Arpaio Pardoned

Sure. And then he didn't do that.

The nightclub (the county) hired a bouncer (Arpaio) to help maintain security. They were then successfully sued, because he was shown to use his bouncer status to grope hotties (violate civil rights). They revoked his permission to touch patrons (enforce immigration laws). He refused to stop touching patrons. He was fired (voted out) and fined (convicted) for breaching his contract.

Now, I suspect that he groped more hotties while pretending to be a legit bouncer. But he's not been convicted of that.

 

Look, i didn't make it through that video. But i tried.*
Usually the same happens when i am confronted with the material of one Ms. Bee.
The headlines are of similar quality, too.

*His musings on the actual subject are mostly faulty, as is to be expected. But right at the beginning he's accidentally touching a rather interesting point in his contrasting of Trevor Noah and John Oliver. I'm right now mulling over some rather non-partisan and non-screaming arguments on that, since i am inclined to diametrically disagree with Crowder on this, and very much so for the difference he postultes.

 

As a former "constituent" of Sheriff Joe, I am at a loss for words. A federal penitentiary is too good for that degenerate. After months of indifference to Trump's depravity, I'm finally feeling pissed off again.

 

I cannot get over how many simple errors of law were in that video. I stopped watching. I lost track. It was just too misinformed to hope to glean some insight.

Sheesh, Mechanical. You need to include bullet lists of all the caveats you're including to get us to not just assume that you mostly agree with that level of stupidity

 

Indeed, his fate should be judicial hanging in my view. And I'm pretty anti-capital punishment.

 

Only of selected political prisoners.

J

 

It's possible to hold the consistent view that "Some people deserve to die for their crimes, but theirs no good method to ensure only the guilty die, so I prefer everyone live then an innocent gets mistakenly killed".

I believe in hell, and Arpaio definitely deserves a spot there.

What Arpaio did was an affront to human decency. Please don't reduce the vile actions of a man without conscience to mere "politics". It's not politics, it's the reign of a sadistic tyrant, the kind America was supposedly founded to get rid of, not to protect and defend.

 

BOOM! Mic drop!

 

There is no such thing as mere politics. Simply calling his actions vile is political. Others call the actions of the Judge vile. It is exactly politics.

J

 

Then aren't all prisoners political prisoners?

 

Calling his actions vile is decency. Not political.

The reason anyone would think it's political, is because they're deciding based on politics. You're supporting Trump, so you feel you need to side with Arpio. Plus Arpio pisses off your political opposites which seems to be a right wing political goal in itself these days. Squandering decency in favour of petty neener neener sentiments.

 

Of course it's political. And the proper political term for people like Sheriff Joe and his supporters, who call the actions of the Judge vile, is "Nazis." Sheriff Joe is a piece of human trash even more despicable than Trump, and he absolutely deserves to die though I would not support actually killing him for the reasons @jackelgull has explained. Certainly though I would support life imprisonment, in conditions much better than those he deigned to give the poor souls who fell under his purview as Sheriff.

I actually disagree with you here. It is political, all the way through, and the political divide is between those who believe in actual human rights and stuff and those who believe people should be able to be deprived of their rights arbitrarily simply because they didn't fit the requirements of a racist and unjust system of immigration law. There is no way to frame this as reasonable disagreement between intelligent people, though. It's a political debate, but closer to the kind of debate we thought we settled with World War II than one normally characterizing a "liberal democracy."

 

It's political because it involves two opposing thought lines struggling for authority.

I don't support Arpaio but he is only half of a two-wrongs situation. Don't throw the word decency around until you examine what the Judge was doing. Both side on this one are way past the line. This wasn't law. This was personal.

J

 

That's pure nonsense, in the same line as Trump's "on many sides" comment, creating a false equivalence between two things that aren't remotely the same.

Arpaio broke the law, again and again and again. He refused to adhere to federal law and was sentenced by a court for doing so. There was nothing personal about this. There simply is no way you can justify his behaviour, much less defend him over this. Anyone even remotely interested in justice, the rights of american citizens and keeping law & order in the country cannot pretend that Joe Arpaio is a decent man or that this was about anything but him breaking the law.

How anyone can even come up with the absurd idea that a sheriff mistreating citizens in the worst possible way, violating their rights granted to them by the constitution, and ignoring court orders to stop violating the constitution is in any way comparable to a court sentencing him for these clear breaking of the law, is beyond me. The former is the very anti-thesis of what a sheriff is supposed to do, while the latter is exactly what courts exist for, sentencing those who break the law.

 

Really? What laws? Other than a judicial order, what law did he violate?

J

 

Along with multiple cases of wrongful imprisonment, assault and battery, Arpaio had special duties as a sheriff: He violated the constitutional rights of inmates in medical and other care-related issues. The lawsuit brought by the ACLU which alleged that "Arpaio routinely abused pre-trial detainees at Maricopa County Jail by feeding them moldy bread, rotten fruit and other contaminated food, housing them in cells so hot as to endanger their health, denying them care for serious medical and mental health needs, and keeping them packed as tightly as sardines in holding cells for days at a time during intake."

He was found civilly liable for the wrongful death of a woman prisoner, who had been arrested [but not yet tried] for a minor drug offense. Deprived of her medication, she fell ill, vomiting and defecating on herself and others. Rather than summoning medical aid, Arpaio had her chained to a hospital and left her there until she died. Although this was tried as a civil case, if I had been a juror in a criminal case, I would have found him guilty of manslaughter.

 

I'll admit, that thing makes me waver on my normal opposition to capital punishment.

 

The courts have ruled that undocumented people are still protected by certain parts of the Constitution. Arpaio did not merely violate these rulings (and, therefore, the Constitution) regularly, he and his underlings exhibited gratuitous cruelty that literally would not seem out of place in a Stalinist forced-labor camp.
Of course, the real problem (and the one hardly anyone is talking about) is that, as detention centers for undocumented folks and even the normal prison system goes, Arpaio's actions were not that far out of the ordinary.