# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/81 "2013-02-14T19:38:28Z")
> [@bup](#): > > It sucks that **Bricker** did better journalism than the article writer and editors of \*Salon \*together. It seems that journalism has died. ---
**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, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/82 "2013-02-14T19:45:55Z")
> [@bup](#): > > It sucks that **Bricker** did better journalism than the article writer and editors of \*Salon \*together. No. It sucks that despite learning the truth, **BrainGlutton** and **elucidator** reacted by blaming me for the sin of defending Arpaio. And it sucks that only two people in this thread have pushed back against them for that. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/83 "2013-02-14T19:47:49Z")
Defending him against an _unproven_ charge. Sheriff Joe is a public figure, a fact of his own relentless and unswerving efforts. He represents and embodies everything I find repulsive about old bigots with a gun and a badge. That is his doing, not mine. Am I obliged to offer him the standards of criminal defense, of proof beyond a shadow of a doubt? No, I am not. If this were a trial, and I were on the jury, I would be duty bound to return a verdict of not guilty, because the evidence isn’t there to meet the standard demanded. Nonetheless, my opinion of Sheriff Joe would not have been altered much at all. We are not in a court of law, Counselor, but in the arena of opinion. You may insist that your standards must be met, if you like. Given your pristine and spotless reputation for non-partisan truthiness…well, perhaps the less said the better. In my opinion, Sheriff Joe is a blot and a stain upon honest law enforcement. That opinion is unchanged. That my fellow lefties have lept to a conclusion that could not be sustained in a court of law merits a shrug, at most. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/84 "2013-02-14T19:55:01Z")
Jesus, but I am getting tired of the usual “he would not be convicted in my hypothetical courtroom, therefore he is spotless” schtick. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/85 "2013-02-14T19:58:10Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Jesus, but I am getting tired of the usual “he would not be convicted in my hypothetical courtroom, therefore he is spotless” schtick. Who said that? ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/86 "2013-02-14T20:23:37Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > Well, when one finds out that the facts which shook one’s faith were not, in fact, facts, I would expect that one would no longer expect steps to be taken. > > I mean, what do you want to be done? Shoot the clerk that mistakenly left the name on the list? > > Perhaps I’m misunderstanding. Do you instead mean your faith in the integrity of a procedure that results in Salon stories? I believe that is a jab at \*\*Bricker’\*\*s arguments in favor of voter ID. Namely that it is necessary to take action not because voter fraud occurs, but because the public is worried about voter fraud. In other words he has argued we should take actions not because a real crime is happening, but because there is a general impression the crime is happening. ---
**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, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/87 "2013-02-14T20:46:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And I am reminded of this: > > [xkcd: Citogenesis](http://xkcd.com/978/) Ha! Yeah, that one, too. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/88 "2013-02-14T20:47:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It sucks that despite learning the truth, **BrainGlutton** and **elucidator** reacted by blaming me for the sin of defending Arpaio. Give them time. You are Vulcan. Humans require time to acknowledge errors they have emotional investment in. \*\*BrainGlutton \*\*and \*\*elucidator \*\*argue in good faith. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/89 "2013-02-14T21:15:22Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Jesus, but I am getting tired of the usual “he would not be convicted in my hypothetical courtroom, therefore he is spotless” schtick. Is that the schtick here? It seems that the ‘facts’ in the article are incorrect. I’m all for getting the torches and pitchforks, but it would be nice to be right. Right now, the only one we could tar and feather is the reporter and editor for not doing their jobs. ---
**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, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/90 "2013-02-14T21:27:53Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > That my fellow lefties have lept to a conclusion that could not be sustained in a court of law merits a shrug, at most. There’s so much wrong with this that it’s difficult to know where to begin. The two main areas: 1. This has nothing to do with a conclusion that “could not be sustained in a court of law.” That phrase suggests there was evidence for the charge, but not enough evidence to satisfy a court’s exacting standards. Here, it seems pretty clear the accusation was simply wrong, period. 2. This is not about the lefties jumping to a conclusion – their conclusion was very justified by the article. It’s about what happened when it became apparent that the article was wrong. Rather than say, “Well, I relied on the article, and it was wrong, and now I see that,” or some similar statement, you and **BrainGlutton** attacked me for being a bigot, the evidence for this charge being my “defense” of Arpaio – a “defense” that was in fact correct. So this is about reacting to the conclusion being proven wrong by attacking the person who proved it wrong. Why? Yes, yes, Arpaio’s a “repulsive … old [bigot]… with a gun and a badge.” That can’t mean, can it, that you feel it’s OK to say anything, true or false, even in your court of opinion… can it? And in your court of opinion, someone who corrects a factual error is subject to attack as a bigot, if the uncorrected error hurts the “repulsive … old [bigot]… with a gun and a badge.” Is that how your court of opinion works? ---
**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, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/91 "2013-02-14T21:30:11Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Give them time. You are Vulcan. Humans require time to acknowledge errors they have emotional investment in. > > \*\*BrainGlutton \*\*and \*\*elucidator \*\*argue in good faith. **elucidator** seems to be saying that in his court of opinion, it’s perfectly fine to spread a falsehood about someone, as long as that someone is already repulsive. And he seems to be saying that in his court of public opinion, it’s perfectly OK to attack someone as a bigot for refuting such a falsehood. This, by you, is arguing in good faith? Really? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/92 "2013-02-14T21:39:46Z")
I didn’t speak at all until the second page, and three posts since. None of them remotely say what you claim I said, unless the weasel word “seem” is given an enormously generous definition. So, it “seems” that you are a two-faced, hypocritical, lying sack. Of course, maybe it just seems that way. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/93 "2013-02-14T21:52:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …And he seems to be saying that in his court of public opinion, it’s perfectly OK to attack someone as a bigot for refuting such a falsehood… I used the word “bigot” precisely once, in direct and unmistakable reference to Sheriff Joe. So where do you get this shit, you lying sack? ---
**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, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/94 "2013-02-14T22:09:21Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > In all the Doper community, only **Bricker** and **magellan01** are such flaming bigot assholes as to rush to the defense of Sheriff Arpaio. > > I hope. > [@Bricker](#): > > This statement represents a sentiment I’ve seen many times from some of the most proudly liberal, enlightened folks here. > > If a person is “bad,” then, really, any criticisms can safely be made about him without regard to their truth or falsity. > > I don’t agree, BrainGlutton. You see a defense of Arpaio as bigoted, or in favor of bigotry. > > But I see value in the actual facts. You may disagree with many things about Arpaio; you cannot, however, continue to claim that he hired a past sex offender to be a posse member. Correcting that claim is not defense of bigotry. > [@elucidator](#): > > Think carefully now,\*\* Counselor\*\*. Are you sure you want to besmirch your pristine reputation for truthy candor to defend Joe Arapaio? Seriously? > [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. I’ll defend him against accusations he’s an arsonist, or that he cheats at Monopoly, or that he hired a convicted sex offender for his posse. > > Why won’t you? > > Is any criticism of Arpaio justified, no matter it’s truth? Surely that can’t be acceptable, even to liberals. > [@elucidator](#): > > I used the word “bigot” precisely once, in direct and unmistakable reference to Sheriff Joe. So where do you get this shit, you lying sack? You jumped into a conversation that used the word bigotry, and argued against statements I was making against the use of that word. But this is why I said “seems:” > [@](#): > > And he seems to be saying that in his court of public opinion, it’s perfectly OK to attack someone as a bigot for refuting such a falsehood. ---
**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, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/95 "2013-02-14T22:10:59Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I didn’t speak at all until the second page, and three posts since. None of them remotely say what you claim I said, unless the weasel word “seem” is given an enormously generous definition. So, it “seems” that you are a two-faced, hypocritical, lying sack. Of course, maybe it just seems that way. So clarify. I laid out your posts above, in the context of the thread’s conversation. What did you mean when you said: > [@elucidator](#): > > Think carefully now, Counselor. Are you sure you want to besmirch your pristine reputation for truthy candor to defend Joe Arapaio? Seriously? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/96 "2013-02-14T22:14:58Z")
Objection! Counsel is badgering the witness! Sustained! Keep your questions on the topic at hand please. See? I watch law-talking TeeVee shows. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/97 "2013-02-14T22:46:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > **elucidator** seems to be saying that in his court of opinion, it’s perfectly fine to spread a falsehood about someone, as long as that someone is already repulsive. Pretentious prattle about “falsehood” from someone who knows so little about truthhood. > [@Bricker](#): > > And it sucks that only two people in this thread have pushed back against them for that. Your trivial little point here is clear, and I might push back for you, the trivial pointer, if you were worthy of any respect. Instead, your knowledge is so selective, it’s fair for us to assume you know absolutely nothing about Sheriff Arpaio, beyond the “(R)” by his name. That “R” makes him a hero in your bizarre cognition; you’ll rant about evidence if anyone counters you with descriptions of Arpaio. We still recall your long, prattling defense of Karl Rove in a thread, despite that you knew nothing of Rove’s biography (other than the “(R)”) and despite that you hadn’t even read OP. :smack: You need to demonstrate at least a token bit of intelligence, knowledge and humility before you can hope to be taken seriously. Until you condescend to that, your posts are all just repulsive sophistry. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/98 "2013-02-15T00:26:09Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > You need to demonstrate at least a token bit of intelligence, knowledge and humility before you can hope to be taken seriously. Until you condescend to that, your posts are all just repulsive sophistry. Including the posts in which I demonstrate a clear factual error? That, too, is repulsive sophistry? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/99 "2013-02-15T00:30:55Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Objection! Counsel is badgering the witness! > > Sustained! Keep your questions on the topic at hand please. > > See? I watch law-talking TeeVee shows. What’s the topic at hand? ---
**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 15, 2013, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252/100 "2013-02-15T00:55:11Z")
The problem with this “well, Arpaio’s an asshole, so it’s all good” philosophy is that levelling baseless charges undermines charges that have some basis in fact. There are plenty of valid reasons to criticize Arpaio, and running with an invalid one creates the perception that the others are invalid. It stops being a crusade and becomes a witchhunt. So give **Bricker** his due and move on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-sheriff-arpaios-idea-of-a-school-protection-posse/650252.md?page=6)