Thousands march against Arpaio and his racist pig followers

[Peikko 1,575]

Ah, we have the pay per minute walking cliche posting tonight. Exciting.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well the ends do justify the means don't they...

We'd all be better off having a few dirty cops running our law enforcement. Ethics be damned.

What do criminals know or care about ethics? They know what they live, and that is that the ends justify the means. Joe could do a lot worse. Frankly, he shows great restraint.

Why bother to have trials? Perhaps they had it right in the old west - where the townsfolk just took people out and threw a noose over a tree.

Sure - it could be worse and Joe could be some old East German Stasi police commander.

Somehow I doubt that's the point.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The point is, prison isn't Disneyland, and law enforcement isn't pretty. Arm chair quarterbacking about both, however, is easy. That's why anyone can do it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The criticism against Joe is establised and comes from a wide range of sources and quarters. I guess you can choose to have an opinion on it - or not.

If armchair quarterbacking is easy, apathy and moral relativism are surely easier.

Edited March 5, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

"They took our jobs!"

[EasyRider 3]

Thing is, its entirely possible to oppose illegal immigration without subscribing to, or otherwise supporting a demagogue like Joe Arpaio.

As we know illegal immigration is a topic that gets people here very hot under the collar, but it doesn't serve the legitimate arguments particularly well to jump on extremist bandwagons.

Arpaio has been widely criticised for rights abuses - including brutality that resulted in several deaths in custody.

Why would anyone want to defend that?

Thank you.

It is possible for things to be completely lawful but still immoral. I've said it once and I'll say it again, some people here on VJ scare the sh!t out of me.

[Pooky 3,933]

The criticism against Joe is established and comes from a wide range of sources and quarters.

But in Joe Arpaio's case, the people who ultimately matter, the voters who elect him to protect and serve them, have elected him to the position 5 times and must be fully aware of his methods and reputation. Are you going to condemn them for their attitudes also?

Every critic of the sheriff that has posted here has concentrated on the man himself, and completely avoided the question of his electorate legitimizing his methods. So you don't like the man, what he does and what he stands for. The majority of Maricopa County voters do. Until you can persuade them otherwise, Joe Arpaio is going to keep doing what he's doing.

[HAL 9000 96]

God-hating Communists hating law and order.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The criticism against Joe is established and comes from a wide range of sources and quarters.

But in Joe Arpaio's case, the people who ultimately matter, the voters who elect him to protect and serve them, have elected him to the position 5 times and must be fully aware of his methods and reputation. Are you going to condemn them for their attitudes also?

Every critic of the sheriff that has posted here has concentrated on the man himself, and completely avoided the question of his electorate legitimizing his methods. So you don't like the man, what he does and what he stands for. The majority of Maricopa County voters do. Until you can persuade them otherwise, Joe Arpaio is going to keep doing what he's doing.

There's plenty of opposition to Joe within Arizona.

[Danno 1,228]

There's plenty of opposition to Joe within Arizona.

And I will bet... knowing human nature as I do, there are some people "in Power" who don't like him as well; yet where are the long knives to bring him down, where are the charges that would take him out of office?

He was elected and has the support of most of the people, except those who want him "To fail".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's plenty of opposition to Joe within Arizona.

And I will bet... knowing human nature as I do, there are some people "in Power" who don't like him as well; yet where are the long knives to bring him down, where are the charges that would take him out of office?

He was elected and has the support of most of the people, except those who want him "To fail".

Keep pounding that square peg Danno

If you aren't familiar with the criticisms - you should really read up; rather than just opening your mouth for the sake of it.

[Peikko 1,575]

You are getting over excited Danno. It's only people like Rush that wish 'failure' on to other people. This Sheriff is failing, elected or not. People don't want him to fail, they want him to do the job he was elected to do, but in that department, the post from FP clearly shows, he is not doing it very well.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The wikipedia page on Arpaio is interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio#Co...y_and_criticism

From 2004 through November 2007, Arpaio was the target of 2,150 lawsuits in U.S. District Court and hundreds more in Maricopa County courts; 50 times as many prison-conditions lawsuits as the New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston jail systems combined.

Arpaio is named in a class-action lawsuit, Hart v. Arpaio, brought by Phoenix attorney Debra Hill and the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of jail inmates. The lawsuit centers on the treatment of pretrial detainees, who are legally innocent until proven guilty. The lawsuit claims that Arpaio is violating the constitutional rights of those detainees. The trial in the lawsuit began on August 12, 2008.

Family members of inmates who have died or been injured in jail custody have filed lawsuits against the sheriff’s office. Maricopa County has paid more than $43 million in settlement claims during Arpaio's tenure.

That last bit is quite appalling - most of the cases settled with large, out of court settlements.

In 1996, Jeremy Flanders was attacked by inmates at Tent City who used rebar tent stakes, which were not concreted into the ground. Although these stakes had been used as weapons in a previous riot at the facility, the Sheriff's office chose not to secure them properly. During the trial, the plaintiff "presented evidence that, among other things, the Sheriff and his deputies had actual knowledge that prisoners used rebar tent stakes and tent poles as weapons and did nothing to prevent it." Furthermore, "the Sheriff admitted knowing about, and in fact intentionally designing, some conditions at Tent City that created a substantial risk of inmate violence." After the attack: "another inmate entered the tent and found Flanders unconscious, gasping for air, and spewing blood out of his mouth, nose and ears. Flanders had been bloodied and beaten so badly that the other inmate initially did not recognize Flanders." Flanders suffered permanent brain damage as a result of the attack. On appeal, Flanders was awarded $635,532, of which Arpaio was personally responsible for thirty-five percent.

Arrest of Phoenix New Times executives

In October 2007, Arpaio's deputies arrested Village Voice Media executives and Phoenix New Times editors Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin on charges of revealing grand jury secrets. In July 2004, the New Times had published Arpaio's home address in the context of a story about his real estate dealings, which the county attorney's office is investigating as a possible crime under Arizona state law. A special prosecutor served Village Voice Media with a subpoena ordering it to produce "all documents" related to the original real estate article, as well as "all Internet web site traffic information" to a number of articles that mentioned Arpaio. The prosecutor further ordered Village Voice Media to produce the IP addresses of all visitors to the Phoenix New Times website since January 1, 2004, as well as what websites those readers had been to prior to visiting. As an act of "civil disobedience,"[65] Lacey and Larkin published the contents of the subpoena on or around October 18, which resulted in their arrests the same day.[66] On the following day, the county attorney dropped the case after declining to pursue charges against the two.[67] The Attorney General's office has since been ordered to appear before Judge Ana Baca due to missing documentation - including the original grand jury subpoenas - in the case file for the investigation of the New Times publication.[68]

On November 28, 2007, Judge Baca ruled that the subpoenas in this case were not validly issued. The special prosecutor filed the grand jury subpoenas without the consent of the grand jury. Baca's justification was a statute that had been clarified by case law and by subsequent legislation to bar such subpoena authority, unless certain reporting requirements are met. The prosecutor had not met those reporting requirements.[69] In April, 2008, the New Times editors filed suit against Arpaio, County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Special Prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik, alleging negligence, conspiracy and racketeering, and State and U.S. constitutional violations of free speech rights, false imprisonment, retaliation by law enforcement and abuse of process.

He's a dirty cop, but he gets results - so who cares

Indeed...

[46]

A little perspective on what Sheriff Arpaio is facing.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/popup?id...amp;start=false

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

By any means and at any cost...