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

[bup]

@Bricker

What does that mean? You expect him to return with a statement that is more clearly inculpatory?

Yes, assuming inculpatory is the opposite of exculpatory.

I keep saying, most people need time to swallow big pieces of crow.

[Bricker]

@bup

Yes, assuming inculpatory is the opposite of exculpatory.

I keep saying, most people need time to swallow big pieces of crow.

So just so we understand each other, what kind of time are we talking about, do you think? Specifically?

[TokyoBayer]

I know that this is the Pit and not a place for a serious discussion, but the whole idea of this posse is bad, because there are a lot of people in the world who are itching for a chance to have power over others. Looks at the recent flap over the HOA going bankrupt because of legal bills.

From the linked article

Law enforcement hiring budgets are tight across the nation, but the sheriff has found a way to employ his army of volunteers at no cost.

Posse members provide their own uniforms, handcuffs and guns, which can cost as much as $2,300.

“I don’t know what we would do without the posse because we have a shortage of manpower and they pick up the slack free of charge, no cost to the taxpayers,” said Arpaio.

this is not an insubstantial amount of money, and it’s going to attract a lot of wannabe police who would fail background checks. I used to work with people like that on campus security. Guys who would never get hired as cops, but because they were given a tin badge by a police force, thought they could act out all of their rage against humanity.

It’s specifically these type of people:

And then there was Jacob Cutler. According to a Flagstaff police report, Cutler threw his girlfriend to the ground and choked her while trying to sexually assault her in 2008. When she didn’t cooperate, he allegedly threatened to call police and said they would side with him, because he “has a badge.” He was a member of Arpaio’s posse at the time.

This is the whole reason for background checks for law enforcement officers and for training. You can’t just simply hire thugs and give them badges or you get them believing that they are above the law. Sort of like this.

While combing through thousands of pages of court records and police reports, CBS 5 Investigates discovered that some posse members were behaving as though they were above the law.

Thugs with badges are still thugs. A lot of law enforcement agencies have recognized this, and taken steps, and then we get this clown wanting to turn the clock back.

And now we return you back to your regularly scheduled Pitting.

[elucidator]

Those aren’t thugs, they’re patriots. You can’t tell the difference? Thugs hate pretty much everybody, patriots are much more specific.

[Bricker]

@TokyoBayer

This is the whole reason for background checks for law enforcement officers and for training. You can’t just simply hire thugs and give them badges or you get them believing that they are above the law. Sort of like this.

Which people in your examples would fail a background check, and for what reasons?

[Ludovic]

@bup

For a first pass, yes.

Now will you please address what a reasonable middle ground might be in the ‘how long should 102 year old black women have to wait to vote’ thread, instead of saying limo rides are silly and simply stating there exists a reasonable middle ground?

Isn’t it good enough that the other side does things like that too? Therefore a 3 hour wait is okay? I mean, what more needs to be said, really?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

Which people in your examples would fail a background check, and for what reasons?

A background check would presumably have revealed the arrests complained of in the OP. Since none of the volunteers have any legal right (or even privilege) to serve on a posse, I would have deemed those disqualifying. Wouldn’t you?

[Frank]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Since none of the volunteers have any legal right (or even privilege) to serve on a posse, I would have deemed those disqualifying. Wouldn’t you?

Why would you find an arrest to be disqualifying? Convictions, sure, but why a simple arrest?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Why wouldn’t I? An arrest means there was probable cause (in the absence of a finding otherwise). Whether or not a given individual is qualified to serve on a posse is entirely up to the discretion of the sheriff.

[Frank]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

An arrest means there was probable cause (in the absence of a finding otherwise).

Nonsense. People get arrested all the time for things they didn’t do. Any cop could arrest you for any reason he chose, and it may be a bullshit arrest, and you may be out within an hour, but it’s still an arrest.

I’m uncertain what you mean by “in the absence of a finding otherwise”. Do you mean when they go to court and get cut loose because there is no evidence to convict?

[bup]

@Bricker

So just so we understand each other, what kind of time are we talking about, do you think? Specifically?

You know, I may have been wrong. It’s been what? 6 days? Yes, I was mistaken.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

A background check would presumably have revealed the arrests complained of in the OP. Since none of the volunteers have any legal right (or even privilege) to serve on a posse, I would have deemed those disqualifying. Wouldn’t you?

Not without knowing what the disposition of the arrest was, no.

[Bricker]

@bup

You know, I may have been wrong. It’s been what? 6 days? Yes, I was mistaken.

So, to review the discussion and refresh our recollection of what was said:

@bup

Nice work, **Bricker **and Ritter.

I still choose (B), it’s more likely that one of the 3450 will sexually abuse a kid than one of the 3450 will stop a school shooting (after all, they only refuse to hire the ones that haven’t been caught and convicted yet), but the facts were bungled by Salon.

It sucks that Bricker did better journalism than the article writer and editors of *Salon *together.

@Bricker

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.

@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.

@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.

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?

@bup

If this were the only thread by which I had to judge 'luci, I’d say no. But it’s not. Let me expand my original claim to:**elucidator **argues in good faith, in my experience, therefore I extend him the benefit of the doubt. I’m not sure he did call anyone but Arapaio a bigot, anyway, but he could have read the first part of the thread more carefully.

**BrainGlutton **will be back and own that he jumped the gun on calling you a bigot. Your defense of Arapaio was correct (magellan’s was lucky).

So I think your defense of elucidator was justified. He certainly made clear in his subsequent posts he did not endorse or approve of the “bigot” language, although I still say he blamed me for defending Arpaio instead of acknowledging the accusation wasn’t the truth.

But i don’t think your defense of BrainGlutton arguing in good faith was justified. Do you now agree?

[bup]

Yeah. I’m a little surprised.

[Bricker]

@bup

Yeah. I’m a little surprised.

Well, a tip of the hat to you for this acknowledgement, anyway. Thanks much.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

Not without knowing what the disposition of the arrest was, no.

Do you think it might be a good idea to find out what the disposition of the arrest was?

[Frank]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Do you think it might be a good idea to find out what the disposition of the arrest was?

Who should find it out?

The sheriff? The reporter? You? Me?

[ElvisL1ves]

One would expect that the arrest made his disposition pretty damn grouchy.

[elucidator]

HA! Suck on that, BrainGlutton! I bask in the approval of Bricker, sworn enemy of liberal hypocrisy and champion of precise semantic distinction! Eat your heart out! Gloat,gloat! Neener, neener!

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Do you think it might be a good idea to find out what the disposition of the arrest was?

Well, sure – but my point is that without knowing, I would not say that the arrest should be considered disqualifying. I don’t know of a single police dpeartment in the United States that has a per se rule disqualifying applicants based only on the existence of an arrest record.

You seem to be suggesting that the posse should adopt such a rule – that an unpaid group should hold more stringent application requirements than the vast majority of paid police departments in the country. That doesn’t seem reasonable to me.