Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
@jgarden pointed out that is incorrect here -->
He doesn't have to admit to being guilty, he already is guilty. That doesn't change just because he's been pardoned.
tulc(just thought that should be pointed out)
Accepting a pardon is no more an admission of guilt than pleading nolo contendere is.
Surely it doesn't need to be explained that being found guilty of law is not the same as being guilty in fact.
There are many stories of people who were innocent of a crime, but were found guilty regardless, and whose innocence was later proven by newly discovered evidence. Who would say that those people really were guilty and simply didn't admit to it?
It is if you're playing semantic games.Surely it doesn't need to be explained that being found guilty of law is not the same as being guilty in fact.
There are many stories of people who were innocent of a crime, but were found guilty regardless, and whose innocence was later proven by newly discovered evidence. Who would say that those people really were guilty and simply didn't admit to it?
Sure, once you ignore the courts and the laws...
Apparently it is necessary to explain it. Since this is such a trivial notion I had thought it would be necessary, but if I must...
Suppose that someone is falsely accused of a crime. Say, for a hypothetical example, that 70 years ago there was a murder and a black man is arrested for it based on no evidence whatsoever than the police chief being racists. As most people in the town were also racist, the man is found guilty by a jury. Thus, in the eyes of the law, he is guilty. He was found guilty by the judgment of his peers.
But in actuality since he did not commit the murder, he is not guilty of the crime. The law, being only a human institution, came to a mistaken conclusion.
So in that example there is a distinction between being guilty in fact and being guilty legally.
Change the example a bit. Suppose that the man is offered a plea bargain. If he accepts the plea bargain, he will receive 15 years in prison. If he does not and he is found guilty he may be given a life sentence or executed. The man knows from experience that local juries are likely to decide against him due to their prejudice so he decides to accept the plea bargain. He pleads "nolo contedere" or "no contest." In the eyes of the law he has accepted guilt for the crime, but he has not claimed to be guilty, only to be accepting the charges laid against him. And again in this example he in fact is innocent.
Or for another example, take the same man, but this time he is convicted and sentenced to life. After 20 years in prison the new Governor hears about his case, looks into it, and decides that he is clearly innocent. In order to avoid a potentially lengthy appeals process (since the man has been unjustly imprisoned for two decades), the Governor grants him a pardon. The man accepts. In the eyes of the law his guilt has not been erased, but in fact he is still innocent just as he was in every other example.
If further detail on this concept is necessary for anyone to understand it I could discuss this at greater length. I hope that this explanation suffices.
And do you believe Joe is in a similar situation? That he wasn't in contempt of a federal court order?
Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. I don't have the direct experience with the situation to make that judgment.
All that I am responding to are the claims that have been repeatedly made in this thread that Sheriff Joe admitted that he was guilty because he took the pardon.
Burdick v United States. Look it up; we can't do everything for you.
You can go back about two pages in the thread and read it yourself, but I'll be nice and quote it for you anyways:Well I would love to see the evidence that you could point to if you are in the pointing mood even though I haven't expressed an opposing opinion on those issues. I haven't given that my full attention so I haven't formed an opinion yet as to whether Arpaio's profiling was racially motivated or legitimate profiling using proper law enforcement techniques or whether the judge had proof that what Arpaio was doing actually constituted racially motivated profiling and therefore was a direct disobedience of the reling of that judge. If you can point to real evidence that backed up the judge's opinion in the case i would be happy to consider it. . As to the Constitution there is no doubt that the equal protection clause would rule out profiling that was racially motivated so I do not need any pointing in that direction as we concur on that.
Source? You need a link.
Joe Arpaio - Wikipedia - regarding a Federal class action suit against Arpaio
In his September 2009 deposition in the case, Arpaio testified he had never read the complaint in the case, was unfamiliar with the details of the allegations of racial profiling therein, didn't know the content of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and had never read the Department of Justice's guidelines concerning the use of race in investigations, which would have applied to his deputies in the field when they were still operating under a 287(g) program agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He insisted, however, that his deputies didn't profile based on ethnicity or race.[137]No training, didn't know the 14th amendment, never read the DOJ guide about race.....that is classic Joe.
In a December 2011 order, Judge Snow sanctioned Arpaio and the MCSO for acknowledged destruction of records in the case.[138][139][140] Judge Snow also stated:
"Sheriff Arpaio has made public statements that a fact finder could interpret as endorsing racial profiling, such as stating that, even lacking 287(g) authority, his officers can detain people based upon 'their speech, what they look like, if they look like they came from another country'... Moreover, he acknowledges that MCSO provides no training to reduce the risk of racial profiling, stating 'if we do not racial profile, why would I do a training program?'"[129] Judge Snow expanded the complaint into a class-action lawsuit, including all Latino drivers stopped by the Sheriff's Office since 2007, or who will be stopped in the future. He also enjoined the MCSO and all of its officers from "detaining any person based only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States, because as a matter of law such knowledge does not amount to a reasonable belief that the person either violated or conspired to violate the Arizona human smuggling statute, or any other state or federal criminal law." [129]
Joe operated outside what he was authorized to do. That was the problem. From the same link:
On December 15, 2011, the Justice Department released their findings after a 3-year investigation of Arpaio's office amid complaints of racial profiling and a culture of bias at the agency's top level. The report stated that under Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has "a pervasive culture of discriminatory bias against Latinos" that "reaches the highest levels of the agency."[185]
The Justice Department accused Arpaio of engaging in "unconstitutional policing" by unfairly targeting Latinos for detention and arrest, and retaliating against critics.[186] In the report, a Justice Department expert concluded that Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history.[187]
Based on the Justice Department report on discriminatory policing practices within the MCSO, on December 15, 2011, the United States Department of Homeland Security revoked the MCSO's federal authority to identify and detain illegal immigrants.[188]
Fine. If you want ME to take you seriously, please provide evidence for your opinions. If you can't or won't, then I'm done with this conversation. And lumping your views in with unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories really isn't helping your case.Unfortunately, I must disagree that in order for one's opinions to be taken seriously one must provide some real evidence to back it up. There are just too many cases lately of people taking unsubstantiated rumors or conspiracy theories seriously for me to believe one needs evidence to be taken seriously. To be convincing to the skeptical perhaps but not to be taken seriously.
Keller showcased various news releases and media clips to bolster his theory. In a June 2012 news clip, Arpaio is seen boasting about doing the exact thing Snow had forbidden.
In a televised interview, Arpaio explained that when a person who is in the county illegally was accused of a state crime, his deputies would arrest and book them into jail.
Then he added, “ICE has been taking them off our hands when we have no, no state charges against them.”
Lots of people in prison are innocent. They were found guilty and are still convicted criminals. Joe is guilty. Period.Apparently it is necessary to explain it. Since this is such a trivial notion I had thought it would be necessary, but if I must...
Suppose that someone is falsely accused of a crime. Say, for a hypothetical example, that 70 years ago there was a murder and a black man is arrested for it based on no evidence whatsoever than the police chief being racists. As most people in the town were also racist, the man is found guilty by a jury. Thus, in the eyes of the law, he is guilty. He was found guilty by the judgment of his peers.
But in actuality since he did not commit the murder, he is not guilty of the crime. The law, being only a human institution, came to a mistaken conclusion.
So in that example there is a distinction between being guilty in fact and being guilty legally.
Change the example a bit. Suppose that the man is offered a plea bargain. If he accepts the plea bargain, he will receive 15 years in prison. If he does not and he is found guilty he may be given a life sentence or executed. The man knows from experience that local juries are likely to decide against him due to their prejudice so he decides to accept the plea bargain. He pleads "nolo contedere" or "no contest." In the eyes of the law he has accepted guilt for the crime, but he has not claimed to be guilty, only to be accepting the charges laid against him. And again in this example he in fact is innocent.
Or for another example, take the same man, but this time he is convicted and sentenced to life. After 20 years in prison the new Governor hears about his case, looks into it, and decides that he is clearly innocent. In order to avoid a potentially lengthy appeals process (since the man has been unjustly imprisoned for two decades), the Governor grants him a pardon. The man accepts. In the eyes of the law his guilt has not been erased, but in fact he is still innocent just as he was in every other example.
If further detail on this concept is necessary for anyone to understand it I could discuss this at greater length. I hope that this explanation suffices.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1915 that when it comes to pardons, the “acceptance” carries “a confession of” guilt. Burdick v. United States (1915).
!
He has in fact been found guilty whether he, his lawyer or President Trump agree with the verdict or not, he is in fact still guilty.Surely it doesn't need to be explained that being found guilty of law is not the same as being guilty in fact.
hmmmm...if you truly believe the above is true do you think no one should be sent to prison or fined because: what if they're found out to be innocent later on?There are many stories of people who were innocent of a crime, but were found guilty regardless, and whose innocence was later proven by newly discovered evidence. Who would say that those people really were guilty and simply didn't admit to it?
How many times do we have to repeat, He was not upholding federal law. He was breaking it.Guilty of what?? Upholding federal law as passed by congress??
(How many years can someone appeal a 6month sentence before an instant pardon is "quicker'?)
Guilty of what?? Upholding federal law as passed by congress??
(How many years can someone appeal a 6month sentence before an instant pardon is "quicker'?)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?