality that requires prosecution?” he asked. “If it’s shaky – and it’s been shaky for a while – they can wait for the other (civil) cases to go forward.” ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726/266 "2012-09-05T20:12:39Z")
So Arpaio (apparently) hasn’t broken any laws! Now, let’s see if AG Holder will be found innocent (“Fast and Furious”). ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726/267 "2012-11-27T04:16:22Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > To give you an example of what I mean: in France you’re required to have ID on your person at all times, and cops can stop you in the street and request you show it. Even though widely believed, that’s no true. There’s no obligation to carry an ID in France. Police officers can’t stop you and request that you prove your identity except in some cases : -You’re operating a motor vehicle -They have objective reasons to believe you’ve been involved in a crime -You’re present near a place where a crime has just been commited -The local prosecutor ordered identity checks for a specific reason at a specific place and time (that’s the ID checks targeting brown people you see in subway stations \*) If, in **these circumstances** you’re unable to prove youre identity (either by providing an ID or by testimony), you can be detained up to 4 or 6 hours (can’t remember) while the police tries to establish it. > [@](#): > > They also routinely carry searches out in the streets (even though it’s technically illegal - but then if you protest they can haul you in and keep you in the drunk tank for 24 hours so…). Maybe they do, but both actions are illegal. Especially the part about being detained without a cause. No doubt, though, that certain skin shade and age combinations get you harassed. (\*)Which by the way, are very convenient to up arrest figures. For instance, they’ve have been multiplied during the two last years of Sarkozy’s mandate, with specific number of arrest objectives determined by “préfets”. Just have some police officers hang around a train station at peak time searching for illegal aliens or around a known drug selling place searching for drug consumers and voila, you’re 100% certain to have a number of criminals arrested by the end of the day, instead of wasting your time enquiring about burglaries or other complicated stuff. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726/268 "2012-11-27T04:43:50Z")
Hmmm…Sorry, I followed a link to this thread, and didn’t realize it was an old one. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726/269 "2012-11-27T04:46:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > From Huffington Post’s link to the [Arizona Republic’s story:](http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20120831arpaio-case-feds-unraveled.html) There’s the question, and there’s the link…without comment, it seems. Are _you personally_ making a case here that Arpaio should not be sued, or that he has Done the Right Things, or at any rate things a sheriff should be allowed to do? Or are you “just sayin’”? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726/270 "2012-11-27T11:39:47Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > So Arpaio (apparently) hasn’t broken any laws! Now, let’s see if AG Holder will be found innocent (“Fast and Furious”). [He was](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19656316). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726/271 "2012-11-27T15:47:28Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > There’s the question, and there’s the link…without comment, it seems. Are _you personally_ making a case here that Arpaio should not be sued, or that he has Done the Right Things, or at any rate things a sheriff should be allowed to do? > Or are you “just sayin’”? I’m saying that the author of the piece made the case that criminal charges were not supportable by available evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726/272 "2012-11-27T15:52:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m saying that the author of the piece made the case that criminal charges were not supportable by available evidence. And do you agree with the author? Go ahead-give a personal opinion. It’s not going to kill you. I promise. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726/273 "2012-11-27T16:08:34Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And do you agree with the author? Go ahead-give a personal opinion. It’s not going to kill you. > I promise. There’s a forum for personal opinions. We’re not in it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726/274 "2012-11-27T16:25:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There’s a forum for personal opinions. We’re not in it. You can’t even say “I agree with the link I researched and provided.”? Wow. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726/275 "2012-11-27T16:50:33Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You can’t even say “I agree with the link I researched and provided.”? > > Wow. I can personally agree with having a forum called “Great Debates” being used for debates, in which participants defend and attack positions based on supporting factual citations, and another forum called “In My Humble Opinion,” in which the personal opinions of the posters are the coin of the realm, be they grounded in fact or completely untethered. And I can personally agree that keeping those two missions separate is a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2012, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726/276 "2012-11-27T17:33:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There’s a forum for personal opinions. We’re not in it. Boy, reading threads in this forum must be like fingernails on a chalkboard for you, huh? ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2012, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726/277 "2012-11-28T03:48:07Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I > > Now, set on the other side (not legally, but politically, socially, etc.) of this are such considerations as states’ rights and local autonomy, which are still important to many Americans, I suppose. Also the consideration of border control; but I don’t see how anything Arpaio or his department has been doing is necessary or helpful to effective border control. > > Does anyone care to make a case here that Arpaio should not be sued, or that he has Done the Right Things, or at any rate things a sheriff should be allowed to do? Well, the gold standard in border control is probably Israel? The profiling that Arpaio uses is pretty standard there (I wasn’t aware the US has even spoken against this?). Probably because it works. So I would disagree with your comment that Arpaio’s methods aren’t necessary or helpful for border control. The problem is that they are not replicated elsewhere in the US to deter illegal immigration. > **[In Israel, racial profiling doesn't warrant debate or apologies](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2016-09-20/ty-article/in-israel-racial-profiling-doesnt-warrant-debate-or-apologies/0000017f-e75e-d62c-a1ff-ff7fe9c60000)** > > While other democracies hesitate to resort to racial profiling, Israel takes the practice for granted. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2012, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726/278 "2012-11-28T10:59:46Z")
That’s an…interesting…comparison. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2012, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726/279 "2012-11-28T14:43:09Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Well, the gold standard in border control is probably Israel? The profiling that Arpaio uses is pretty standard there (I wasn’t aware the US has even spoken against this?). Probably because it works. So I would disagree with your comment that Arpaio’s methods aren’t necessary or helpful for border control. The problem is that they are not replicated elsewhere in the US to deter illegal immigration. > [In Israel, Racial Profiling Doesn't Warrant Debate or Apologies - Israel News - Haaretz.com](http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/in-israel-racial-profiling-doesn-t-warrant-debate-or-apologies-1.261075) So… it’s okay because Israel does it? That’s your argument? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2012, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726/280 "2012-12-04T14:55:46Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Well, the gold standard in border control is probably Israel? No, that would be North Korea. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-sues-sheriff-arpaio-for-civil-rights-abuses-anyone-care-to-take-arpaios-side-here/621726.md?page=13)