Arpaio has gone mad with power (activities, approval, build)

[Robert A]

Originally Posted by Home_Kid

Robert A,
i think if you start collecting more data metrics you'll quickly learn that Joe A's office is on par with other SO's across the US. comparing the # of lawsuits vs. $$ paid out is single stat (which seems to used quite often here), which by itself doesnt mean all that much. if you can post the # of operations the MCSO has conducted over the years Joe A has been there, and the # illegals the MSCO has captured over the years Joe A has been there, and the total # of lawsuits against MCSO since Joe A has been there, and the total # of lawsuits the MCSO has lost since Joe A has been there, and the total # of cases against Joe A which alledge wrong doing, and the total # of cases Joe A himself has lost,.... if you can post all these #'s then i think we all can get a clearer picture as to how normal the MCSO is when compared to other SO's across the US.

in the end, the #'s coming out of the MCSO may be higher, but when you graph them the line it makes looks very similar to other SO's across the US.


i think Joe A should make them wear pink skirts. i am sure the ACLU would say that is gender discrimination, or some here might say its not right to treat criminal that way.

It seems you've already collected and plotted this data. So why don't you post it?

EDIT: let me be clear. I think you make a valid point so long as it's supported by data. You seem very certain, so let's see it. I think there are other reasons for opposing Joe, but I'm willing to consider your gathered, plotted, and sourced information.

[Home_Kid]

Originally Posted by Robert A

It seems you've already collected and plotted this data. So why don't you post it?

EDIT: let me be clear. I think you make a valid point so long as it's supported by data. You seem very certain, so let's see it. I think there are other reasons for opposing Joe, but I'm willing to consider your gathered, plotted, and sourced information.

not my job to do so. its the anti-GoJoe folks who need to prove their claims. i was only suggesting the anti folks dig up some #'s as i have suggested, and then we can look at them together. thus far the evidence provided by the anti GoJoe folks is very weak. i am confident that the MCSO #'s are not shocking when compared to the same metrics of other SO's across the US.

c'mon, if the MCSO was doing all this wrong i am sure the ACLU and other orgs that fcorrales80 belongs to would have brought this evidence to the major media outlets and it would be primetime news for weeks-on-end. fact is, its not a issue as some claim it to be, hence its not being covered by the major media outlets.

[azriverfan.]

I have a feeling Sheriff Joe is going to be like Penn St.'s Joe Paterno. Sheriff Joe will be Sheriff until he dies. Like Joe Pa, he will be the figurehead and someone else will take over but I just can't see him retiring.

[Ritchie_az]

"I understand the point you're trying to make"

I'm glad to hear that. The numbers I was throwing around I'm sure are not accurate. I'd be surprised if anyone outside of Sheriff Joe's office knows the percentage of lawsuits the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office has won. I knew that my arguement was not based on fact (because I don't know the facts). However, it seemed like an effective way to point out the logical fallacy that I saw. So my weak arguement was nothing more than a vehicle to point out the flaws in a different weak arguement. It's good that you caught on.
Regarding the lawsuits that the sheriff's office lost, those are good to review (and I'm sure they have been extensively). Certainly there are many valuable lessons to be learned. But are those lost lawsuits reason enough to gather pitchforks and tourches? I don't think so, but, at the same time, can understand why some might feel that way. Other law inforcement offices (as well as many corporations that one might not think of as "bad") have also paid out large settlements without firing the boss. If it is truly a trend, then there are problems. I'm personally not convinced that it is a trend. It's certainly something to keep an eye on, though.

[fcorrales80]

I'm just waiting for information from ritchie and homekid that would counter information and evidence posted against the sheriff. This thread has gotten a little crazy with the nazis stuff. It is weird that Arpaio was talking to them and shaking their hands but who knows what the premise was behind that. I don't think Arpaio is a nazis supporting racists. He's had many close hispanic/minority friends.

However, this is a discussion about his efficiency and ability to enforce the laws prudently, equally, and efficiently without violating tenants of the constitution and ethical matters. Funny how homekid said it wasn't "his job" to post his data even though he ridiculed others when no data was posted from the get go. I have a feeling it is because he can't produce and his statements are mere conjecture and not founded in truth.

[Ritchie_az]

fcorrales80, I think Home_Kid's point was that you (and others) made the accusations, the burden is on you (and the others) to prove those accusations. It's not Home_Kid's responsibility to prove that your accusations are false. It is, however, your responsibility to prove your accusations true. Otherwise, they're just accusations, which, in and of themselves, are pretty pointless.
I disagreed with most of your accusations, so I offered a flip-side of the coin. I did provide some information to back up what I said. Mostly, though, I was pointing out your logical fallacies.
Here's a list of the most common logical fallacies:
Top 20 Logical Fallacies - The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe
http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/acadwrite/logic.html
You may note that I could have pointed out more. You'll also note that I used a couple logical fallacies to point out a couple of your logical fallacies (I did this on purpose). I don't think it was really understood, so perhaps this was not an effective way to communicate.
I do, however, think you brought up some good questions (which we've already talked about).

[Robert A]

Oh, nevermind. This won't go anywhere, anyway.

[fcorrales80]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

fcorrales80, I think Home_Kid's point was that you (and others) made the accusations, the burden is on you (and the others) to prove those accusations. It's not Home_Kid's responsibility to prove that your accusations are false. It is, however, your responsibility to prove your accusations true. Otherwise, they're just accusations, which, in and of themselves, are pretty pointless.

This proof has been posted by many including me. It has been disregarded however. If you choose to ignore it that is your choice but it is incorrect to say we haven't proven or given evidence to support our positions. Now that homekid has listed "facts" and "data" as he's described them we are asking for the information and links to the data so that we can read and take them into consideration. We are just asking for the same consideration you two asked for and received.

disagreed with most of your accusations, so I offered a flip-side of the coin. I did provide some information to back up what I said. Mostly, though, I was pointing out your logical fallacies.
Here's a list of the most common logical fallacies:
Top 20 Logical Fallacies - The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe
LEO: Logic

Ok great! Let's see your data and information that would suggest otherwise. Would love to read it and see the research for reaching such conclusions. Also your argument of "logical fallacy" doesn't apply to this discussion since there is a valid argument and a valid conclusion. Argument; sheriff joe is costing tax payers money, is inefficient, has violated ethics and constitutional tenants, etc etc. Conclusion; we've paid tens of millions of dollars in lost legal battles, pay the highest insurance premiums in the country because of ethical and constitutional violations, etc. etc.

[Ritchie_az]

I think I'm going to agree with Robert A here. We're just going to continue around in circles, because I think we have two different definitions of "proof". I have seen nothing that I would call "proof", but, to you, what you've posted is indeed "proof". I don't know if it's because I give Sheriff Joe the benefit of the doubt and you give the benefit of the doubt to the ACLU and others, or what. I suppose it doesn't matter.

"Also your argument of "logical fallacy" doesn't apply"

A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. I'm sure you must have learned this sometime at USC, no?

"Argument; sheriff joe..has violated...constitutional tenants"

Arizona Constitution
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

This is my last post in this thread. Good luck with your mission to get Sheriff Joe ousted.

[fcorrales80]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

I think I'm going to agree with Robert A here. We're just going to continue around in circles, because I think we have two different definitions of "proof". I have seen nothing that I would call "proof", but, to you, what you've posted is indeed "proof". I don't know if it's because I give Sheriff Joe the benefit of the doubt and you give the benefit of the doubt to the ACLU and others, or what. I suppose it doesn't matter.

Yes, I do agree we are going in circles. I said it first, LOL! J/K However, I never quoted an ACLU study; studies quoted were provided by ASU, The Goldwater Institute, FBI statistics, etc. etc.

A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. I'm sure you must have learned this sometime at USC, no?

Right, but in order for an argument to be a logical fallacy it must have a conclusion that is invalid or incorrect which isn't the case with this discussion. Read above...therefore logical fallacy is an inappropriate argument for this discussion since the argument and the conclusion are both validated.

"Argument; sheriff joe..has violated...constitutional tenants"

Arizona Constitution
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

This is my last post in this thread. Good luck with your mission to get Sheriff Joe ousted.

Yeah, these links do not debunk the lawsuits lost by Sheriff Arpaio on grounds of unethical and unconstitutional violations at tent city and county jails and inappropriate detainment of U.S. citizens during "raids." They are just links to the state and federal constitutions...