Apparently Joe Arpaio was innocent of the charges - after all

[tulc]

Except of course the case that he was found in contempt of was in regard to the detention of a tourist with a legitimate visa.

I'm curious if "The Honorable Sheriff" has offered to pay back his city the $70,000,000+ his "crusade" has cost them in damages and fines? Any or all of it you think?
tulc(is just wondering)

 

[Goonie]

I'm curious if "The Honorable Sheriff" has offered to pay back his city the $70,000,000+ his "crusade" has cost them in damages and fines? Any or all of it you think?
tulc(is just wondering)

Don't be silly! Paybacks something the law abiding do.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Can you show me the law that says you cannot hold illegal aliens until they are seen by ICS?

Can you show me the court transcripts that show that that's what Joe was brought before the court for?

No? Not surprising. It was actually his pattern of harassment against US citizens which got him in trouble.

 

[AirPo]

You missed the point apparently that he was found in contempt because he was ordered by a judge not to enforce the law.

No he wasn't

The judge was the one who was in violation.

No he wasn't

Unless the judge was striking down the federal immigration law (which he wasn't) he over stepped his authority.

No he didn't

But it's no surprise that some judge would decide he has the ability to legislate from the bench. They've been doing it for years.

Good thing that didn't happen.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Don't be silly! Paybacks something the law abiding do.

You mean who are under the law. As Donald's supporters have demonstrated in this thread and elsewhere, those who profess to enforce the law are above it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

You mean who are under the law. As Donald's supporters have demonstrated in this thread and elsewhere, those who profess to enforce the law are above it.

The Arpaio defenders seem to be unable (or unwilling) to grasp the concept that being able to enforce the law while also complying with it ought to be an indicator of basic competency for any law enforcement professional. By defending Arpaio's behavior, they're defending laziness and professional incompetence - and judging by the amount of payouts and mishandled investigations, they're defending government inefficiency and waste. They're running around pointing to a guy who's obviously bad at his job, telling us he's doing a wonderful job.

And then they complain that libs are arrogant.

 

[wing2000]

The courts have already decided these matters. It's still against the law to be here illegally. I don't think that law has been changed.

And you are intentionally ignoring why Arpaio was ordered to stop his immigration activities....by a very conservative federal judge.

I guess you could care less if Hispanic looking U.S. Residents/Citizens 4th Amendment rights are violated.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The Arpaio defenders seem to be unable (or unwilling) to grasp the concept that being able to enforce the law while also complying with it ought to be an indicator of basic competency for any law enforcement professional. By defending Arpaio's behavior, they're defending laziness and professional incompetence - and judging by the amount of payouts and mishandled investigations, they're defending government inefficiency and waste. They're running around pointing to a guy who's obviously bad at his job, telling us he's doing a wonderful job.

And then they complain that libs are arrogant.

Here in One Nation Under Donald, there seem to be three things to remember regarding the law:

1: "The Law" can and should only be properly interpreted by its Enforcers.
2: Those who profess to be Enforcers have unfettered discretion in how to enforce.
3: Any decision from any court which an Enforcer or their supporter deems to be ideologically opposed to can and should be disregarded -- after all, they oppose the Enforcers by doing so.

I couldn't think of a better formula for a Police State if I tried... at least on the ideological side. All you'd need after that is a heavily armed police force, loyal to the Leader, and encouraged to forego restraint... oh, wait; we're getting that too...

 

[iluvatar5150]

Here in One Nation Under Donald, there seem to be three things to remember regarding the law:

1: "The Law" can and should only be properly interpreted by its Enforcers.
2: Those who profess to be Enforcers have unfettered discretion in how to enforce.
3: Any decision from any court which an Enforcer or their supporter deems to be ideologically opposed to can and should be disregarded -- after all, they oppose the Enforcers by doing so.

I couldn't think of a better formula for a Police State if I tried... at least on the ideological side. All you'd need after that is a heavily armed police force, loyal to the Leader, and encouraged to forego restraint... oh, wait; we're getting that too...

But you'd better hoard your .22 ammo in case Obummer escalates Jade Helm to confiscate your guns and throw you in a FEMA camp.

 

[TLK Valentine]

But you'd better hoard your .22 ammo in case Obummer escalates Jade Helm to confiscate your guns and throw you in a FEMA camp.

But at the same time, accept when Donald says that he needs to take the guns away from the "bad people" that the police stop and frisk... even when it's you.

 

[rjs330]

He

Can you show me the court transcripts that show that that's what Joe was brought before the court for?

No? Not surprising. It was actually his pattern of harassment against US citizens which got him in trouble.

Was brought to court for holding a citizen under suspicion for being illegal. I haven't read that court case. The court ordered him to stop holding suspected illegals. Which IS legal. You hold them and ICE checks them out. You don't have to prove they are illegal before holding. The judge ordered him to stop. I don't care who the judge was. He was legislating from the bench telling him to stop holding illegals or suspected illegals. He was telling him not to uphold the law.

Are you one if this who believes in letting illegals come here?

 

[Maren]

He

Was brought to court for holding a citizen under suspicion for being illegal. I haven't read that court case. The court ordered him to stop holding suspected illegals. Which IS legal. You hold them and ICE checks them out. You don't have to prove they are illegal before holding. The judge ordered him to stop. I don't care who the judge was. He was legislating from the bench telling him to stop holding illegals or suspected illegals. He was telling him not to uphold the law.

Are you one if this who believes in letting illegals come here?

No, this is a misrepresentation of facts. What the court ordered him to do is to quit stopping people and detaining them based on skin color, when there was no suspicion they had actually broken a crime. The issue was, Arapio was using a "brown" skin tone as "probable cause" to detain people for being here illegally. That is blatantly unconstitutional and the court ordered him to stop. The court did not prevent him from detaining people who were actually picked up for suspicion of committing a different crime, and then turning them over to the INS.

Again, the entire reason for the lawsuit was that Arapio's department picked up a Hispanic that was here legally, and after proving that fact, they still detained him and turned him over to INS. That is not enforcing the law; the court order was to protect those here legally. It is also the reason it was a second judge, not the one that issued the court order, that found him guilty of contempt of court for not following the order.

 

[MrSpikey]

Unless the judge was striking down the federal immigration law (which he wasn't) he over stepped his authority.

The judge was neither striking down federal immigration law, nor overstepping his authority.

From https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02513/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02513-21

"FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - that Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief necessary to remedy the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations caused by MCSO's past and continuing operations. The MCSO is thus permanently enjoined from: 1. Detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of vehicles in Maricopa County based on a reasonable belief, without more, that such persons are in the country without authorization. 2. Following or enforcing its LEAR policy against any Latino occupant of a vehicle in Maricopa County. 3. Using race or Latino ancestry as a factor in determining to stop any vehicle in Maricopa County with a Latino occupant. 4. Using race or Latino ancestry as a factor in making law enforcement decisions with respect to whether any Latino occupant of a vehicle in Maricopa County may be in the country without authorization. 5. Detaining Latino occupants of vehicles stopped for traffic violations for a period longer than reasonably necessary to resolve the traffic violation in the absence of reasonable suspicion that any of them have committed or are committing a violation of federal or state criminal law. 6. Detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of a vehicle in Maricopa County for violations of the Arizona Human Smuggling Act without a reasonable basis for believing that, under all the circumstances, the necessary elements of the crime are present. 7. Detaining, arresting or holding persons based on a reasonable suspicion that they are conspiring with their employer to violate the Arizona Employer Sanctions Act. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a hearing at which the above matters will be discussed for Friday, June 14, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 602, Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Federal Courthouse, 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2151. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 5/24/2013. (KMG)"

Arpaio detained people for potential immigration issues based on their apparent racial heritage, without other probable cause, in violation of the constitution.

He was ordered to stop doing that.

He didn't. Hence his conviction for contempt of court.

The original order didn't stop him enforcing immigration law, it simply said that an apparent Latino heritage was not probable cause for an arrest.

 

[loveofourlord]

A pardon I think is evidence of guilt, but not addmission or confirmation of guilt least legally. So accepting a pardon doesn't mean your autmaticly guilty for lawsuits, but can be used as evidence towards it. Been a few cases along these lines.

 

[Arcangl86]

A pardon I think is evidence of guilt, but not addmission or confirmation of guilt least legally. So accepting a pardon doesn't mean your autmaticly guilty for lawsuits, but can be used as evidence towards it. Been a few cases along these lines.

Actually the Supreme Court has indicated that accepting a pardon is admission of guilt.

 

[loveofourlord]

Actually the Supreme Court has indicated that accepting a pardon is admission of guilt.

I thought there was a few cases where that wasn't the case, and being pardoned doesn't automaticly make one liable for lawsuits pertaining to your guilt.

 

[wing2000]

I'm curious if "The Honorable Sheriff" has offered to pay back his city the $70,000,000+ his "crusade" has cost them in damages and fines? Any or all of it you think?
tulc(is just wondering)

Nope. Maricopa County has yet to receive the check signed by Donald J. Trump.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, this is a misrepresentation of facts. What the court ordered him to do is to quit stopping people and detaining them based on skin color, when there was no suspicion they had actually broken a crime.

Facts are no longer relevant. Enforcers have absolute authority in One Nation Under Donald.

 

[Goonie]

Facts are no longer relevant. Enforcers have absolute authority in One Nation Under Donald.

Indeed it is called the Leadership Principle.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I thought there was a few cases where that wasn't the case, and being pardoned doesn't automaticly make one liable for lawsuits pertaining to your guilt.

As I understand it, there are other factors that contribute to civil liability. Criminal guilt doesn't always translate into civil damages. The relevant Supreme Court case on acceptance of a pardon equaling an admission of guilt (Burdick v. United States) is cited in this thread in post #16 as well as post #35.