Yes, definitely. It looks like self defense to me.
William Calley - Soldier who committed mass murder
James Brooks - Texas Ranger that killed a man
Alexander Williams Holmes - Killed 16 people because there were too many in his lifeboat
Maybe you should re-evaluate what self-defense means. Going to an area of safety, grabbing a knife, going back and stabbing someone is clearly not self-defense. Did you mean a justified killing?
It’s not the “racial profiling,” per se. It’s flaunting the order of a Federal Judge who told him to stop it. That’s what he was convicted of, contempt of court. You excuse that, and we really could be on our way to a constitutional crisis, with the President coming down against the power of the judiciary to enforce lawful orders. Yes, in the big picture, that’s worse than armed robbery or a revenge killing.
Do you actually have an opinion on these or are you just Googling “bad pardons?”
Alexander Holmes:
My opinion is: killing people is bad. Killing a lot of people is worse. In fact it may be worse than contempt of court.
Fact: Some of the Dems on this board disagree with that last opinion.
My opinion: They would feel differently if it were a sheriff in contempt for a liberal cause and the President who pardoned him were a Democrat … or maybe just any President other than Trump.
OK, a justified killing. Her husband was acting aggressively and put her in immediate fear of her life. He committed assault by grabbing her arm and repeatedly slamming the door on it. The pardon still seems justified. Arpaio’s doesn’t.
Do you consider racial profiling to be a conservative cause?
Don’t just look at the acts of the people pardoned, but consider what the pardon represents - that’s what some people are missing here.
When a sitting president with more than 3/4 of his term remaining excuses a public official for ignoring a court order, consider the message it sends to other public officials with official power. Consider the message it sends to Trump’s political allies who find themselves being compelled to provide information on pending criminal cases. Consider the effect it has on law enforcement’s ability to gather information on these cases, and for judges to require truthful testimony in a court of law. Consider what happens when a president, who has all of the many levers of power at his disposal, can use these powers to overpower the judicial branch at a time when the legislative branch that is supposed to provide a check on presidential power (and quite frankly the voting public that consents to all that public servants do) are quite obviously not going to stop him.
Democracy is not easy. Countries that have tried it have quite frequently failed. Countries that have succeeded in establishing a healthy democracy have allowed it to descend into authoritarianism or otherwise flawed democracies. Democracy - that is, self-rule - requires a certain kind of self-regulation. The countries that have succeeded in creating a democracy have built institutions that keep one person or one entity too powerful. It also requires respect for the law, the rule of law, and the understanding that no person is above the law. What’s happening now - not just through this pardon but also through openly denigrating the free press, the judges personally who preside over specific cases, and other similar types of contempt for perceived opposition - is that the Executive is using his power to tip the scales. He is attacking the institutions that make democracy work. He is, in effect, challenging these institutions and the conventions that most previous presidents have embraced. Make no mistake about it: this is pardon is worse - much worse, because it’s not just a pardon; it’s a raw exercise in political power. And it is potentially the start of something quite bad for American democracy as we know it.
Yes. Systematic assault upon fundamental foundations of the republic by an elected official both by the act (assault upon the principle of equality before the law) and by the defiance of a judicial order to cease and desist (assault upon the rule of law itself) is far worse than an isolated personal crime.
The lifeboat was going to sink in bad weather and had far too many people in it. The judge reminded the jury that the sailors were supposed to protect the passengers.
It seems to me that Holmes should have ordered the crew out, and joined them in the water. Two women were related to some of the men thrown overboard and asked to perish with their relatives, so Holmes and company tossed them out, too.
Holmes wasn’t in charge. He was just one of the sailors. Not that “just following orders” is an excuse, but it seems that the only reason he got charged is that public outrage was so high in Philadelphia and he was the only on there.
Anyway, he served his sentence. The only thing the pardon got was that he didn’t have to pay a $20 (about $600 today) fine.
Thanks, I was confusing him with Rhodes, the first mate.
Bearing in mind the convict’s age, I imagine Mr. Trump had to act sooner than later if the fellow was to spend his golden months bathed in the glow of an Arizona sunset on his porch rather than in a prison yard.
I wonder what his campaign contribution will be.
How about when Obama pardoned Hitler? 
d&r
Right. Because prison sentences for contempt are notoriously long and damaging to one’s health. :rolleyes:
Funny how Arpaio’s managing to find the energy to float a run for Flake’s seat.
ETA: Did I mention that Arpaio hadn’t even been sentenced yet?
Probably the consciousness of a life well done.
Yeah, but… 85. By non-American standards for both LEOs, politicians and judges, that’s old.
Again I must commend compulsory age limits, even if it meant Trump and Hillary and the rest of the geriatric politburo could not have been nominated in the late unpleasantness.
How do you know it was an area of safety?
Either Oscar Lopez or Nixon.
I understood Ford’s reasoning and think he was sincere. But I generally think people should answer for their crimes.