# This is Sheriff Arpaio's idea of a school-protection posse **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 14, 2013, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252 "2013-02-14T03:32:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/21 "2013-02-14T14:42:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Well, two would be a good start. At least then the kneejerking nitwit OP would have some ground to stand on when he claims “OMG! Arpaio is getting sex criminals to protect children!” One sex offender = totally A-OK. Two sex offenders, though… that’s unacceptable. Right. The point here is that the douchebag militia that Arpaio rounded up for his little project has apparently had no background checks to weed out sex offenders and the like. If it did, they presumably would have disqualified the guy mentioned in the story. This is pretty much exactly why the whole idea of “let’s just protect the schools with a bunch of gun-toting volunteers” is a stupid, bullshit idea. Sure, you’ll get some responsible gun owners who want to participate. You’ll also get pedophiles, wife-beaters, and crazy people. And weeding those people out takes time and taxpayer money, which a lot of places aren’t willing or able to spend. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/22 "2013-02-14T14:46:33Z")
> [@Uber\_the\_Goober](#): > > The “win” is strong with this one. > > I love how apropos that clip is to what this retard is doing. > > I can’t believe he’s got support. A conversation with this man must reveal that he is in fact, \*that \*stupid. If he’s going to recruit sex offenders and criminals to “defend schools” then by golly you should be able to tell how dumb he is just by talking to him. But the sex offender in question wasn’t hired to defend schools. He was a detention officer - a jailer – who worked at the Sheriff’s Office substation in Avondale. And he was not arrested for any sex crimes until seven years after he was hired there, and after he was arrested, and before he was convicted, his employment was terminated. So why would you say what you did? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/23 "2013-02-14T14:47:45Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > One sex offender = totally A-OK. Two sex offenders, though… that’s unacceptable. Right. > > The point here is that the douchebag militia that Arpaio rounded up for his little project has apparently had no background checks to weed out sex offenders and the like. If it did, they presumably would have disqualified the guy mentioned in the story. Or the guy in the story was hired in 2002, arrested for sex offenses in 2009, and fired in 2009. Maybe that should be the point. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/24 "2013-02-14T14:50:21Z")
…and the crickets begin chirping… Hmmm. Which members of the reality-based community will step up to comment now? What tactics will be used to say, in effect, “It’s not my fault – it’s Arpaio’s, for being such a douche that I believed this false story!” ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/25 "2013-02-14T14:53:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What do you think? That it makes this worse? He didn’t get his posse together until January, and it included this guy. So, the Sheriff brought in a guy who he actually fired in 2009. At least, that’s what I get from the various linked articles. ETA: I didn’t see your additional crickets commentary before posting this. I think the reality based community should get at least a 15 minute window to respond before it looks like we’re running from the facts. Don’t you think? 3-2-1. Crickets. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Librarian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_librarian/32/402_2.png) [@The\_Librarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Librarian)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/26 "2013-02-14T14:56:31Z")
And still people think this “democracy” is a good thing? There should be a test. ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/27 "2013-02-14T14:56:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …and the crickets begin chirping… You posted this three minutes after your prior post. Can I have five minutes to do some Googling before posting a reply? Is that okay with you? I just want to know what the Bricker standards are for speed in replying to posts. The original Salon story says that the guy was a member of the posse tasked with school protection starting in January 2013. Where are you getting your information that he wasn’t? ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/28 "2013-02-14T14:57:51Z")
Crickets. As I thought. Edit: It’s now been three whole minutes since my post! What’s the holdup, Bricker? I thought we were working on a three-minute reply standard, here! ---
**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:** [February 14, 2013, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/29 "2013-02-14T15:00:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Or the guy in the story was hired in 2002, arrested for sex offenses in 2009, and fired in 2009. … and then “rehired” in 2013 despite the MCSO’s full knowledge that he was a convicted sex offender. The OP is about Arpaio’s “school protection” posse, not the MCSO’s staffing in general. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/30 "2013-02-14T15:06:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > What do _you_ think it says? It says they’re just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know… morons. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/31 "2013-02-14T15:07:03Z")
Let’s all chip in and send Sheriff Joe on a Carnival cruise. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/32 "2013-02-14T15:07:52Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > You posted this three minutes after your prior post. Can I have five minutes to do some Googling before posting a reply? Is that okay with you? I just want to know what the Bricker standards are for speed in replying to posts. > > The original Salon story says that the guy was a member of the posse tasked with school protection starting in January 2013. Where are you getting your information that he wasn’t? I linked to the stories in my post. The original Salon story carefully – and deceitfully – does not directly say Dominic Boulter was hired by the posse. > [@](#): > > Local news affiliate KPHO reported on Arpaio’s “posse” and found that the sheriff hired sex offenders, domestic abusers and other members with criminal records to “serve and protect” Phoenix-area schools. The word “reported” is [linked](http://www.kpho.com/story/17159125/criminal-pasts-dont-disqualify-members-of-arpaio-posse) to the KPHO story – which does not mention Boulter at all. So far as I can tell, they slipped Boulter’s name into the mix, as a former Sheriff’s employee who was a sex offender. I can find no evidence whatsoever – except stories that now link back to the Salon posting – that identify Boulter as a current posse member. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/33 "2013-02-14T15:10:05Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > … and then “rehired” in 2013 despite the MCSO’s full knowledge that he was a convicted sex offender. The OP is about Arpaio’s “school protection” posse, not the MCSO’s staffing in general. Yes, if that were true, you’d have a point. But I don’t agree he was rehired in 2013, by an Arpaio posse or anyone else associated with Arpaio. The story that supposedly supports this claim makes no mention of him. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/34 "2013-02-14T15:12:02Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > You posted this three minutes after your prior post. Can I have five minutes to do some Googling before posting a reply? Is that okay with you? I just want to know what the Bricker standards are for speed in replying to posts. > > The original Salon story says that the guy was a member of the posse tasked with school protection starting in January 2013. Where are you getting your information that he wasn’t? Take a couple hours. Just promise you won’t slink away without comment afterwards, OK? ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/35 "2013-02-14T15:13:14Z")
Oh, there you are. Thank God. The crickets were starting to breed and I’m fresh out of cricket chow. The KPHO story does mention loads of other criminals who were hired for the posse – the same posse now being charged with protecting Arizona schools – so my point stands, even if Boulter’s posse status is questionable (IMO the story is only deceitful if Boulter was not part of the school posse in 2013, which is not clear): This is a stupid, bullshit idea that is going to cost more money than it’s worth to implement properly. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/36 "2013-02-14T15:21:12Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So, from the article you cited, Arpaio has 3,450 volunteers. And the article attempting to slam him points to one (1) sex offender and one (1) person _charged_ with domestic abuse. > > Unbelievable! But not in the way you think. :rolleyes: Which do you consider to be more likely to occur: A) Any of the 3,450 volunteers will stop a school shooting. B) That a sex offender who is also a volunteer will now gain daily access to children. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/37 "2013-02-14T15:24:58Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > Oh, there you are. Thank God. The crickets were starting to breed and I’m fresh out of cricket chow. > > The KPHO story does mention loads of other criminals who were hired for the posse – the same posse now being charged with protecting Arizona schools – so my point stands, even if Boulter’s posse status is questionable (IMO the story is only deceitful if Boulter was not part of the school posse in 2013, which is not clear): This is a stupid, bullshit idea that is going to cost more money than it’s worth to implement properly. I think the merits of the school posse are debatable. But there’s a special aversion to hiring a person with a past conviction for sex offenses against children to be present in a school to guard children, and that makes the accusation a sort of magic bullet that needs to be disposed of. So having done so, at least provisionally, let’s turn our attention to these others. What, in your view, is sufficient to make someone a criminal? I argue that it’s a criminal conviction. But what do you say? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/38 "2013-02-14T15:25:12Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > Which do you consider to be more likely to occur: > > A) Any of the 3,450 volunteers will stop a school shooting. > > B) That a sex offender who is also a volunteer will now gain daily access to children. A. Especially in light of: [QUOTE=Bricker] The word “reported” is linked to the KPHO story – which does not mention Boulter at all. So far as I can tell, they slipped Boulter’s name into the mix, as a former Sheriff’s employee who was a sex offender. I can find no evidence whatsoever – except stories that now link back to the Salon posting – that identify Boulter as a current posse member. [/QUOTE] So, which do you think is more likely? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/39 "2013-02-14T15:26:01Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > Which do you consider to be more likely to occur: > > A) Any of the 3,450 volunteers will stop a school shooting. > > B) That a sex offender who is also a volunteer will now gain daily access to children. (B) is my answer. If such a sex offender was hired to be part of such a posse, that is. In this case, that didn’t happen. So (A). ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/40 "2013-02-14T15:28:15Z")
B. A school protection posse is going to be very attractive to people who want close access to children, and the background check done by the sheriff’s department is obviously pretty lax. I wouldn’t assign this a _high_ probability, but maybe low to medium. School shootings are rare to start with, and the odds that one of these gun-toting volunteers is going to 1) be on-site when one happens, and 2) actually do something to stop it, is vanishingly small. Close to zero, I’d estimate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252.md?page=3)