Records: Arpaio used taxpayer money for TV show (tax return, to live)

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by chipnjaz

Stating that everyone is pissed off about this story on the Sheriff
and the AIG bonuses is broad conjecture on your part.

Does it require everyone to be upset for this point to be salient? Are you arguing the majority of Americans are not discontent with AIG right now?

This is not how the system works with elected officials.

Why did you write"the voters do have a right not to vote for him?" Voting for the Sheriff is irrelevant to this issue because even those who voted for him can disagree with his stance related to this television show.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I just reread it. Where does it say taxpayer money went to the fugitives' pocket? What's the problem here? Do you guys complain about the show Cops too, or just Sheriff Joe?

On COPS, the cameras are there to observe officers during their normal routine as they apprehend criminals. With regard to this show, elaborate sets are created to fool criminals in a Candid Camera format. This is not simply recording officers in action. Therefore, this is not the same as COPS. It's bad enough the Sheriff is getting sidetracked with this TV show but when their office allows taxpayers to fund this show and fails to disclose the amount that was spent on the show, that is the very definition of irresponsibility and a lack of accountability.

[chipnjaz]

[quote=azriverfan.;8104655]Does it require everyone to be upset for this point to be salient? Are you arguing the majority of Americans are not discontent with AIG right now?

It's not what I said. You said " That's why everyone's pissed about this and the AIG bonuses". It's conjecture on your part and simply not true. Besides the AIG situation has nothing to do with the Sheriff.

Ok let me try this again,

Did Sheriff Arpaio break the law? So far as we know he did not.

Did he use good judgment? Maybe, maybe not. Until all the facts are known we don't know.

Is there a bias to use this story to discredit the Sheriff? Yes, review the comments in this thread by those who disagree with the Sheriff.

This story has nothing to do with the Sheriff's performance in upholding the law.

[ibarrio]

[quote=chipnjaz;8105030]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

This story has nothing to do with the Sheriff's performance in upholding the law.

It has to do with him wasting Tax payer money for self promotion. If your ok with that then state it. What you are doing is trying to flip it...

Yes or No, Do you agree with him wasting Tax Payer Money for this show?

[roosevelt]

[quote=chipnjaz;8105030]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

Does it require everyone to be upset for this point to be salient? Are you arguing the majority of Americans are not discontent with AIG right now?

It's not what I said. You said " That's why everyone's pissed about this and the AIG bonuses". It's conjecture on your part and simply not true. Besides the AIG situation has nothing to do with the Sheriff.

Ok let me try this again,

Did Sheriff Arpaio break the law? So far as we know he did not.

Did he use good judgment? Maybe, maybe not. Until all the facts are known we don't know.

Is there a bias to use this story to discredit the Sheriff? Yes, review the comments in this thread by those who disagree with the Sheriff.

This story has nothing to do with the Sheriff's performance in upholding the law.

Arpaio is under attack by the only newspaper in town, the mayor, the former governor Napolitano and two agencies of the federal government. Like him or hate him, he is the subject of a witch hunt.

[observer53]

Originally Posted by chipnjaz

ibarrio, the question is, did he break the law?

I suspect that such giving away of county resources is, in fact, illegal at some level.

Legality aside, for him to just blow it off, in tough economic times for the county and every other government entity, as "not that much money" is grossly inappropriate.

This is not comparable to the AIG situation, even with the presence of taxpayer money in both cases.

[Rick Lee]

Until there's a taxpayer dollar amount nailed to this tv show AND it's above that normally spent to nab a similar number of fugitives, I have no problem with this. If anything, publicizing enforcement of laws in Phoenix should have some deterrent effect on folks deciding to base their criminal activity here.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Until there's a taxpayer dollar amount nailed to this tv show AND it's above that normally spent to nab a similar number of fugitives, I have no problem with this. If anything, publicizing enforcement of laws in Phoenix should have some deterrent effect on folks deciding to base their criminal activity here.

There is taxpayer dollar amoung "nailed to the tv show" That is confirmed because the Sheriff's office didn't seek reimbursement for the expenses from the producers of the show.

In regards to the amount, the Sheriff's office has not disclosed that amount. The only thing the Sheriff's office provided the public was "It's not that much" This kind of reminds me of a teenager coming back from the mall and saying they didn't spend that much and not to worry about the amount.

[observer53]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Until there's a taxpayer dollar amount nailed to this tv show AND it's above that normally spent to nab a similar number of fugitives, I have no problem with this. If anything, publicizing enforcement of laws in Phoenix should have some deterrent effect on folks deciding to base their criminal activity here.

I don't honestly think anyone who saw this silly show was deterred from criminal activity in Maricopa County.

This was all about silly reality show C**P, not law enforcement. The producers didn't want "Cops", "First 48", or "Real Stories of the Highway Patrol" and the like. If they did, they would not have pitched the idea to Sheriff Joe in the first place.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by chipnjaz

Did Sheriff Arpaio break the law? So far as we know he did not.

Again, what does that have to do with misusing public funds? Many political entities are not technically breaking the law by misusing funds.

Originally Posted by chipnjaz

Did he use good judgment? Maybe, maybe not. Until all the facts are known we don't know.

What facts are not known? It is a confirmed fact the show's expenses were not reimbursed by the producers which means the taxpayers foot the bill. Even the Sheiff has acknowledged this by telling the public not to be concerned with the expenses because it didn't amount to much. The Sheriff didn't contradict the statements made in the article.

Originally Posted by chipnjaz

Is there a bias to use this story to discredit the Sheriff? Yes, review the comments in this thread by those who disagree with the Sheriff.

That is not the definition of bias. For you to accuse the article of being biased, you have to show how statements were contrived or manipulated to produce a particular effect. Negative feedback to a factual event is not bias.

This story has nothing to do with the Sheriff's performance in upholding the law.

If the Sheriff is wasting resources and time on a television show, it does impact his performance in upholding the law because that wasted time and resources could have been used elsewhere by his department.