Sheriff Joe Convicted of Criminal Contempt (transplants, felony, home)

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by Mouldy Old Schmo

Arpaio seemedlike someone who would be elected in New Orleans instead of Phoenix. I didn't know Phoenix had a taste for colorful corrupt public figures.
Does his loss to a Democrat mean that party is on the rise in Phoenix?

People of all parties just got sick of Old Joe and the expense and trouble he was. The anti-illegal fervor that gripped the state in the recession faded in the recovery. It was time for a change.

[observer53]

Originally Posted by jimj

Nothing but a fine if that depending on how the appeals turn out. He may just get that jury trial he's asking for and that could go either way.
I want to know why he didn't get one from the start like he was asking for? What was the state afraid of? Let 12 of the people who live here decide if he's guilty or not and face whatever the verdict is.

All in all I'm glad he's gone, it was time years ago...

Ninth Circuit ruled against him on that issue already, appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, they offered him no relief.

[pbenjamin]

Originally Posted by BIG CATS

If he has to serve one day, Ill be pissed. Hillary has smashed cell phones with hammers, been involved with numerous mysterious deaths, threatened to "drone" Assange, used BleachBit on her hard drives, has diverted funds from the Clinton Foundation, been caught with emails SHOWING a rigged DNC election, and willingly allowed our soldiers to be slaughtered despite desperate cries for help.


If Arpaio has to serve, Hillary does to. As does her tax-evading idiot racist friend Al Sharpton.


Fair is fair. Would you agree to this?

Yeah, except Arpaio has been convicted of a actual crime in a federal court, whereas Mrs. Clinton has been convicted of a bunch of smears and conspricacy theories by the right wing. You may as well have mentioned the child sex ring that she ran out of a Chevy Chase pizza parlor.

False equivalency is a favorite tool of the right.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by observer53

Ninth Circuit ruled against him on that issue already, appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, they offered him no relief.

Prior to a conviction, new set of appeals now so we'll see...

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by Jnvlv247

Hope not!!

This state will turn to **** real fast

Oh please

[Zippyman]

Originally Posted by thinkalot

I remember when I lived near CLEVELAND we had roadblocks. Might be for drunk driving, proof of insurance, seatbelts. They would get some people with outstanding warrants, possession. It only took minutes. I would like to see that here. You won't be able to call it profiling when they stop every car.

That's kinda the point - no matter what you call a warrant less, suspicionless search, it's against the constitution. The constitution protects citizens from being hassled and searched and detained without a valid suspicion of wrongdoing. Roadblocks with drug dogs, detaining people and "checking for drugs" (or papers) is contrary to law. That isn't to "protect" the undocumented- it's to protect the documented, lawful citizens that *always* get caught up in these sweeps by power-hungry cops. Arpaio perp-walked lawful citizens more than once. Arpaio falsely arrested people who challenged him. That's a big deal.

[observer53]

Originally Posted by jimj

Prior to a conviction, new set of appeals now so we'll see...

I understand that the proceedings are at a different stage, but with that sort of question, if they really thought he should have a jury trial, they would have said so before the trial. I don't think that issue is a winner, on the present record.

[ShampooBanana]

Originally Posted by Zippyman

That's kinda the point - no matter what you call a warrant less, suspicionless search, it's against the constitution. The constitution protects citizens from being hassled and searched and detained without a valid suspicion of wrongdoing. Roadblocks with drug dogs, detaining people and "checking for drugs" (or papers) is contrary to law. That isn't to "protect" the undocumented- it's to protect the documented, lawful citizens that *always* get caught up in these sweeps by power-hungry cops. Arpaio perp-walked lawful citizens more than once. Arpaio falsely arrested people who challenged him. That's a big deal.

Some people seem to WANT to bow down to some authoritarian power for the sake of an illusion of safety. I don't understand what they're so afraid of, but it seems to be a certain paranoia that's reinforced by certain media outlets and websites. Me, I'll take a lot less hassle and a lot more freedom for a little less safety, but hey, I guess I like to live a little "dangerously".

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin

[anonimuso]

Originally Posted by ShampooBanana

Some people seem to WANT to bow down to some authoritarian power for the sake of an illusion of safety. I don't understand what they're so afraid of, but it seems to be a certain paranoia that's reinforced by certain media outlets and websites. Me, I'll take a lot less hassle and a lot more freedom for a little less safety, but hey, I guess I like to live a little "dangerously".

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin

You do realize that you give up "essential liberty" every day just by living in this country and obeying the regular laws that we have right? Do you go through the screening process when you attempt to get on a plane? Does your locality have laws regarding speed limits? What about the fact that you have to have license at all to drive a car? Does your city have a laws about burning leaves on your own property? Do you work in a profession where you have to be licensed?

All of these basic rules are in place, in great part, due to a concern for the safety of residents. So whether you like it or not, you're already doing the thing that you seem to think only stupid people do.

[ShampooBanana]

Originally Posted by anonimuso

You do realize that you give up "essential liberty" every day just by living in this country and obeying the regular laws that we have right? Do you go through the screening process when you attempt to get on a plane? Does your locality have laws regarding speed limits? What about the fact that you have to have license at all to drive a car? Does your city have a laws about burning leaves on your own property? Do you work in a profession where you have to be licensed?

All of these basic rules are in place, in great part, due to a concern for the safety of residents. So whether you like it or not, you're already doing the thing that you seem to think only stupid people do.

It's not black and white. There are gray areas, too. The question is the threshold you are willing to give up in freedoms for an increased level of safety (or the illusion of safety in many cases). My threshold is lower than most, and I'm of the opinion that it was the Founding Father's intention that it should be low. Many seem to be perfectly willing to allow their personal freedoms to be infringed upon, either slowly (as in the slow government overreach and passing of constant new laws and legislation that is okay with causing inconvenience for many to appease a few), or quickly in the case of those who would knee-jerk react at seemingly any out-of-the-ordinary provocation or incident.