Feds sue Sherrif Joe, claim Racial profiling

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,982
10
81
You do realize exactly WHY the feds stripped the MCSO of their ability to screen inmates right?
This little thing Sheriff Joe did is just a dog and pony show for the media to show that the big bad feds are picking on him.
I am ignorant. Please enlighten me.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Wouldnt it be great if Sheriff Joe got put into one of his own tent camps as punishment?

Lets see how he does eating two bologna sandwiches a day under the hot sun- :p

All seriousness aside he did force the government to do this. He has been pissing in their face for months now...

you know to a lot of people in this world eating to bologna sandwiches a day sounds like a good day.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,642
62
91
I am ignorant. Please enlighten me.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nat...illegal-immigration-maricopa-county-jail.html

The long and short of it is that the Justice Dept. investigated the MCSO for civil rights violations. Found a ton. Wrote a scathing report about it, and then stripped his office from being able to check inmates for immigration violations. The JD also promised to send ICE officers to perform this duty instead.
That is where Eagle Keeper's article comes in.
 
Last edited:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
At this point we have to see if Justice will keep there word. At this point, according to the sheriff office, theg have only sent 1 of 50.

So it may get to the point that if Justice does not send officers to spite AZ, it will reflect on the suit before the SCOTUS. It would show that the government is unable to perform their constitutional duties.

Over next few weeks we will see what will happen; ball is in the Feds court at this point.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
At this point we have to see if Justice will keep there word. At this point, according to the sheriff office, theg have only sent 1 of 50.

So it may get to the point that if Justice does not send officers to spite AZ, it will reflect on the suit before the SCOTUS. It would show that the government is unable to perform their constitutional duties.

Over next few weeks we will see what will happen; ball is in the Feds court at this point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EK may be right that the ball is the hands of courts, but it didn't take 2 weeks, it took one day.

As Sheriff Joe got totally dope slapped yesterday, and faces a class action law suit, and is in a heap of trouble now as he lost on all counts.

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-sheriff-sanctioned-over-destroyed-documents-011601111.html

And has until, Jan 4 to stand and deliver.

Dare we hope to see it on Utube, videos of Sheriff Joe in a bright orange jumpsuit, picking up cans on the side of a highway. Only to return to his cot at night, and get his own starvation rations he fed to his prisoners.

Or will ole Joe cost the of Arizona tax payers many millions of dollars as he serves a jail sentence for contempt of court?

It could not have happened to a nicer guy. What goes around comes around when fools play the race card and violate the US constitution with impunity.
 

JohnnyGage

Senior member
Feb 18, 2008
699
0
71
I will preface this by saying I live in Arizona and Sheriff Joe is an A-hole, not a fan. Unfortunately this is a fed witch hunt. Hopefully he will be gone in the next election cycle.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I will preface this by saying I live in Arizona and Sheriff Joe is an A-hole, not a fan. Unfortunately this is a fed witch hunt. Hopefully he will be gone in the next election cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other word JonnyG, you say, Sheriff Joe should do no prison time for violating Federal law
and running rough shod over the constitutional rights of Hispanic American citizens which is a civil rights violation already codified into law.

And instead of treating him as a common criminal that he is, he should only suffer removal from office when every other common criminal should be quite properly be jailed as ole Joe himself advocates. Really Stinking thinking JonnyG.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Sheriff Joe is a male SP. Just a media whore with delusions of grandeur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Them just think of all the larger media whoring ole Joe can gain as he stars in his own production of Sheriff Joe goes to the slammer.

A film everyone will want to see and even replay for nostalgia.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other word JonnyG, you say, Sheriff Joe should do no prison time for violating Federal law
and running rough shod over the constitutional rights of Hispanic American citizens which is a civil rights violation already codified into law.

And instead of treating him as a common criminal that he is, he should only suffer removal from office when every other common criminal should be quite properly be jailed as ole Joe himself advocates. Really Stinking thinking JonnyG.

Of course if the Federal LEO had done their jobs in the first place; this would be a non-issue.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
What pray tell is the Federal LEO? Never heard of it.

But if you are talking about illegal immigrants, its a nationwide problem with no easy answers. Made even worse by Mexican drug cartels who find infinite customers in the US drug buying public as the NRA advocates selling those cartels an infinite supply of US made weapons. As most illegal immigrants find ample employment doing the work American citizens refuse to do.

Violating the US constitution is no way to solve the problem even if it has a certain populist appeal ole Sheriff Joe tries to harness.

As we are left with a choice, either Sheriff Joe as a law unto himself or our own constitution. We can have one or another but not both.

As Hitler himself operated the same way, as long as he picked only a small minority, he could be popular, and a law onto himself. Great if your ox was not the one gored, but still a a very dangerous fellow as they gain ever more power.

Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, J Edgar Hoover, were all similar turds of a feather and that is just a US short list.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
1 down, 1 left to go...Defenders against illegal immigration are being silenced by the law despite trying to enforce the law. Clearly this administration may have already confirmed its place as the worst in the history of the United States.


"Arpaio had been given until Aug. 17 to hand over documents it first asked for 15 months ago.

Arpaio's attorney, Robert Driscoll, declined immediate comment on the lawsuit, saying he had just received it and hadn't yet conferred with his client.

Arpaio's office had said it has fully cooperated in the jail inquiry but won't hand over additional documents into the examination of the alleged unconstitutional searches because federal authorities haven't said exactly what they were investigating."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100902/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_sheriff_lawsuit_5

capt.7cb2adea6e594a9387f4845251696199-7cb2adea6e594a9387f4845251696199-0.jpg

If he is breaking the law wouldn't you want him stopped? Or it is okay if he is breaking the law as long as he is doing it to people you do not like?
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,690
8,892
146
What pray tell is the Federal LEO? Never heard of it.

But if you are talking about illegal immigrants, its a nationwide problem with no easy answers. Made even worse by Mexican drug cartels who find infinite customers in the US drug buying public as the NRA advocates selling those cartels an infinite supply of US made weapons. As most illegal immigrants find ample employment doing the work American citizens refuse to do.

Violating the US constitution is no way to solve the problem even if it has a certain populist appeal ole Sheriff Joe tries to harness.

As we are left with a choice, either Sheriff Joe as a law unto himself or our own constitution. We can have one or another but not both.

As Hitler himself operated the same way, as long as he picked only a small minority, he could be popular, and a law onto himself. Great if your ox was not the one gored, but still a a very dangerous fellow as they gain ever more power.

Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, J Edgar Hoover, were all similar turds of a feather and that is just a US short list.

Federal Law Enforcement Officers
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
31
91
If 80&#37; (or so) illegals in this country are hispanic, how is it racial to target areas where your sweeps would have the largest effect? I mean, why as a law enforcement officer, would you sweep, say, Scottsdale?

To go deeper into classy's response: In this country we have individual rights. What profiling does is water down those rights -- it says, "No, you don't have any absolute rights granted an American citizen; instead you're only warranted some degree of accommodation (possibly zero) which I'm casually calculating based on my feelings about your race as I casually lump you all together."
Profiling is insidious because it's so casual. As negative feelings towards the group increase, the feeling as to the value of any rights of theirs decreases. As that calculation only hinges on internal consistency it can get majorly out of whack from an absolute standpoint. (It "feels" in balance, but if you were to step out of it and look at it from the affected individual's perspective you'd see that it's completely unfair for them to be singled out that way.)

Profiling almost always singles out minorities because
1. It depends on the profiler forgetting about the individuality of the people involved
+
2. It is generally the large power groupings who determine who is enforcing shit, but:
2a. if you're the one doing the profiling you aren't about to forget your own individuality or its ties to your own grouping!

I'm a heterosexual white male atheist. Could I go around and casually treat heterosexual white male atheists as sub-human as a group? Not without it being fucking obvious that I'm shitting where I eat!
This is why profiling always comes up with conservatards as "the answer": As they don't have a Liberal's intelligence with which to easily achieve an enlightened perspective, the problem is invisible to them as long as they're not profiling themselves!

Unfortunately this is a fed witch hunt.

And he may very well be a "witch."
If white supremacy is casually de rigeur (which it certainly seems to be -- conservatards pride themselves on being racist now, and conservatardism is rampant in the South), and Sheriff Arpaio is casually racist, his racism being invisible to conservatards doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. An intelligent inquiry may very well show that it does exist and that he violated individuals' civil rights.
A racist being unable to see his own racism does not excuse it causing one to violate the law. Federal law demands that a sheriff act with a Liberal's enlightenment.
 
Last edited:

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
To go deeper into classy's response: In this country we have individual rights. What profiling does is water down those rights -- it says, "No, you don't have any absolute rights granted an American citizen; instead you're only warranted some degree of accommodation (possibly zero) which I'm casually calculating based on my feelings about your race as I casually lump you all together."
Profiling is insidious because it's so casual. As negative feelings towards the group increase, the feeling as to the value of any rights of theirs decreases. As that calculation only hinges on internal consistency it can get majorly out of whack from an absolute standpoint. (It "feels" in balance, but if you were to step out of it and look at it from the affected individual's perspective you'd see that it's completely unfair for them to be singled out that way.)

Profiling almost always singles out minorities because
1. It depends on the profiler forgetting about the individuality of the people involved
+
2. It is generally the large power groupings who determine who is enforcing shit, but:
2a. if you're the one doing the profiling you aren't about to forget your own individuality or its ties to your own grouping!

I'm a heterosexual white male atheist. Could I go around and casually treat heterosexual white male atheists as sub-human as a group? Not without it being fucking obvious that I'm shitting where I eat!
This is why profiling always comes up with conservatards as "the answer": As they don't have a Liberal's intelligence with which to easily achieve an enlightened perspective, the problem is invisible to them as long as they're not profiling themselves!

I actually enjoyed your post, and with some points agreed with it; however, your last paragraph pretty much proved youre a douche, and as closed minded as the "conservatards" you claim to disagree with.

Not that you care...
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
What pray tell is the Federal LEO? Never heard of it.

But if you are talking about illegal immigrants, its a nationwide problem with no easy answers. Made even worse by Mexican drug cartels who find infinite customers in the US drug buying public as the NRA advocates selling those cartels an infinite supply of US made weapons. As most illegal immigrants find ample employment doing the work American citizens refuse to do.

Violating the US constitution is no way to solve the problem even if it has a certain populist appeal ole Sheriff Joe tries to harness.

As we are left with a choice, either Sheriff Joe as a law unto himself or our own constitution. We can have one or another but not both.

As Hitler himself operated the same way, as long as he picked only a small minority, he could be popular, and a law onto himself. Great if your ox was not the one gored, but still a a very dangerous fellow as they gain ever more power.

Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, J Edgar Hoover, were all similar turds of a feather and that is just a US short list.

Federal government is deliberately ignoring their constitutional duties. So what do you recommend that we do?

Punish Sheriff Joe or ignore what he is doing because the Feds will not do their job.
Punish the Feds because they deliberately ignore the constitution
 
Last edited:

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Would someone PLEASE inform all the righties demagoguing illegal immigration that the current level of illegal immigration is the lowest it's been since the 1960s. And that all these cries about "defending America" from the illegal-alien hoardes are just laughable.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Would someone PLEASE inform all the righties demagoguing illegal immigration that the current level of illegal immigration is the lowest it's been since the 1960s. And that all these cries about "defending America" from the illegal-alien hoardes are just laughable.

No, its simply leveled off from it's peak in 2007. It's currently estimated there are 11.5-12 million illegals in the country, up from 5 million in 1996.
 
Last edited:

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
31
91
however, your last paragraph pretty much proved youre a douche and as closed minded as the "conservatards" you claim to disagree with.

I am a douche, but that doesn't mean that I use the rationale as premises! If someone believes the Earth is flat, I can conclude that there's a flaw in their belief forming mechanism without having started with that assumption. Assigning a value to that flaw or to consequences of its existence does not undermine the reasoning supporting its existence. To then be a douche about the whole thing doesn't change anything about the underlying logical structure, either.

Conservatives use a shit method to bad effect. At least naive college students spouting liberal memes can be brought into the realm of thinking human beings. Conservatives can't process complex topics, making correction involving complex subjects impossible. They simply can't properly process the validity of the correction. And you can't get that through to them because their underlying method is so shitty that they can't close down on the idea!
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
No, the outrage stems from the Federal Gov't going after one of the only sheriffs who enforce the law and is unapologetic about it. The outrage is people knowing this is a smear and intimidation campaign. There have already been countless lawsuits filed against the Maricopa Sheriffs Office that have not shown any institutionalized racism, misconduct (outside of a few detention facility things...which every county has), or wrongdoing.

Do you think it is harassment if a group of people file lawsuit after lawsuit without any results? It's for the media and to sway voters.

You must be high if you think that every county has the same "detention facility things" as Maricopa. The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office is sued at a rate 6000% higher than New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston combined. Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that inmates are routinely mistreated, malnourished and denied necessary medical care. Multimillion dollar settlements have been paid over deaths and debilitating injuries from beatings, denial of insulin, positional asphyxiation and other abuse and neglect.

And it's not like this chronic misconduct has reduced crime or recidivism rates. Maricopa County is among the most ineffective sheriff departments in the nation, solving less than 15% of crimes at a cost of $300 million. How anyone can support a miserable failure like Arpaio is perplexing.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
You must be high if you think that every county has the same "detention facility things" as Maricopa. The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office is sued at a rate 6000&#37; higher than New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston combined. Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that inmates are routinely mistreated, malnourished and denied necessary medical care. Multimillion dollar settlements have been paid over deaths and debilitating injuries from beatings, denial of insulin, positional asphyxiation and other abuse and neglect.

And it's not like this chronic misconduct has reduced crime or recidivism rates. Maricopa County is among the most ineffective sheriff departments in the nation, solving less than 15% of crimes at a cost of $300 million. How anyone can support a miserable failure like Arpaio is perplexing.

You pull those stats out of your ass? Maricopa county has a conviction rate of 92%, and there were 2150 federal lawsuits against MCSO between 2004-2007, and I quote, "50 times as many prison-conditions lawsuits as the New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston jail systems combined."

Nothing like a little exaggeration, huh?
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
You pull those stats out of your ass? Maricopa county has a conviction rate of 92&#37;, and there were 2150 federal lawsuits against MCSO between 2004-2007, and I quote, "50 times as many prison-conditions lawsuits as the New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston jail systems combined."

Nothing like a little exaggeration, huh?

Conviction rate is a measure of the competence of the prosecutor, not the sheriff's office. It measures how many cases the prosecutor wins; dropped charges and unsolved crimes don't affect the rate. Closure rate is the rate at which crimes are solved by the police, and according to the same Wikipedia article, Maricopa County's is pathetically low.

2150 federal lawsuits, but there were also several hundred state lawsuits filed against Maricopa county, pushing the ratio to over 60 times. I can't find the source at the moment but it's largely irrelevant; 5000% higher is still absolutely outrageous. I hope you just mentioned this because you thought my number was incorrect, not because you think "50 times higher" is acceptable.
 
Last edited:

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Conviction rate is a measure of the competence of the prosecutor, not the sheriff's office. It measures how many cases the prosecutor wins; dropped charges and unsolved crimes don't affect the rate. Closure rate is the rate at which crimes are solved by the police, and according to the same Wikipedia article, Maricopa County's is pathetically low.

2150 federal lawsuits, but there were also several hundred state lawsuits filed against Maricopa county, pushing the ratio to over 60 times. I can't find the source at the moment but it's largely irrelevant; 5000% higher is still absolutely outrageous. I hope you just mentioned this because you thought my number was incorrect, not because you think "50 times higher" is acceptable.

Where on that wiki page does it talk about closure rates?

Also, I'll play your numbers game. Lawsuits filed is irrelevant. How many convictions? Hell...I could file a lawsuit every week for a year for my neighbor disturbing the peace. Does that mean he is?

Look. Im not defending the guy. If half of what the latest federal allegations are true, Joe should be thrown in jail. But to make claims that far off base, well...
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
Where on that wiki page does it talk about closure rates?

Improper clearance of MCSO cases.

Sorry, I should have used the same terminology.

Also, I'll play your numbers game. Lawsuits filed is irrelevant. How many convictions? Hell...I could file a lawsuit every week for a year for my neighbor disturbing the peace. Does that mean he is?

Let me paraphrase my original post:

"Maricopa county is sued a lot, way more than any other place in the country. In some of these lawsuits, federal courts have ruled that jail conditions are Unconstitutional. Others have resulted in humongous payouts to the victims."

I presented the number of lawsuits as a single piece of supporting evidence. It suggests that something is seriously wrong in Maricopa county, but it wasn't intended to prove that MCSO is corrupt; the federal court rulings and humongous payouts are much better evidence of that.

The absurd number of lawsuits cost taxpayers a ton of money, so they'd be a problem even if they were all frivolous. And in that case a competent sheriff would bust his ass to figure out why he's being sued so much more often than everyone else in the nation. Arpaio has consistently responded with a flippant attitude and no legitimate attempt at explanation.

Look. Im not defending the guy. If half of what the latest federal allegations are true, Joe should be thrown in jail. But to make claims that far off base, well...

I'm not seeing what's off base. We agree that Maricopa county is the target of 2000+ abuse lawsuits, and (presumably) that they have a low double-digit crime closure rate.