This is Sheriff Arpaio's idea of a school-protection posse

The BBQ Pit
21

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.

22

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?

23

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.

24

…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!”

25

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.

26

And still people think this “democracy” is a good thing?

There should be a test.

27

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?

28

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!

29

… 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.

30

It says they’re just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know… morons.

31

Let’s all chip in and send Sheriff Joe on a Carnival cruise.

32

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.

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.

33

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.

34

Take a couple hours. Just promise you won’t slink away without comment afterwards, OK?

35

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.

36

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.

37

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?

38

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?

39

(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).

40

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.