Apparently Joe Arpaio was innocent of the charges - after all

[tulc]

I might point out how huge the irony is of people defending Mr Arpaio on the grounds that "he might be found to be innocent later on" when the very reason he was held in contempt was because he and his men tended to arrest anyone who "looked like an illegal" and wouldn't stop doing so even after he was told it was illegal for them to do it.
tulc(is going to need more coffee soon)

 

[AirPo]

Look, I already made a seven paragraph long post detailing the difference between legal guilt and actual guilt.

And it was worth as much as seven paragraphs of explaining that evolution is just a theory. i.e. nothing more than an

 

[Targaryen]

I might point out how huge the irony is of people defending Mr Arpaio on the grounds that "he might be found to be innocent later on" when the very reason he was held in contempt was because he and his men tended to arrest anyone who "looked like an illegal" and wouldn't stop doing so even after he was told it was illegal for them to do it.
tulc(is going to need more coffee soon)

You can...won't stop the defenses though.....sadly

 

[szechuan]

How many times do we have to repeat, He was not upholding federal law. He was breaking it.

until he actually learns how to read.

 

[szechuan]

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.

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.

Arpaio was a terrible person, that is no rumor, he even brags about how terrible his concentration camps are. His prisons have record high death rates.

The people Stay there from months to years with with over triple digit temperatures and terrible conditions

.

Spends 142 million dollars on Legal fees but not on the Prisoners who may or may not be illegal immigrants. What an amazing person.

Feds: Ariz. Sheriff Arpaio violated civil rights

Even Cops who worked with him said he's a terrible person, there's certifiable proof that he refused to even investigate sex crimes.

oh and
Donald J. Trump on Twitter

 

[MrSpikey]

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.

You haven't formed an opinion yet? Fair enough...

I would have to be convinced that my opinion of the judge's motivation was false by something more substantive than a recap of his rulings. If my opinion is correct then his rulings would read exactly the same as if my opinion was incorrect.

I thought you hadn't formed an opinion on the judge's stance yet?

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.

Out of necessity, obviously.

 

[rjs330]

Indeed the case was over Joe being found in contempt of court. Was he or was he not found in contempt of court?

Joe, who made a name for himself by strictly and unswervingly enforcing the law, even going so far as to denigrate prisoners under his care, should be man enough to take his lumps when he gets them.

Joe proved to be able to dish it out, but thankfully didn't have to take it thanks to his friend, Trump.

So much for those who care about law and order I guess.

You are a prime example of left think. Joe upholds the law. Is told he can't uphold the law by a liberal judge who wants to make up his own law and someone steps in and ends the nonsense and somehow you twist it into a law and order breech. The breech was the judge and his order. Thankfully law and order won out on this one. The liberal judge's are out of control with their legislate and make laws from the bench. It's about time we had some real law and order.

 

[rjs330]

Yes it is. If someone is not guilty, then they do not need a pardon.

Instead of taking this to an appeal, the former Sheriff admitted guilt to get out of jail free.

A pardon doesn't mean the former Sheriff has a clean criminal record - he was still found guilty and it's still on record.

Who really cares if he was found guilty? Guilty of contempt of court? Guilty of disobeying a judge's order? So what!

I wish they would have taken this to the supreme Court so the judge could have been slapped down hard. The day we allow judge's to tell a law enforcement official they cannot enforce the law is the day we start losing law and order. Apparently that day has come.

 

[Obliquinaut]

You are a prime example of left think. Joe upholds the law

So are you saying that the court decrees which found him in contempt were against the law? You should make sure to achieve some form of "consistency" in your position.

. Is told he can't uphold the law by a liberal judge who wants to make up his own law and someone steps in

So now you are the arbiter of what is lawful and not? You sit above the courts? Interesting.

and ends the nonsense and somehow you twist it into a law and order breech. The breech was the judge and his order.

Huh. You should really have your own building in DC if you are now the person who calls all the shots! I was unfortunately under the impression we were a nation of laws as codified in our legal structures. I didn't read about you in there.

Thankfully law and order won out on this one.

In that Donald Trump was legally allowed to let Joe off from the crimes he had been charged with. How many people did Joe let go scott free after they had been charged and put into his prison camps?

The liberal judge's are out of control with their legislate and make laws from the bench. It's about time we had some real law and order.

Now even the COURTS are fake. Unless, of course, your side needs access to them. At which point I bet you wouldn't dare throw around terms like "activist judge". Nope.

You see, Joe set the standard for hard-nosed law enforcement. When he was charged with contempt (which is not "new law") he should have been man enough to take what he had dished out for decades.

But thankfully because he had friends in high places we'll never know if Joe was man enough.

Do YOU have friends in high places such that if you were to run afoul of the law you would be rescued?

 

[AirPo]

You are a prime example of left think. Joe upholds the law. Is told he can't uphold the law by a liberal judge who wants to make up his own law and someone steps in and ends the nonsense and somehow you twist it into a law and order breech. The breech was the judge and his order. Thankfully law and order won out on this one. The liberal judge's are out of control with their legislate and make laws from the bench. It's about time we had some real law and order.

A a prime example of right think. Can't accept reality, so make things up.

 

[wing2000]

You are a prime example of left think. Joe upholds the law. Is told he can't uphold the law by a liberal judge who wants to make up his own law and someone steps in and ends the nonsense and somehow you twist it into a law and order breech. The breech was the judge and his order. Thankfully law and order won out on this one. The liberal judge's are out of control with their legislate and make laws from the bench. It's about time we had some real law and order.

You are a prime example of one who places ideology over the rule of law. The United States has a court system to decide these matters. One Federal Judge determined the Sheriff's methods violated the civil rights of legal U.S. residents and citizens and ordered him to stop. A 2nd found him in contempt of court.

This is not a "left" or "right" issue. Rather, it's whether a local law enforcement officer is going to respect the Judicial system of our country and the rule of law.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You are a prime example of left think. Joe upholds the law.

Actually, he was breaking the law.... not that the Right cares.

 

[tulc]

You are a prime example of left think.

...you mean the side of the brain where logic, language, reasoning, analysis and math is? As opposed to the emotional right side of the brain?

Joe upholds the law.

Well...except for the parts of the law he doesn't like of course. Those parts? Not so much.

Is told he can't uphold the law by a liberal judge who wants to make up his own law and someone steps in and ends the nonsense and somehow you twist it into a law and order breech.

Except he wasn't told by a "liberal judge", he was told by a judge. That's why he was tried, that's why he was convicted. That he was pardoned doesn't change any of that.

The breech was the judge and his order.

no, it wasn't.

Thankfully law and order won out on this one.

What won was privilege. Someone had a friend in a high place so he got let loose. It's actually the opposite of law and order.

The liberal judge's are out of control with their legislate and make laws from the bench. It's about time we had some real law and order.

...unless you don't like it, then it's wrong of course.
tulc(is pretty sure the irony in this post is lost on some people)

 

[cow451]

News y'all can use:

A "liberal judge" is still a judge. A "conservative judge" is still a judge.

Questions?

 

[TLK Valentine]

News y'all can use:

A "liberal judge" is still a judge. A "conservative judge" is still a judge.

Questions?

Yes -- why must we TRUE Americans suffer the rulings of judges that thwart the Will of Donald?

 

[rjs330]

So are you saying that the court decrees which found him in contempt were against the law? You should make sure to achieve some form of "consistency" in your position.



So now you are the arbiter of what is lawful and not? You sit above the courts? Interesting.



Huh. You should really have your own building in DC if you are now the person who calls all the shots! I was unfortunately under the impression we were a nation of laws as codified in our legal structures. I didn't read about you in there.



In that Donald Trump was legally allowed to let Joe off from the crimes he had been charged with. How many people did Joe let go scott free after they had been charged and put into his prison camps?



Now even the COURTS are fake. Unless, of course, your side needs access to them. At which point I bet you wouldn't dare throw around terms like "activist judge". Nope.

You see, Joe set the standard for hard-nosed law enforcement. When he was charged with contempt (which is not "new law") he should have been man enough to take what he had dished out for decades.

But thankfully because he had friends in high places we'll never know if Joe was man enough.

Do YOU have friends in high places such that if you were to run afoul of the law you would be rescued?

You missed the point apparently that he was found in contempt because he was ordered by a judge not to enforce the law. The judge was the one who was in violation. Unless the judge was striking down the federal immigration law (which he wasn't) he over stepped his authority. 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.

 

[rjs330]

Actually, he was breaking the law.... not that the Right cares.

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

 

[rjs330]

You are a prime example of one who places ideology over the rule of law. The United States has a court system to decide these matters. One Federal Judge determined the Sheriff's methods violated the civil rights of legal U.S. residents and citizens and ordered him to stop. A 2nd found him in contempt of court.

This is not a "left" or "right" issue. Rather, it's whether a local law enforcement officer is going to respect the Judicial system of our country and the rule of law.

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.

 

[Arcangl86]

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

Can you show me the law that says it's ok to violate the 4th amendment as long as it's to enforce immigration law?

 

[Goonie]

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

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.