By Mr. K
Can you guess which person said the following quote this week?
"If they're afraid to go to church, that's good."
If you guessed "Osama Bin Laden," you'd be wrong. But your answer would be understandable, as they certainly sound like the words of a terrorist.
No, the man who said this is actually somewhat of a hero on the right. Conservatives fancy him as a sort of cowboy sheriff, fearlessly rounding up lawbreakers and treating them as prisoners should be treated: no cable, pink underwear, and oh yeah...the chance that they'll die needlessly from lack of the appropriate health care that they are guaranteed by law.
Which would be bad enough if only those actually convicted of a crime were treated this way; but Sheriff Joe Arpaio has gotten away with doling out the same brutal punishment to prisoners who have not even stood trial yet. Innocent people are being abused in his prisons and "tent cities" where the Arizona heat can reach up to 135 degrees.
But even instilling fear in the innocent-until-proven guilty has proved to not be enough to satiate Arpaio's deranged lust for power and desire to be feared. Now he is expressing pride in intimidating children. From The New Yorker:
"The Guadalupe raid did have a chilling effect. It began the day before a Catholic-church confirmation ceremony--a big deal in Guadalupe--was scheduled to take place in the village plaza, and although the children had prepared for months, a number of them were afraid to come out, and missed their own confirmations.
America's toughest sheriff is, as ever, unapologetic. Over lunch in New York, he told me that he doesn't mind the effect he has. "If they're afraid to go to church, that's good."
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/07/see-real-live-police-statesee-america.html#disqus_thread
Again, these are children Arpaio is talking about, not criminals. But as everyone who has researched the man knows, in Arpaio's twisted world, simply being brown is perhaps the worst crime of all. How else do you explain the time and money he spends on raiding the streets for "illegals" while dangerous criminals get so little attention? While I don't believe in open borders, targeting illegal immigrants to the detriment of other, more pressing issues shows a profound lack of priorities. And now Arpaio, with his chilling words towards children, has confirmed that his round-ups stem not from a desire to uphold the law, but in a psychopathic need to intimidate and terrorize the most vulnerable groups in our society.
His message is clear: Whether innocent or guilty, adult or child, no place is safe for you when Joe is on the prowl.
K, congratulations from all of us at PS for taking the plunge and putting yourself out here for readers to comment on. We would like everyone to know this is K's first article.
As this is your very first article I (Jack) will not go on the offense as we so often do, even though I do disagree with you. I'll leave this for others to do, if they wish. But, I will say I think you have a gift for writing and I hope you will use your gift to it's best advantage and do some good for folks.
Thank you for choosing Post Scripts to make your debut!
Thanks, Jack. I am honored to be in such good company. :) But please, don't hold back--tell me how you feel. I always look forward to hearing your opinion on any issue.
no cable, pink underwear,
Since when was cable TV a requirement for the basics of life? And as far as the pink underwear, you need to be a bit smarter than finding some liberal writer to quote. Why pink underwear? Well I'll tell you why, when Sheriff Joe learned that Maricopa County Inmates were stealing their jailhouse whites, he had all the boxers dyed pink. Inventory control improved, so the undershirts followed – then the sheets, socks, towels, and everything down to the handcuffs.
(Jack here) Very well K, in the PS spirit of balance I shall give it a try.
One of the assertions in your article is that Arpaio has engage in a pattern of human rights violations. We're reminded in your article that some of the people in jail have not even been to trial and therefore he is abusing innocent people. If that presumption of innocence is fair for the inmates then it should be fair for Sheriff, but this article presumes him guilty? I remind you, he has not been convicted of anything, human rights abuse or otherwise, despite a concerted effort by his detractors.
The allegations, and some have been quite spurious, are either under investigation as is mandatory by FBI policy or have been determined to be completely without merit and therefore unfounded. No matter how blantantly absurd a complaint may be against a law enforcment officer, if it is made to the FBI, it must be investigated. So a complaint unto itself is hardly a fair basis for assuming guilt.
The article makes a claim of racial profiling and diverting attention away from real crime in order to catch illegal aliens. One need only look as far as the toll of illegal immigration on our society and the percentage of illegal aliens in our prisons to know this is a serious problem. Communities with a large Hispanic voting block have tended to turned a blind eye to this problem because of their own racial bias which has led to an indifference to the rule of law reflected in the so-called sanctuary cities.
Good law enforcement means enforcing the law without prejudice either for or against someone. This means enforcing all the laws, even those that are unpopular within a certain cultural groups or racial groups.
Many times I have been asked an angry motorist, "Why aren't you out catching real criminals instead of writing me this speeding ticket?" My answer was simple, "Because it's my job." You broke the law right in front of me and I am obligated to enforce the speed law, I also arrest bank robbers, kidnappers, drug dealers, murderers, rapists, etc. And some of them were caught because of a .... a simple speeding violation!
An illegal alien pulled over for speeding can't be released with a warning according to the law, but in sanctuary cities this is exactly what they expect and demand! This places the police officer in a compromising position and violating the oath he has taken. It has had a devastating effect on law enforcement caught up in such biased politics. The outcome is reflected in increasing criminal activity. Where unchecked immigration exists, so does ever increasing crime rates; it goes hand in glove with it and that is an easy fact to prove.
Sheriff Arpaio knows the law and he sees criminal patterns and adjusts his meager resources to maximize his effectiveness in order to make his community as safe he and his officers possibly can. Not all of his efforts have been welcomed as you can imagine, especially by the criminal element, including drug dealers that have been feeling his impact deep into Mexico. They are bent on taking him down by any means...lying and making false accusations against the Sheriff are no big obsticles such people.
We know this has happened before, because vicious accusations were made by criminals and then they investigated by the FBI and found without merit or unfounded. This is what inmates do, look at all the writs filed in prison. If an inmate holding a grudge ever has an opportunity to get back at the person who put him there, he'll probably do it.
When Sheriff Arpaio's tactics are examined closely and fairly, with all the facts in hand, time and again he has been shown to be right. Maybe some day something will stick if they keep after him long enough, but so far he has had amazing results and many Americans remain grateful for his courage and ingenuity for doing his job to the best of his ability. He has set a high standard for effective law enforcement and this has made him a target for the far left who are much more interested in prisoner rights than victim rights.
This is the typical way that the left and the enemies of this country and it's LAWS, try to bend the argument.
Joe has done a damned good job, and if half of the law enforcement units in the rest of the country did the same there would be alot LESS of the BS we see in this country today.
Are they here legally? If not arrest the parents, take the children into state custody and return the entire family to whereever it is the parents came from.
This isn't about race, it's about LEGAL STATUS.
But then I wouldn't expect the truth from any liberal, just more spewed leftist dogma.
Yes, it is tough when an effective Sheriff reduces the danger to honest people by making life hard on the criminally inclined. Liberal policies require a high amount of crime and so anyone who stands in the way of rampant criminality is the target of liberals. It's really simple. Follow the money. High crime rates are endemic to liberally controlled areas. It's not by accident. It is purposeful with a thick layer of self-righteousness to cover up their twisted misanthropy.
I am guessing he is either elected or appointed to the office he holds? Seems to me he can be removed by the vast majority of unhappy and unjustly treated voters.
Do us a favor and get ACORN involved. I can picture that ACORN thug (the nightstick wielding civic organizer) in pink cover-alls with his nightstick stuck up his six.
I don't have a lot of money but I have just decided I am going to donate to this guys reelection effort. Maybe I can get him to send you a thank you.
Bulls**t.
K, I'd like to join Jack in congratulating you and thanking you for stepping into the arena here at Post Scripts. It's not easy to leave comments; posting an article is an even bigger challenge and risk...so good for you.
I have to agree with anonymous, "...he had all the boxers dyed pink. Inventory control improved..."
Yes!!! Arpaio's policies have save the county (taxpayers) a considerable amount of money over time. And here's the best part...PINK is NOT mistreatment...or a form of torture as the blogger eventually implies at shakespearesister.
K, I am frankly surprised that you sited this blogger in your article. His piece is filled with accusations with nothing of substance to back his claims and that is something you don't appreciate in the work of others.
After reading your piece I decided it would be good to hear from Joe. What is Joe's position and how does it contrast with the rumors and accusations you have written about? The following information and links are from Joe's own website:
http://www.sheriffjoe.org/
http://www.sheriffjoe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=33
What Joe thinks:
When I first was elected Sheriff in 1993, I was amazed to learn that under previous administrations inmates were treated free to things that cost you and I (law abiding citizens) good money – things like cable TV, rental movies, unlimited visits to the doctor’s office, and coffee. *** Slowly, I put a stop to all of that nonsense. Too many jails in this country are just shy of being like hotels. That isn’t right. It isn’t fair to taxpayers to cough up lots of money so people who are accused of breaking the law can have some pleasantries while incarcerated. *** To my way of thinking, an inmate gets a bed, meals, limited TV, no rental movies, no radio and no coffee. What nutritional benefit to coffee is there, anyway? It’s a luxury item especially at today’s prices! Furthermore, I banned inmates from smoking in jails, took away pornographic magazines, asked inmates to pay a co-pay for doctor’s visits they initiate, cut the number of meals down to two a day; ruled that the only mail going in or out of the jail is on postcards so they can’t hide drugs or other contraband in sealed envelopes, took away basketball and issued inmates the old fashioned black and white striped uniforms and of course, pink underwear because they kept stealing the white underwear when they left jail. *** I keep saying, “ People shouldn’t live better in jail than they do on the outside.” Here in my jails, they don’t. The jails are austere but humane. Inmates get a little sunlight every day, some TV like the weather channel, Disney, food network and C-span. They get two meals and 2900 calories a day – the food isn’t great, that is true but it’s cheap (13 to 20 cents per meal) because we get a lot of free or near free food from various vendors and we send inmates to agricultural fields to glean produce in order to drive down the cost of food. And I started chain gangs. We have three - a male and a female chain gang (the only one in the country, maybe even the world) which go out daily to perform free labor to the cities around this valley. And we have a juvenile chain gang as part of the jailhouse school curriculum.**
K, as a taxpayer and law abiding citizen I have to tell you that I think this man deserves commendation and thanks, not harrassment and criticism.
Joe continues;
I believe inmates need to spend their time in jail as constructively as possible. I have many, many programs to help them succeed if and when they leave jail. Drug and alcohol resistance programs, parenting and self esteem classes, I even started the nation’s only jailhouse high school called “Hard Knocks High” for those juveniles remanded to adult custody who did not receive a high school diploma before they landed in jail. *** I am proudest perhaps of my ALPHA program. It is a six month long drug/alcohol treatment program. Inmates who complete the classes and graduate have a very low recidivism rate meaning they rarely come back to jail for breaking the law again. *** Recently I offered inmates the chance to give back to society by becoming organ donors and many have signed up. A few months ago we even had a talent contest called “Inmate Idle” where Alice Cooper came to Tent City to judge inmates’ singing abilities. It was a fun day for everyone and was a positive influence on all those who participated.
I like to think outside the box when it comes to jail policies and programs. We have to try everything we can to help inmates to be better citizens.
What I am sure of is this: Education and drug and alcohol resistance is key to every inmate’s success story. Sometimes though, no matter what laws are in place or what programs jails offer, there are people who will continue a life of crime. I wish it weren’t true but wishing doesn’t make it so. *** For those who keep breaking the law, this Sheriff has room for them. I don’t turn inmates out onto the streets because of overcrowded jails. I came up with a solution for that problem along time ago. It’s called Tent City and it will probably be the thing I’ll best be remembered for… **
Find out more about Koe and his background here:
http://www.sheriffjoe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=35
http://www.sheriffjoe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=37
As to the "children who are afraid to go to church"? I would bet they are "afraid" because they know their parents are doing something illegal when they come to America without going through the proper channels. It is just as likely fear of being caught and deported. You and your source are affixing responsibility to Joe when it belongs to the parents or suspects/criminals.
Very few people end up in jail for no reason. As much as you and others would like to paint law inforcement as the bad guy it is law enforcement that is held to a high standard. They have certain procedures they must follow, standards to keep, and paperwork to file. They don't have the luxery of filing exagerated or false complaints with a lawyer as criminals do.
I'd also like to add that the support system for the Democrat Party, which includdes those in the legal system, are not above filing false claims against more conservative people in elected positions in order to harass and discredit them. I would bet that Joe has been targeted in just this way.
Thanks for the replies.
I agree that pink underwear and lack of cable are not human rights violations, and I have no problem with either of these policies. My intention was to contrast from the innocuous and oft-praised policies of Joe with his other, more barbaric acts. I'm sorry that wasn't clear.
I cited Shakesville because I could not read the original New Yorker piece for myself unless I subscribe, and I figured others might have that problem as well. I admit the site is biased, but the quote seems genuine. And it is that quote which has really made my blood boil, and which I believe confirms what many have said about him for years.
I also have to take issue with your claim, Tina, that Joe has saved the county money. He has been a lightening rod of lawsuits that have cost the place millions of dollars.
Well there you have it...
Between wanting to convict federal agents and members of the military for "torturing" terrorists...opposing the death penalty for child molesters all while protecting partial birth abortion on demand...liberals have now decided to convince us that making prisoners wear underwear and doing hard labor in the heat is reason for serious concern.
Funny how this man keeps getting elected...its almost as if the people this man helps keep safe aren't concerned with the approbation of self righteous liberals who can afford to live away from dangerous areas.
But then again, it has been my theory for quite some time that only a successful military and law enforcement culture could result in the safety that has produced such a naive outlook on human nature as that which is regularly demonstrated by the extreme left in this country.
Sorry to be so harsh K, but I'm afraid that the "righteous indignation" over such issues, matched with the complete disregard for genuine concerns has been taking its toll.
(K) After reading Tina G's response you see why I frequently catch myself muttering, "...be glad that in this court of public opinion you are not on trial for your life and Tina G is not the prosecutor!" lol
Stay strong K, you have now been properly christened and launched as a writer...
Would the quote, "If they're afraid to go to church, that's good." Be the same as God fearing? Or does it mean if you are a criminal you should be very afraid..even going to church?
K: "I also have to take issue with your claim, Tina, that Joe has saved the county money. He has been a lightening rod of lawsuits that have cost the place millions of dollars."
You can go ahead and take issue all day and all night but the truth is Joe Arpaio is doing his job and saving the taxpayers money. If doing his job makes him a lightning rod I'd say we need more lightning rods...and fewer lawyers that see rain clouds forming at every turn.
The actual "cause" for that "lighting rod of lawsuits" is not something I would care to defend were I you. Unless you have real hard evidence that these suits are being brought by individuals with valid legal claims instead of politically inspired "victims" I'd back off if I were you.
Tina I am reminded now of an event I was involved in during the Patty Hurst kidnapping case. My guys took down a vehicle with 4 blacks inside, the car and the people matched the description of the SLA suspects. Now keep in mind, this was also the area these guys were rumored to be in and we had a bulleting to that effect. So it all fit. The officers had probable cause and they were not profiling.
This traffic stop went down as a felony stop and I'm sure it was no fun for the occupants to be stopped and ordered out of the car at gun point. However, it only took about 2-3 minutes to determine wrong car, wrong people. I was on my dinner break and by the time I ran outside and jumped in my patrol unit and headed down the street, it was all over...Code 4 was the radio message. But, it wasn't over.
Since I was the supervisor I was included in the lawsuit that followed along with my two patrol officers who made the stop. The NAACP got all over this and they sued me, the officers and the city.
They had no case, but the victims lied to make it look like a case until it came to hearing our side and our witnesses. At first they claimed the officers used their pocket knives to cut the upholstery in the back seat looking for weapons. Never happened - not police proceedure anywhere that I know of. They said a pregnant woman was forced to lay face down on the pavement - never happened. They claimed the cops cuffed them and pushed them around -(racist cops u know) never happened. There were so many holes in their story it wasn't funny.
And guess what? They got a nuisance settlement of $10,000 plus some money for the torn upholstery; man I was outraged! They were not entitled anything, they were lying!!! Back then the $10k was fair amount too. I told the city every time you settle out of court like this you are encouraging the next false caloim and lawsuit. It's like paying ransom money to a blackmailer. It fell on deaf ears of course because it was just cheaper to go this way.
Over time I noted more and more law suits made the news, some were mega settlements and now decades later I think we have a very well honed clique of sharp lawyers that love to sue cities and counties. They make a very good living at suing. Right or wrong has little to do with it too.
Over the years I was in law enforcement I've been sued by crooks 5 times and every time it was a false and malicious lawsuit. Granted there are times when a suit is deserved, but I wonder about some of these million dollar awards for sometimes relatively minor mistakes by police.
What price do you put on saving a police officer or a sheriff who is completely in the right and needs defending? I don't know either, but I am sure any city or county counsel can tell you. This is why most cops in Calif. have a Legal Defense Fund that they belong too. Afterall, they can't trust their own agencies to represent them.
Some of these phoney suits slowed down when the cops started suing the liars for making false claims. I love it when that happens, but it rarely does because these phoney scum bags usually just fade away at that point and nothing happens. No accountability.
Jack, Those were the bad old days where all of this nutty stuff began. Tough times to be a cop.
We began with efforts to end racism and ended up with reverse bigotry and entire social organizations that foster attitudes of hate and victimhood. Instead of a more equal and just society we have a country more divided than ever with groups of people demanding special rights and special justice and with little respect for the law and authority figures.
Instead of some of the useless crap they teach in school these days, some basics about justice, law enforcement and what to do if a police officer stops you would probably go a long way toward ending some of this over time. We also need less emphasis on race, racial and ethnic pride, and racial differences and more about American pride…about justice, opportunity, accomplishment and integrity.
The frivolous victim stuff needs to go so that cases of actual harm will once again have real meaning.
Joe Arpaio want your kids to have respect for the law. He wants people from other countries to respect our laws. Congress could help by changing immigration laws....but...that's another story.
Nick, once again, the policies you mentioned are not causes for concern. The unnecessary deaths and injuries under Arpaio's regime are.
Jack, I am not sure I understand your question. Once again, Joe was talking about children being afraid of going to church. And he called it a good thing. Those aren't the words of a man who simply wants to keep people from breaking the law. Those are the words of a sadistic fear-monger.
What he could have said is that while it's a tragedy that these kids have to suffer for the crimes of their parents, he still has a duty to uphold the law and he would not waver in that duty. That would have been a fairly neutral statement which would acknowledge the grim realities of the illegal immigration problem while keeping his tough stance on crime.
But instead what he said about the children was "If they're afraid to go to church, good." That is simply heartless, unnecessary and cruel. And it reveals everything that liberals have been saying about his character for years.
Jack, I am sorry about the false racial profiling incident you faced. Unfortunately there will always be people willing to take advantage of the system, no matter what that system is. Things like this only hurt the cause of racial awareness and unity.
K, "Those are the words of a sadistic fear-monger.." Yes they are, if it was meant literally and this is why it makes no sense and I have to question it.
Based on everything I know about this Sheriff it suggests if he actually said that it then it was taken grossly out of context. This kind of statement is 180 out from what a politician would say to the media and you can fault him for many things but he isn't that stupid. The gross stupidity of it makes it unbelievable and you have to wonder, where's the payoff from saying that, why would anyone say that? It just does not make any sense.
What has Arpaio said in rebuttal, do we know?
Have any of you reading here found himself scratching his head over the following statement?
"If they're afraid to go to church, that's good."
I know I did. What exactly did Joe mean when he said that? We don't really know because a context was not provided ans so we find ourselves speculating about what he meant.
After reading back through the comments I find myself wondering about another claim K has made:
The unnecessary deaths and injuries under Arpaio's regime are.
Where is K's evidence of "unnecessary" death or injury?
There are news accounts with pretty damning information but K has chosen not to use any of them…why? Is it because even though monetary awards have been made, the evidence has not been conclusive as to the actual causes of those deaths? Is it because some also suggest ulterior motives:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/04/25/20080425manning-letter0425.html
MacIntyre (the Maricopa County Deputy Chief) said the Sheriff's Office has successfully defended "hundreds and hundreds" of suits filed by inmates, some of whom show little regard for their health until they enter a correctional facility. ** Manning last year represented the family of Phillip Wilson, who was beaten into a coma and ultimately died from injuries suffered at the hands of his Tent City cellmates. Manning lost that case, and Arpaio's office said the attorney was trying to exact retribution.
I don't know why K didn't include evidence of Arpaio "guilt". I do know this. The inmates that died might have died whether or not they were in jail but if they had not broken laws they definitely would not have been in jail. If they had lived as contributing members of society rather than as criminals and drains on society they not only would not have been in jail they would most likely have been in better overall health...and so would our society.
I am not condoning abuse of prisoners in any way shape or form. Iam saying I'm tired of coddling prisoners and excusing their behavior. I'm tired of them getting away with blaming society and the authorities when they have clearly made personal choices that have led to their current circumstances. And I have lost all patience with people who have fits over treatment of prisoners but rarely show the same level of indignation over the criminal activity or pervasive criminality in our society and the dangerous job of dealing with these, the dregs of society.
Don't bother to ask where my empathy for these types is. There is a time and place for everything. Empathy and compassion is appropriate and full on for any who turn themselves into rehab or in any other way make a genuine effort to become contributing law abiding members of our society.
K: "Nick, once again, the policies you mentioned are not causes for concern. The unnecessary deaths and injuries under Arpaio's regime are."
I would argue that unsubstantiated accusations and slander are "causes for concern" and I would argue that the points I brought up before are causes for concern...in fact I have argued that way...successfully.
The reason I didn't originally post any evidence about Arpaio's larger crimes is that I know most of you guys have already seen and dismissed it. The focus of this post was the quote. If you would like to debate the accusations against Arpaio, I will see what I can dig up.
Jack and Tina, I have no problem believing Arpaio would say this. He is a known attention-hog who has always loved saying controversial things to rile people up.
K: "He is a known attention-hog who has always loved saying controversial things to rile people up."
An attention hog? Is that a professional opinion or are you just doing the gossip thing?
There's a difference between saying things just to rile people up and saying things that happen to rile people up...may be a bit too subtle for you but Arpaio does the latter.
People that are used to being coddled and excused rather than held accountable are shocked when a voice of reason and sensibility is raised. Some have been known to turn purple.
You really think riling people up was not Joe's intention when he said he was proud to be instilling fear in the hearts of children, Tina? You really think that is a coincidence, somehow?
Anyway, did you know that the conservative Goldwater Institute has also gone after Joe Arpaio, alleging that his department has had far too many dropped cases, especially in regards to rape cases?
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2009/05/21/20090521mcsogold0521-ON-CP.html
They have also gone against Arpaio in the case of journalists who were wrongfully arrested:
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/2314
These are not liberals with an agenda, these are true conservatives who want nothing other than to make sure government is not abusing it's power and getting in the way of human rights. The bloggers here claim that they share this goal, but their support of this man indicates otherwise.
K, the link you provided did not take me to the story, just to the newspaper main page. Couldn't find the story and so I resorted to a Google search. I found the internet abuzz with angry stories about how bad Sheriff Arpiao is and how everyone wants a piece of him.
This includes his fueds with the local media that have now boiled over into a war of outright hate for the man. Next, the attorney representing that Goldwater Institute obviously has a bone to pick with him too and now is railing on him about how the MCSO clears it's cases and on and on it goes.
That's a whole lot flack flying around and it appears it has been flying for quite some time, at least the last 10 years and yet, the Sheriff remains in place, re-elected by a popular vote and NOT one time in the many hundreds of accusations has one of them had any merit. You have to stop and wonder why? Is he that smart or slippery or is there something else afoot here?
If only by the law of averages and trying so hard that his detractors are bound to find something somewhere that the Sheriff has actually done wrong or made a mistake.
Till then we should all keep an open mind. Innocent till proven guilty.
This guy Bolick has been after Arpaio for a long time and here's a charge that goes back a few years.
Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute Policy Brief
May 21, 2009
Introduction
One of the most effective ways to measure a law-enforcement agency’s performance is by the percentage of crimes it solves, known in legal circles as its “clearance rate.” Criminal investigations can be cleared in one of two ways: by arrest or by “exception.” Clearances by exception must meet rigid criteria that the FBI has used for 80 years. Essentially, the perpetrator must be known to the police but cannot be apprehended due to special circumstances such as the suspect’s death. Although the criteria governing exceptional clearance are clear and objective, some law-enforcement agencies skirt the rules of exception to clear cases that do not meet the criteria, essentially declaring unsolved crimes solved to inflate the agency’s clearance rate. Clearing cases that have not been solved deprives crime victims of justice and may compromise public safety.
The recent Goldwater Institute report "Mission Unaccomplished: The Misplaced Priorities of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office" presented substantial evidence that the Maricopa County Sherriff’s Office (MCSO) is improperly clearing cases by exception, possibly on a very large scale. The East Valley Tribune, in its Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative series, reported that in 2006 MCSO closed three times as many cases by exception as by arrest. The Tribune investigated MCSO case files and found that many were cleared without investigation. MCSO officials told the Tribune that an internal investigation was ongoing. But two years later the Arizona Republic reported that MCSO only cleared 18 percent of its 7,200 cleared cases by arrest, suggesting that the misuse of exceptional clearance may be unabated. The Goldwater Institute has urged the legislature to require local law-enforcement agencies to report and post current and accurate crime statistics, including clearance rates broken down by arrests and exceptional clearances.
Was Bolick right or was the MCSO right? To me it looks like MCSO was right and I probnalby have a better handle on this than anyone here unless you have at least 20 years of law enforcement experience above and beyond my own experience. Bolick misses the fact that the MCSO cleared about 18% of its cases by arrest and this is about right, it's actually pretty good I think.
It's a common practice anywhere in America to close cases with "exceptional clearance" because the case lacks sufficient leads to base an investigation likely to produce an arrest. Maybe Bolick is off base or nit picking here because I don't see the problem and I have personally cleared thousands of criminal cases in the same manner he is criticizing MCSO for doing.
K: "You really think riling people up was not Joe's intention when he said he was proud to be instilling fear in the hearts of children, Tina? You really think that is a coincidence, somehow?"
I wasn't there and as far as I know you weren't there either. I can honestly say I don't know what he meant by that remark. I'm not willing to read between the lines or guess. I have questions. What was the demeaner of the person questioning Arpaio? What conversation preceded the remark? Has the remark been purposely taken out of context? What was the motive behind the questioning? What was in Arpiao's own mind when he said it. We really don't know and speculating tells us nothing.
You are obviously willing to read this sentence and condemn him despite the fact that the man remains in his position. You have determined that he is guilty of horrible crimes which fuel your anger. Have you no reasonable doubt? Not even a little?
His good record counts for a lot for me. The times I've seen him on video or heard him in interviews make your accusations seem absurd. So I doubt.
How many criminals have you known or been around? Do you suppose they ever lie or become beligerant? Do you think they ever seek revenge? What about their family members, do you suppose they would lie for their relatives or loved ones? And what do you think they have told their children about Arpaio. Do you think they are biased. Maybe it is they that have frightened the children...or maybe thwy just said that and Joe suspected as much. Criminals play games.
There is more going on here than meets the eye and I'm not convinced that Joe Arpaio wants children to be afraid...sorry I'm just not.
Tina you make a lot of sense. Your argument represents a higher standard of thinking that we should all employ. The questions you asked were very relevant, no matter which side of the political spectrum one resides. If K is half as smart as I think he is, he will slow down, think about what you said and learn from it.
"Debate for the sake of debate is boring, but debate when you can actually learn something is brilliant." Me
“Quality questions create a quality life. Successful people ask better questions, and as a result, they get better answers.” Tony Robbins