Joe Arpaio

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
If you are Law Enforcement and you get a call that three men robbed a convenience market with the following descriptions, white male, average height, tan trench coat, blue cap. Hispanic male, average height bomber jacket, green cap. Black male average height, blue wind breaker, white cap, who do you look for? You look for three men, white male, average height, tan trench coat, blue cap. Hispanic male, average height bomber jacket, green cap. Black male average height, blue wind breaker, white cap. That is known as profiling. If you are Border Patrol or Law Enforcement on the Chinese border and Chinese people are illegally coming into your country, who do you look for at or near the border? White male, average height, tan trench coat, blue cap. Hispanic male, average height bomber jacket, green cap. Black male average height, blue wind breaker, white cap, no, you look for Chinese people. And at any border in the world you look for the people coming in illegally. It has nothing to do with their ability to make a living in their own country, the warm fuzzy feeling you have for them, it has to do with the law, and asking Border Patrol or Law Enforcement to do their job without profiling is left wing stupid. Trying Arpaio in front of a Judge instead of a jury was unjust. The pardon was correct. OK, have at it.
 

Randy V

Administrator
#2
We'll see how this thread goes.... as soon as any politics are brought into it (beyond what has already been said) ---- Whack!
 

Doug S.

Lifetime Premier Supporter
#4
...at any border in the world you look for the people coming in illegally. It has nothing to do with their ability to make a living in their own country, the warm fuzzy feeling you have for them, it has to do with the law, and asking Border Patrol or Law Enforcement to do their job without profiling is left wing stupid. Trying Arpaio in front of a Judge instead of a jury was unjust. The pardon was correct. OK, have at it.
Arpaio is another "Trump", so to speak...a loose cannon who shoots first and thinks later. That's not a characteristic limited only to those with "leftist" ideas, of course...in fact, to me it more aptly describes the conservative contingent more so than the liberals...but that's just my own interpretation.

This is a Trump action I "can" support...IMHO Trump has the unfettered authority to pardon anyone...B.O. granted a LOT of pardons during his final few days. While I (personally) would have preferred to see Arpaio just do as he was ordered prior to the election, he IS an ELECTED official and IMHO he is bound to represent the values and ideals of those who elected him (not necessarily HIS OWN if they do not coincide)!!

Trump's authority to pardon him is without question; the advisability of Trump's choice of whom to pardon does, IMHO, leave room for doubt, but I must say it is not uncharacteristic of Trump, so not unexpected.

Is "racial profiling" illegal?...or just not a good practice?...or legal where not prohibited? Like you, Al, I believe that IF Trump really is serious about getting all the undocumented Mexican immigrant BAD GUYS deported, well, how could you possibly try to identify those individuals without considering their "ethnicity" ("color" for those of you who don't speak PC)?

So...the issue arises...when is it OK for an elected official to ignore "edicts" from a national authority (the Federal Government) if the "edict" ignored is one that is not appreciated locally? Is it ever OK?

That's a tough one to answer... :huh:

Cheers!

Doug
 

Randy V

Administrator
#5
So the question in my mind is -
Of the things Joe A was found guilty of - how many of those things were actually done by Joe himself.
Take racial profiling for instance.
Was his written policy to his staff found to include racial profiling as standard operating procedure.
If not his official written policy ---
Was it Joe, himself, that did the profiling, or was it people that worked for him?

If it was soley the actions of people reporting up through Joe - I would contend that he may have been only guilty of being a poor manager.

I will fully admit that I am not boned up on all the facts, so take that into consideration...
 

Jeff Young

Bronze Supporter
#6
A court issued an order directing him and his office to stop racial profiling. He and his deputies refused and continued to do it for 18 months, claiming the order was unclear. He was fully aware of what was going on.

Because it was a contempt proceeding it was before a judge. That's the law. He'd already had his chance with a jury once before.

Al's post is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with what was going on. Arpaio and his deputies were pulling people over simply because they were Hispanic. That's illegal.

Should we start pulling over white people to look for Nazi propaganda and white supremacist literature simply because they were white?

Some of you here have some pretty basic misunderstandings of the Constitution and how things in the US work, especially for non-whites. Of course if white people got pulled over at anywhere near the rate minorities and Hispanics, do, they'd be whining about profiling like 3 year olds.

BY ITS VERY NATURE this is a political thread and should go in the politics thread.
 

New Member
#8
Also, the underlying issue was that a local judge was ordering local law enforcement to NOT enforce FEDERAL law. I believe that is inherently an illegal order, which is why they ignored it. He was then convicted by a local judge for failing to follow a local court's ruling.

The federal government should have stepped in right away and established the fact that no local court has the right to order peace officers to violate or ignore federal law. Federal law always has primacy. That didn't happen (guess why) and so he was convicted. It was a kangaroo court from the start.

I wish there had been a move to invalidate the conviction itself rather than pardoning him. Pardoning him implies that he did something wrong to begin with, and is being forgiven. What should have been established is that the initial order that he was charged with violating was itself illegal and invalid....
 

Jeff Young

Bronze Supporter
#9
No, basically every line in your post is factually or legally incorrect.

In the US, it is Constitutionally impermissible to stop someone because of race alone. That's the law. You have to have a reasonable suspicion they are committing a crime to stop them and frisk, and probable cause to search. "Because Mexican" is not reasonable suspicion or probable cause. In fact, as I said above, it is a Constitutionally impermissible reason to stop or search.

Why? Turn it around. Most financial crimes/embezzlement are committed by white males. Would you approve of the police stopping all white males and searching them in a 50 mile radius the next time some banker or accountant goes off half cocked and steals $1 million?

Back to our friend Joe.....

1. FEDERAL LAW is you can't stop based on race or national origin. You've got that completely 100% wrong.

2. Joe and his department have been sued many times in federal court for violations of these constitutional provisions. Wiki says he's had to pay out $146 million in settlements over the years for violating FEDERAL constitutional rights.

3. In this particular incident, a FEDERAL judge issued an injunction telling him and his department to stop the racial profiling. He continued anyway.

4. He was convicted in FEDERAL court of contempt of that order.

So, basically, it would be impossible for you to be more wrong.

Where do you get this stuff?
 

Jeff Young

Bronze Supporter
#10
So, if Mexicans are breaking State and Federal law by illegally crossing the US border, who do we look for and how do we stop them?
You look for people in the US who are illegals, if you wish to spend your time and money doing that.

What you can't do, per our Constitution, is "stop anyone who is Hispanic" in order to advance your policy goals.

The Constitution and the Supreme Court are clear. Racial profiling as a basis for a stop is impermissible. As it should be. I mean, we aren't Nazis right? Stopping people for their papers because they LOOK Jewish?

Or are we?
 

Doug S.

Lifetime Premier Supporter
#11
Well, Arpaio just didn't like the law and so he refused to enforce it. Trump has pardoned him...end of story...unfortunately!

It seems like Trump has taken the attitude Nixon had..."If the President does it, it ISN'T ILLEGAL". No wonder he stood up for Arpaio, they are both "twinkie-twins" mentally.

...and, unfortunately (OK, I'll admit it) the law DOES allow Trump to "pardon" Arpaio...but where is the law that says Trump can just give Arpaio permission to ignore Federal law? Trump ought to have his feet held to the fire for part of that long-term failure to insist Federal laws are upheld (I am assuming that the Obama admin was trying to reign him in...but that's just an assumption. Please let me know if I'm incorrect in that belief)?

Cheers!

Doug
 
#12
No, basically every line in your post is factually or legally incorrect.

In the US, it is Constitutionally impermissible to stop someone because of race alone. That's the law. You have to have a reasonable suspicion they are committing a crime to stop them and frisk, and probable cause to search. "Because Mexican" is not reasonable suspicion or probable cause. In fact, as I said above, it is a Constitutionally impermissible reason to stop or search.

Why? Turn it around. Most financial crimes/embezzlement are committed by white males. Would you approve of the police stopping all white males and searching them in a 50 mile radius the next time some banker or accountant goes off half cocked and steals $1 million?

Back to our friend Joe.....

1. FEDERAL LAW is you can't stop based on race or national origin. You've got that completely 100% wrong.

2. Joe and his department have been sued many times in federal court for violations of these constitutional provisions. Wiki says he's had to pay out $146 million in settlements over the years for violating FEDERAL constitutional rights.

3. In this particular incident, a FEDERAL judge issued an injunction telling him and his department to stop the racial profiling. He continued anyway.

4. He was convicted in FEDERAL court of contempt of that order.

So, basically, it would be impossible for you to be more wrong.

Where do you get this stuff?
Again, you are on the Mexican US border, Mexicans are illegally entering the US. Who do you stop. This obviously requires too much common sense.
 
#13
Well, Arpaio just didn't like the law and so he refused to enforce it. Trump has pardoned him...end of story...unfortunately!

It seems like Trump has taken the attitude Nixon had..."If the President does it, it ISN'T ILLEGAL". No wonder he stood up for Arpaio, they are both "twinkie-twins" mentally.

...and, unfortunately (OK, I'll admit it) the law DOES allow Trump to "pardon" Arpaio...but where is the law that says Trump can just give Arpaio permission to ignore Federal law? Trump ought to have his feet held to the fire for part of that long-term failure to insist Federal laws are upheld (I am assuming that the Obama admin was trying to reign him in...but that's just an assumption. Please let me know if I'm incorrect in that belief)?

Cheers!

Doug
Arpaio ignored a Arizona court order concerning immigration patrols and stops. He did this to apprehend people breaking the law by illegally entering the US. He ignored an Arizona court order, not Federal.
 

Jeff Young

Bronze Supporter
#14
1000000000000000000 percent incorrect. He ignored a federal court order instructing him to follow the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent barring stops based on race or national origin.

Good grief.
 
#15
My understanding is that a "US District Court" is a Federal court, correct? Just because this one is located in Arizona, does not negate this as being a Federal court, correct? If all this is so, it's atrocious that this fact is being subverted, or more comically treated as an alternate fact, and thus distorting the rationale of the above argument. Is this how short sighted we've become?

I think what the reality of the argument is that "the means justifies the end" on one side, against "constitutional law" on the other side...plain and simple. So all patriots (I love devolving the argument into flag waiving) take your side!

BTW, I really had high hopes that after the first 24 hours of this post, and that nobody chimed in, that this would die on the vine, but consider me overly optimistic.
 
Last edited:
#17
So, I guess we should wait till the illegals get benefits and settle, then we try to deport them at great cost without infringing on some kind of right. Makes much more sense than stopping them at the border. You guys have this expansion of the electorate down to a science.
 

Doug S.

Lifetime Premier Supporter
#19
So...begging the question here...IF an LEO were to stop a vehicle for, say, something like a tail light that was not working...would it be legal if that LEO were to inquire about that party's immigration status? If so...when?

I know...if the purpose of the stop was to check legal immigrant status, it isn't...but we all know that LEO's are certainly entitled to use their own discretion...just curious about how far the interrogation at the scene of the stop can extend. Perhaps there ought to be a specific sequence in the procedural protocol that requires some sort of LEO issued citation or written warning to prove the stop was not predicated on the color of the inhabitants' skin???

Cheers!

Doug
 

Doug S.

Lifetime Premier Supporter
#20
So, I guess we should wait till the illegals get benefits and settle, then we try to deport them at great cost without infringing on some kind of right.
IMHO "illegal" (I prefer "undocumented") immigrants should NOT get governmental benefits...until they gain American citizenship!!! Once they become citizens, then they get to enjoy the rights/benefits to which all U. S. CITIZENS are entitled.

I bet most of them would swim back across the Rio Grande if they found out only U. S. citizens are entitled to governmental monetary benefits...and IMHO food stamps are one of those benefits.

Cheers!!

Doug
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top