Trump pardoned former sheriff Joe Arpaio

[operator742]

A) Yes, non-citizens do have constitutional rights. That said, nothing you've mentioned has ever been held by the courts to be a violation of rights; detention without suspicion of a crime has been.
B) He was also illegally detaining citizens (and noncitizens who were here legally--this whole case started with his nine-hour detention of somebody here on a valid visa).
C) Are you really arguing that if one person's rights are violated, that makes it okay to violate everybody's?

Careful, YG; using facts is a good way to get called a liberal. Facts subject some people to the unaccustomed burden of thought, and they don't like that.

It doesn't matter if a judge has ruled it's a violation or not , I have enough sense to know that filling out paper work and having a background check just to purchase a firearm is goverment oversight which makes it a infringement on my rights.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our , do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What part of We the people of the United States, makes you think it applies to non citizens, it was written for citizens of the United States to form a more perfect union.

No, I'm not arguing that it ok to violate anyone's rights,but I certainly don't have a problem with anyone having to prove they are here legally. And if a officer is questioning a Mexican in a area that is known to have a high population of illegal aliens in it,than it's no different then if he's questioning a white guy in a area that's know for having a high percentage of crackheads in it. It's called due diligence.


And you and YG don't use facts alot of times your "facts" are liberal lies , and I bet both of you for sensible gun control laws also.


Yukonglocker you always act like your for everything being done legally and right,but you sure didn't have a problem watching a pirated stream of the mayweather fight,that's called stealing boy and everybody knows that makes you a thief.

 

[Dave70968]

It doesn't matter if a judge has ruled it's a violation or not , I have enough sense to know that filling out paper work and having a background check just to purchase a firearm is goverment oversight which makes it a infringement on my rights.

If you're going to play in court--which is exactly what we're discussing here, Arpaio's conviction for criminal contempt of court--then "what a judge has ruled" is of the utmost importance. If you disagree with the ruling, fine; but that's a political question, not a legal one.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our , do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What part of We the people of the United States, makes you think it applies to non citizens, it was written for citizens of the United States to form a more perfect union.

That bit tells us who is establishing the Constitution, not to whom it applies. Have a look through the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and find me the word "citizen" anywhere within. Go ahead; I'll wait.

You won't find it. What you will find is "people" and "persons." Fact is, anybody within the US--citizen, legal non-citizen, or illegal non-citizen--has most of those enumerated rights. That's a good thing--do you really want a world in which non-citizens don't enjoy the right to a trial, or protection from cruel and unusual punishments? Do you think it's okay to toss twenty or thirty of them into a small, dank hole without trial and occasionally throw in hungry rats to gnaw at them? If you say they've no constitutional rights, then doing so wouldn't offend the law.

No, I'm not arguing that it ok to violate anyone's rights,but I certainly don't have a problem with anyone having to prove they are here legally. And if a officer is questioning a Mexican in a area that is known to have a high population of illegal aliens in it,than it's no different then if he's questioning a white guy in a area that's know for having a high percentage of crackheads in it. It's called due diligence.

The difference is that there need to be other, particularized facts before detaining somebody. An officer on the street is free to ask questions of anybody; conversely, that person is free to keep on walking and ignore the officer. When the person is detained--when he's not free to leave--that's called a seizure, and that is specifically addressed in the Fourth Amendment. It requires particularized facts justifying the suspicion. Arrest has an even higher bar.

If you're in favor of having checkpoints to randomly prove your citizenship, by all means say so. Meine papierien sind hier in ordnung.

And you and YG don't use facts alot [sic] of times your "facts" are liberal lies , and I bet both of you for sensible gun control laws also.

Disprove me. When I cite cases, I give proper citations, and usually link to the text of the case to make it easy. Show me where I'm wrong. If my facts are in error, show me the error. I'm not afraid of criticism; in fact, I quite welcome it, because that's how I learn, and I'm usually pretty quick to admit when I've made a mistake. But I do require that your counterargument meet some basic standard of evidence. You want to disprove me? Bring data. Bring court filings. Bring original sources. Bring something verifiable. Popehat has an excellent article on "How To Read News Like A Search Warrant Application." Excerpt:

Critical reading is essential. Skepticism of even one's favored sources is important, unless we're looking only to be entertained and affirmed. This is an hourly habit, not an occasional one.
...
The critical eye that prosecutors and judges are supposed to use when reviewing a warrant application — and that defense lawyers use in evaluating whether they can be challenged — comes in handy in assessing the trustworthiness of news. Three doctrines in particular come to mind.

Attribution: Around the time I became a federal prosecutor, thanks to a series of unfavorable Ninth Circuit decisions (which, naturally, I resented at the time as unfairly anti-government), the U.S. Attorney's Office began emphasizing attribution in reviewing search warrant applications and prosecutor training. Put simply, attribution means this: for each fact asserted in the warrant application, how does the affiant know it? if the affiant learned the fact from someone else, how did that person know it?

A good search warrant establishes clean attribution for each fact, even if that attribution involves second, third, or fourth-hand knowledge. For example, a good search warrant would say something like this: "I spoke with Officer Jones of my department on January 15th, 2017. Officer Jones told me the following: she interviewed Mary Smith earlier that day. Smith stated that she was present at the corner of Elm and Oak and saw the car accident. Smith told Officer Jones that she was walking north on Oak when she saw a red SUV travelling at a high rate of speed run a stop sign and crash into the side of a green sedan." A well-drafted affidavit also identifies its factual inferences and its basis for them. "I obtained electricity usage records with an administrative subpoena to Southern California Edison for the subject address. I noted that, starting the month that suspect ROBERTS occupied the residence, energy usage spiked 350%, to a level that was consistently more than three times what the energy usage had been for the same time of year over the last five years at the residence. In my training and experience, I know that indoor marijuana grows often result in substantial spikes in energy usage because of the lights and other equipment used"

Thanks to thorough attribution, the reader knows the ultimate source of the fact and the ultimate source's basis for asserting the fact. A bad search warrant application, by contrast, makes assertions about what happened without any indication of how the affiant knows those facts.
...
Particularity: My debut as a prosecutor also coincided with a Ninth Circuit push for more particularity in warrants. That is, the Court pushed back against the habit of general warrants that sought permission to seize whatever the investigating agents felt like seizing.1 Instead, the Court demanded that warrant affidavits not only specify with reasonable particularity what is to be seized, but support the proposition that each thing to be seized is somehow evidence of a crime. "There are things that are evidence of a crime, some of those things are in this house, therefore all things in this house should be seized" doesn't cut it.

Particularly is useful in evaluating news stories too. If a story attributes a stance, or a goal, or a motive to a public figure, does it give specific examples of conduct consistent with stance? If the story offers examples of conduct — specific facts — does it connect them to the thesis of the article? Does it show how those specific examples actually support its thesis, or does it simply regurgitate them and rely on proximity to persuade the reader to assume they are connected? So, for instance, the New York Times' Rick Perry story has a number of paragraphs questioning Perry's qualifications, comparing the better qualifications of a prior Energy Secretary, and discussing Trump's likely energy policy. Are those paragraphs proof of the article's thesis? Does Perry's lack of qualification — if that's what it is — support the thesis that he thought he was going to be controlling energy use policy instead of nuclear security?

Corroboration: Anonymous or obscure sources are not inherently impermissible in search warrants or in journalism. A search warrant may rely in part on an anonymous source if the affiant corroborates that source — that is, offers other facts supporting what the source says. In theory a warrant application should corroborate facts only an insider could know. "My source told me that methamphetamine is being cooked at a green house at 123 Elm. I traveled to 123 Elm and observed that the house is, in fact, green" is not meaningful corroboration. "My source told me that suspect ROBERT is cooking methamphetamine at 123 Elm, that he began cooking in March 2016, and that he had precursor chemicals delivered there beginning in April. Based on my review of the Southern California Edison records described above, I noted that there was a 300% spike in energy usage at 123 Elm beginning in March 2016. My review of the UPS records described in paragraph 17 above showed a series of deliveries from an online chemical supply company beginning in April of 2016" is good corroboration.
...
If you're reading this to suggest that I think one "team" or another is more guilty of this or more or less credible, you're reading it wrong. Skepticism and critical reading are good. The fact that we'll certainly fall short is not a reason not to try. And gosh, what if a habit of critical reading of the news could even translate to critical evaluation of law enforcement claims? Nah. One improbable goal at a time.

I've chopped that up significantly to make it more likely to be read (though I expect most will still skip it), but the whole article is very good, and instructive in how to read news and consider it critically.

You have no idea how many articles I've wanted to cite, but didn't, because they lacked sufficient material to prove that they were true (the legal term of art is "indicia of reliability;" that is, what do we have that indicates we can rely on this).

Again, if you think I'm throwing out false facts, call me out on it--but bring your data, because I'm going to. If we disagree, and we approach it honestly, with verifiable facts, one of us will be smarter at the end of the day. Personally, I welcome learning. The fact that something I've said disagrees with your position doesn't make it a "liberal lie," though.

 

[Judi]

Bet he could clean up Chicago, A man with backbone and serving / protecting the people from criminals ....how is this wrong.

 

[Dave70968]

Bet he could clean up Chicago, A man with backbone and serving / protecting the people from criminals ....how is this wrong. View attachment 105999

Read the whole thread. A) It started with someone who was here legally, and more than once swept up people who were here legally and/or were citizens. Detention is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and there are rules about that. Arpaio broke them, repeatedly and as a matter of policy. B) Illegal immigration is not a criminal act in most cases; it's a civil violation. If you disagree with that, fine, but that's a political question; write your Senator, don't just give people with guns the authority to ignore the rules. C) Its not about fighting or ignoring crime or immigration--it's how he went about it: detaining people not suspected of a crime, establishing internal checkpoints and conducting raids, and blatantly defying the lawful orders of a duly-constituted court of this country. And by blatantly, I mean bragging about it in campaign speeches and buying ads to flout it.

Not "triggered," just sane. Giving unchecked power to the government never ends well. Remember, the next sheriff could have the same respect for the constitution as Arpaio, but be an anti-gunner. Feel like giving him the power to conduct random stops and sweeps?

 

[Judi]

Sheriff Joe is a man who is tuff on crime, tent city, pink underwear....the object is to make punishment harder then the crime, which local law county < less then one year should be. Not wanting to come back. Wonder how many first time offenders never went back, bet they thank him for that.

Giving passes for minor crime....look at the big cities, how is the "no broken window" arrest looking now. Look at masked protesters, ....I can go on. I speak from first hand watching the political hacks wink, and pander for votes. Look at where we are compared to twenty years ago.

If your ever a victim of a crime, especially a violent ( I pray you never will be) the person in uniform will understand more then you think. Not the person who goes from one side of town to the other pandering for votes. As to keep their job, Lord forbid they might have to turn a wrench, or use a shovel or pay for their own transport to work.

as for....Remember, the next sheriff could have the same respect for the constitution.....Respect for the rule of law. That is why we vote, to set the rule of law. Authority to ignore the rules....look back on the past eight years please, Tell me Obama should not be in jail with his crew of hucksters. I should have locked him up twenty years ago, but he was off limits.

Judges.....have become political hacks, find a honest one in Chicago good luck with that, they can convict a hamburger of speeding.

As they say....walk a mile in my shoes.

 

[YukonGlocker]

Sheriff Joe is a man who is tuff on crime, tent city, pink underwear....the object is to make punishment harder then the crime, which local law county < less then one year should be. Not wanting to come back. Wonder how many first time offenders never went back, bet they thank him for that.

Giving passes for minor crime....look at the big cities, how is the "no broken window" arrest looking now. Look at masked protesters, ....I can go on. I speak from first hand watching the political hacks wink, and pander for votes. Look at where we are compared to twenty years ago.

If your ever a victim of a crime, especially a violent ( I pray you never will be) the person in uniform will understand more then you think. Not the person who goes from one side of town to the other pandering for votes. As to keep their job, Lord forbid they might have to turn a wrench, or use a shovel or pay for their own transport to work.

as for....Remember, the next sheriff could have the same respect for the constitution.....Respect for the rule of law. That is why we vote, to set the rule of law. Authority to ignore the rules....look back on the past eight years please, Tell me Obama should not be in jail with his crew of hucksters. I should have locked him up twenty years ago, but he was off limits.

As they say....walk a mile in my shoes.

Interesting, because Trump's pardon of Arpaio actually threatens this rule of law. That is, Trump is pardoning Arpaio's repeated breaking of the law, thereby reinforcing and advocating for other officers of the law to, ironically, break the law. Who is above the law?

 

[Judi]

In the military ...we uphold the constitution, and you are to disobey illegal orders, a order from the president, not to enforce the written law ....is illegal, and not to be obeyed. Should had Obama on the stand explaining his illegal orders by- passing written law from congress. How is Obama above the law to issue such an order. Who gave him that power ?

 

[Dave70968]

as for....Remember, the next sheriff could have the same respect for the constitution.....Respect for the rule of law. That is why we vote, to set the rule of law.

And yet you're here defending a man who campaigned on giving the middle finger to the courts. Forgive me for not taking you seriously.

Authority to ignore the rules....look back on the past eight years please, Tell me Obama should not be in jail with his crew of hucksters. I should have locked him up twenty years ago, but he was off limits.

I agree; never said otherwise. That said, "but they did it too!" is the argument of third-graders. Yes, there will always be untouchables, mostly at the top of the political class. Their unprosecuted misdeeds shouldn't be used to justify or excuse not prosecuting the misdeeds of others, though, and giving a pass to "your guy" because you like the effects of his illegal action is evidence of a lack of principles. Principles are what you stick to when its inconvenient.

 

[Judi]

.....I did not say he was innocent, he was found guilty. Pardoned I say the pardon was just ...for the crime, or should he have been sentenced to years hard labor ?

This country has a bad habit of not applying the rule of law blind. Untouchables sport, movie types the political class, seem to get a pass more then a guy stealing a loaf of bread. All are criminals if they break the law. Yet few see a court room or a honest judge. Sooner have a bad check paper hanger living next to me, then a millionaire political hack welcoming thousand of illegals without a back ground check. Or a judge who gives a pass to a "protester"...cause he is on the side of justice.

Excuse me now, I have to get ready for school my third grade teacher gets mad if I am late.

 

[Hobbes]

Sheriff Joe is a man who is tuff on crime, tent city, pink underwear....the object is to make punishment harder then the crime, which local law county < less then one year should be. Not wanting to come back. Wonder how many first time offenders never went back, bet they thank him for that.

Giving passes for minor crime....look at the big cities, how is the "no broken window" arrest looking now. Look at masked protesters, ....I can go on. I speak from first hand watching the political hacks wink, and pander for votes. Look at where we are compared to twenty years ago.

If your ever a victim of a crime, especially a violent ( I pray you never will be) the person in uniform will understand more then you think. Not the person who goes from one side of town to the other pandering for votes. As to keep their job, Lord forbid they might have to turn a wrench, or use a shovel or pay for their own transport to work.

as for....Remember, the next sheriff could have the same respect for the constitution.....Respect for the rule of law. That is why we vote, to set the rule of law. Authority to ignore the rules....look back on the past eight years please, Tell me Obama should not be in jail with his crew of hucksters. I should have locked him up twenty years ago, but he was off limits.

Judges.....have become political hacks, find a honest one in Chicago good luck with that, they can convict a hamburger of speeding.

As they say....walk a mile in my shoes.

Tuff on crime huh....

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...oenix-sheriff-joe-arpaio-rape-case-settlement