Sheriff Joe (Phoenix: lawyer, home, crime)

[ibarrio]

The editor of the phoenix news time is a scum bag? Just because he takes a stance as journalist against your beloved sheriff? WOW!!

[Steve-o]

Originally Posted by ibarrio

The editor of the phoenix news time is a scum bag? Just because he takes a stance as journalist against your beloved sheriff? WOW!!

First of all, hes not "my" sheriff, I live in IL. I have seen Tent City several times and I wish theyd do something like that out here. Criminals are criminals and deserve to be treated as such, and he does a good job of it, hence my support. End of story.

[ibarrio]

This has zero to do the way he treats criminals...it has everything to do with the way he violates the constitutional rights of American Citizens WHO HAVE NOT BROKEN ANY LAWS...Hence my lack of support...end of story.

Ask yourself this questions, why does he need the info of everyone that visited the phoenix news time since 2004?

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by irwin

Now he's arresting journalists who are criticizing him?!?

No, he arrested them on a criminal warrant - the allegation being, disclosure of what is contained in a Grand Jury subpoena is prohibited by law

[ibarrio]

And that warrant and crime is for a misdemeanor...keep that in mind.

Regardless, the editors felt it necessary to let the public know of Joe's doings...Which effects you if you have ever been to the phoenix new times since Jan. of 2004....and if you clicked any of the above links you have been to the Phoenix news times since 2004...Especially since those are the stories he really wants information on. Your on Sheriff Joe's list...

[Bill-]

Originally Posted by Greatday

No, he arrested them on a criminal warrant - the allegation being, disclosure of what is contained in a Grand Jury subpoena is prohibited by law

Don't confuse him with the facts, he's on a roll.

[joninaz]

Originally Posted by Steve-o

As long as it gets the lowlife, scumbag crap that you support off the streets and scared/humiliated, Im all for it!

I support some of Joe's policies, such as only C-Span in the jails, but he does cross the line from time to time and abuses his power.

For example, news outlets that write a negative story about his dept. get their access cut off. That's an insult to anyone who believes in the 1st Amendment.

And this latest move against the New Times is a pure ego play and very scary... not only in terms of the relationship between govt. & the press, but he's now also trying to intimidate readers. Why the hell does he want our IP addresses, records of what stoires, ads, sections we viewed, what other websites we visited, etc.?

We want aggressive and creatve law enforcement - but we don't want them abusing their office, stifiling the press, or intimidating the public.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by ibarrio

And that warrant and crime is for a misdemeanor...keep that in mind.

Regardless, the editors felt it necessary to let the public know of Joe's doings...

And, how many others were arrested yesterday, and the day before, on misdemeanor warrants?

They are charged with a crime - and it is something that has serious implications on the Grand Jury system when you get right down to it -

IMO, the arrest was justified if, for no other reason, but to protect the work of the Grand Jury

[kdog]

Originally Posted by irwin

And the County Attorney out there is no better. Going after people who VIEW THE WEBSITE?!?

That's not what they're doing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they want the web logs to see how many people viewed Arpaio's home address which was illegally published. The IP address, timestamp, previous link (aka, referring link), domain and browser are the standard fields every web server log entry. The fact they were called out like this is most likely a product of sensationalist journalism. The notion that they are going after people who viewed the web pages in question is laughable.

If you're so concerned about people's rights, why aren't you concerned about Arpaio's privacy being violated by the NY Times? Oh that's right. You can't stand the guy.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by joninaz

For example, news outlets that write a negative story about his dept. get their access cut off. That's an insult to anyone who believes in the 1st Amendment.

Then perhaps, you need to be as critical of Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris who has flatly said that he will not talk to anyone who disagrees with his policies on his officers checking on immigration status -