Speakeasy forum

Rant

It appears that there are some that don't get it.....

by JP Bill / May 14, 2016 7:41 AM PDT
Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio Found in Contempt for Disobeying Orders in Racial Profiling Case

(PHOENIX) — The six-term sheriff of metro Phoenix has been found in contempt of court for disobeying a federal judge’s orders in a racial profiling case, bringing the lawman who calls himself “America’s Toughest Sheriff” a step closer to a possible criminal contempt case that could expose him to fines and even jail time.

Friday’s ruling marked one of the biggest legal defeats in long career of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is known for cracking down on illegal immigration, and was expected to lead to greater court oversight of his office.

U.S. District Judge Murray Snow set a May 31 hearing for attorneys to discuss penalties. Shortly thereafter, Snow said he will issue an order on remedies and whether he will refer the case for criminal contempt.

Snow ruled three years ago that Arpaio’s officers systematically racially profiled Latinos in regular traffic stops and immigration patrols. He ordered a sweeping overhaul of the agency, including making patrol officers wear body cameras and conducting more training to ensure officers aren’t making unconstitutional traffic stops.

Arpaio has acknowledged violating Snow’s orders, including letting deputies conduct his signature immigration patrols 18 months after the judge barred them.


I have to wonder how many out there still haven't caught onto "Affirmative Action"...even after all these years.
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: It appears that there are some that don't get it.....
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: It appears that there are some that don't get it.....
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
The voters must be the ones to boot him out but
by Steven Haninger / May 14, 2016 8:14 AM PDT

haven't done so? even though they've had to foot the bill for millions in fines? That's very telling and important to know. We might consider that either these voters have no clue as to what this guy is doing or feel that he's worth the price.

Collapse -
RE: feel that he's worth the price.
by JP Bill / May 14, 2016 10:50 AM PDT

I guess it's time for the the Feds to use "financial blackmail" to get the point across.......Since the Sheriff COULD run the police force from inside the jail.

Perhaps he could get an adjoining cell for his significant other (if he has one). Or maybe an adjoining tent...they are in Arizona....

Collapse -
Or the feds could take the hint
by Steven Haninger / May 14, 2016 11:17 AM PDT

that this is the kind of policy people here really want. Of course we could never allow that to happen. The feds must dictate policy rather than take direction from mere citizens.

Collapse -
Re: hint
by Kees_B Forum moderator / May 14, 2016 12:14 PM PDT

Federal judges (that was what this thread started with) don't take hints from mere citizens. They take hints from federal law and the Supreme Court. Nothing wrong with that, is it?

Collapse -
Partially correct but part of a circle
by Steven Haninger / May 14, 2016 12:41 PM PDT
In reply to: Re: hint

that supposedly begins (or began) with the will of mere citizens who select legislators that write and enact law based on that will. It is the legislators that are expected to ensure, as best as possible, that laws are reasonable and don't infringe on rights granted through the constitution. Judges determine whether infringement of law has taken place and impose some corrective action. It's the duty of the executive branch of our government (starting with the president) to ensure laws are enforced.

Now all of these people in the circle here will sometimes need to chose between doing what is right and proper regardless of the consequences to them or their positions or to protect those positions to avoid consequences of their own. That's the ugly battle that goes on constantly and we, the people, see that.

What I'm saying here is that failure to remove this elected sheriff by those who put him in office may just indicate that his policies reflect the will of the people and higher ups in government might just want to sit up and take notice of that. Those who elected the sheriff and/or those not in that county who see a popular sheriff under fire from federal authority do have the ability to threaten the positions of those who would remove him. Feedback from the population can be a powerful thing as long as federal government remains in their control rather than become like a dictatorship.

Collapse -
Speaking of who does what (duties)....
by JP Bill / May 14, 2016 8:14 PM PDT

Law ENFORCEMENT, enforces the law...not INTERPRET the law.

Don't Racial profile....Seems pretty simple...

I think it would be nice to see him behind bars...do they put bars on a tent?

Collapse -
Unfortunately, as usual, liberals want it
by TONI H / May 15, 2016 1:46 AM PDT

both ways......enforcement by law doesn't seem to matter in 'sanctuary cities' or even in SCOTUS because liberals interpret the written law rather than enforce what was written. That's true at the Federal Court levels far too often, especially when you have district appellate courts that oversee a number of states rather than each state have their own individually.

IF each state had their own Federal Appellate Court and cases only went to SCOTUS to decide once that state's system was exhausted, you wouldn't end up with ultra liberal interpreted decisions made in liberal states (such as San Francisco's) that dictate laws made in conservative states, and billions in taxpayer money would be saved.

Collapse -
Remember whether the states or the Feds
by Diana Forum moderator / May 14, 2016 8:44 PM PDT

rule was decided by a small war we had.

So you're saying that it's okay to discriminate as long as it's the "will of the people"? That is part of the Constitution with three branches so the rule of the majority doesn't infringe on the rights of the minority.

Collapse -
So, in your opinion,
by TONI H / May 15, 2016 1:54 AM PDT

illegals should be left alone on the streets to continue to break our laws rather than be picked up and deported? Consider that a heavy majority of those 'locked' up in those tents are repeat offenders......should they be let loose to go to San Francisco (a sanctuary city) and be protected by their elected officials? Or to Chicago, that already has a tremendous crime problem, where Rahm publicly invited illegals to come to his city and look how well that's turned out for him and his gang problems?

Where exactly IS the discrimination liberals keep talking about, Diana? If the citizens of this county in Arizona feel safer because of the huge numbers of illegals that keep crossing their borders by having them locked up, should THEY be discriminated against by those same criminals via drugs and crime and whatever else they have done or will do because some liberal judge says those illegals are being targeted unfairly? Don't criminals literally target their victims?

Collapse -
What some of us don't get is that Arizona
by Steven Haninger / May 15, 2016 2:13 AM PDT
In reply to: So, in your opinion,

is a state that has the ability to filter illegal traffic in a way no other state has. It has no natural border as does Texas and the California side is much smaller and difficult to access from the mainland of Mexico. It would seem that the NIMBY crowd should be well pleased that Arizona exists and is trying it's best to protect itself from being swamped by immigrants that it cannot know whether they are benign or threatening. We we don't live there might want to stop criticizing the state and be happy it doesn't fold up and let the illegal immigrants take it over.

Collapse -
Don't read that into it
by Steven Haninger / May 15, 2016 1:55 AM PDT

Let's make this as simple as possible. What I am saying is that those who make law and decide how to enforce them should pay close attention to the response of the citizens.

What is alleged to have been happening is based on an interpretation of the 4th amendment which forbids unreasonable search and seizure. That amendment was written to apply to federal jurisdiction and, although considered part of the "supreme law" wasn't much of an issue until more recently. The challenges have been to its interpretation...in other words, what is "unreasonable". The term "racial profiling" is even newer and part of the argument targeted at the "probable cause" portion of that argument.

BTW, do you have random sobriety checks in your state? These don't racially profile but can stop any driver and are often done during times when it's known that heavy drinking occurs. Does this mean someone who is out driving at 2:00 AM on New Year's Day is likely to be intoxicated?...probable cause? Maybe if drinkers could create their own voting block someone would sit up and take notice. That's my point...that this is political and not strictly an act to ensure no one is unduly harassed.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

Does BMW or Volvo do it best?

Pint-size luxury and funky style

Shopping for a new car this weekend? See how the BMW X2 stacks up against the Volvo XC40 in our side-by-side comparison.