Sheriff Joe
 

In the land of Arizona we have a sheriff. A sheriff named Joe.

Joe likes to round up his posse and go to places where there are lots of brown people. Places with names like "Guadalupe" and "Avondale". When Joe and his posse get to the brown people places, they start pulling people over for minor infractions and then using it as an opportunity to check their immigration status.

Now I'm not going to argue whether or not brown people should be here illegally. What I am going to argue is that Sheriff Joe's actions constitute racial profiling and harassment. Thoughts or comments?

P.S. My ignore list will be temporarily amended for the purposes of this thread.

P.P.S. A google search for sheriff joe arpiao immigration should produce lots of juicy morsels. If anyone would prefer that I provide links, let me know and I will do so.

Isn't he the one who put his prisoners into chain gangs and prisons made from tents?

I'm sorry I don't have time to look into it further, but it definitely sounds like a case of harassment based on race.

And pink underwear.

Hmmm.. lets see. AZ is on Mexican border. >50% of illegals coming into US said to be of Mexican origin (+/- also any others from Central America). Most of them aren't white, asian or black. So....are you implying that Sherrif Joe is supposed to look at those groups with the same amount of scrutiny? Or are you contending he leave all of that kind of thing to a federal govt that seems as happy to ignore the problem regardless of the party in power (beyond mostly empty gestures, half measures and rhetoric)?

*wonders if the temporary amendment is to allow him to see responses from another that happens to live in Sheriff Joe land.*

Initially I thought, "Hey great, he's going after the illegals in this state." Then I realized that he's actually going after people based on where they live and purely the color of their skin. He isn't doing his job and rounding up persons with warrants. I mean people with warrants for violent crimes are being ignored for his absurd war against "illeegoes." He's stepping out of his rational duties to work on a job that the federal gov't SHOULD be doing(though admittedly has done a p4 poor job of doing). He is targeting specific communities. the majority are citizens, but because of the high hispanic content, he hopes to get the illegals.

I invite everyone to read the Wikipedia article on Joe Arpaio.

Please pay close attention to the number of people who have died or suffered permanent injury under suspicious circumstances while in custody. Note how his deputies have treated members of the press.

Then feel free to form your own opinion. :)

Right, which equals racial profiling.

Based on what I have heard, he is finding some people with warrants, but that isn't what you meant and his methods are what we are discussing anyway so...

All that "toughest sheriff in the U.S." stuff musta gone to his head.

Actually racial profiling can be helpful in solving crimes... to an extent. This was wholesale targeting and harassment of all persons of a race. Targeting the Hispanics and Hispanic majority neighborhoods however is wrong. If he made sure that those Hispanics that happened to get pulled over for proof of legal status is somewhat acceptable. However he went out of his way to find justifications to pull them over.

What I find disturbing is that two of those deaths are of the mentally or physically disabled, and that they broke another man's neck while restraining him.

And this is in addition to the many other cases of neglect and mistreatment documented there.

How is this man still allowed to keep his job?

Why?

Huge conservative base. I also imagine that most people equate celebrity status to doing a good job.

Because sheriffs are elected by the county's population, and apparently they don't pay attention to this stuff. Some of it's really disturbing, isn't it?

I might draw some flak for this, but I really don't find the fact that he was once highly-placed in the DEA to be surprising in the least. IMO, the DEA is in competition with the BATFE for the coveted title of "Most Ruthless Federal Agency in the US".

Illegals who are here have ALREADY broken the law just by their presence. If he's just randomly going around asking every "brown" person "for their papers", a argument can be made for harrassment. All the more so if illegal immigration were barely even a problem, which, unfortunately is NOT the case. A problem which is amplified by libs who wish to create "sanctuary cities", a crime in and of itself.




Explains Obama. :D


@Q--I thought the IRS held that title. :xp:

So, you can justifiably break the law to catch law breakers?

Next you're going to tell me torture was OK for us to do, but not the Japanese we executed because the "terrorists" are law breakers.

Or he's just doing a job you don't agree with. Sucks being on the other end of the stick after 8 years huh?

Topic please :D

Not sure how that applies to what I said. I granted that spot checks for spot checks was a squirrelly practice. If you bust someone for something legitimately criminal and discover they are also illegal....too damn bad for them.
Not sure how this is remotely relevant (nor apparently is achilles, judging from his follow on post). I suggest you discuss that in a torture thread or PM me if you want some kind of followup.

You did notice the smiley, no? ;)

I stand by my question.

You admit it is "squirrelly" practice, and while racial profiling goes a little beyond "squirrely" you then state if they get caught, then too bad for them.

That seems to imply an indifference to what is going on, as it may be bad but it is also apparently doing good while also pointing out in your previous post that the illegals are doing something illegal anyway.

While in a previous post in the thread, implying there is an overload of illegals in the country and asking why he shouldn't be allowed to if the feds wont.

So, I ask again:

Can someone justifiably break the law to catch law breakers?

My answer is no.

If you read what I said, you have your answer. But you are also conflating "racial profiling" with checking a perps legal status when discussing my answer. But, I'd ask you, is it legal to break the law to favor a class of people you feel are unfairly targeted? Especially when they are legally criminals in the first place? Afterall, the creation of "sanctuary cities" is nothing more than aiding and abetting known (or even unknown b/c you won't do your job) criminals writ large. Equally criminal and with farther reaching consequences.

Bawwwww.

Lawmakers have this silly option - it's called making laws.

They're obviously not going to be breaking the law at the point in time in which they create sanctuary cities. They're not idiots.

You might disagree with the practice, and think it goes against current law, but try to stay away from the "Making a sanctuary city is illegal!!!1! Government shouldn't do that!" argument (hint: it's a rather poor one).


Also, @topic: This guy should be arrested and thrown in jail. Immigration laws in this country are ****ing ridiculous. That's all.

_EW_

I don't believe I mentioned creating sanctuary cities. You're evading the question. But, to answers yours to keep you from mentioning it again: No, I don't think you should break the law to "favor" them (if by favor you mean live in crappy conditions, getting paid under the legal limit, etc). You obviously have a hatred to them, so I wont try to convince you otherwise with stories of illegals and people with illegal family members.

Maybe you aren't implying it, but the topic at hand are officers who are targeting a specific ethnic race of people and pulling them over for the purpose of checking their status. That is racial profiling regardless of if it works or not.

So, now that I have answered your strawman question I will ask again:

Can someone justifiably break the law to catch law breakers?

Yeah, they do a lot of it to no effect, too. Ashame they just don't enforce the ones on the books. Nawww, grandstanding is soooo much more fun. As to your assertion they aren't idiots.....:rolleyes: You really mean it may not be a local crime. Last I checked, these cities were part of the USA. Feds set immigration policy, not the locals. Ashame no one really seems to care about enforcing any of the laws beyond rhetorical flourishes and effectively little more than band-aids.

As to Arpaio, if they can make a convincing case in court, they'll get their man in the end. Also, if the feds have a problem w/Arpaio's "doing their job", I'm sure the Justice Dept or even Homeland Security will find a way to stop him.

@TA--2 things. Don't assume people are full of hate just b/c they don't agree with your postions. Two, it's not a strawman question b/c I didn't assert you said anything about the sanctuary cities specifically. The point of the question was to get a more detailed idea of where you are coming from on this. I actually think the better thing to do would be to force their govt to address the issues in their own countries so that people don't emigrate northward, essentially invading another country b/c their's sucks. Actually, I know someone who essentially did just what you're talking about. She's married to my brother's brother-in-law. She's a nice person, but she should still have come here legally.

Now, has it been proven that Arpaio actually stopped these people with that intent or is these just some hyped up allegations by people who don't like the sherriff for whatever reason? So it's clear...If Joe walked up to a Mexican looking man in Phoenix and essentially said (in the presence of credible witnesses) "We must see your papers", that would be unacceptable. The problem w/"racial profiling" isn't that it is wrong, but that it can lead to abuses....as can any police tactic, frankly. You simply don't go checking every mexican in town if the perp was described as white, asian or black. Unless there's incontrovertible proof beyond heresay of alleged "racial profiling", and it's been declared illegal (not merely unseemly), it's irrational to claim he be thrown out on account of that. Nevermind jailed as well. Prove in court that he's broken the law and he goes to jail/is punished. That's how it works last I checked.

Did not imply that. I said I did not agree with those taking advantage of the illegals by doing illegal things like backdoor hiring and underpaying. That is not disagreeing with my position; its illegal and underhanded.

But, I think we've both agreed on that so I wont push it any further.

Ok, glad we cleared that up.

While Canadians coming south doesn't happen that often, the problem mostly resides with Mexico.

And we should probably force Mexico to deal with their emigration problem, but... what government do we contact? Mexico pretty much has a staple government. It is there to look pretty and say "we're organized" while not necessarily doing anything at all.

The water is poison, drug money supplies most of the country, and it is by all means a third world country in a drug war. The only group we call really call a government is the super rich that exist within Mexico that control the place like aristocracy.

I know this is not new information, but people leave Mexico because it is a terrible place to live. Sure, you have people waving the Mexican flag and saying "we love mexico!" but it is more of in concept than actual practice. They aren't there because the quality of life outside of heavily populated tourist spots is that of a third world country.

Now, with that out of the way, I don't think we should force the government so much as try to -establish- a government within Mexico. It is directly south of us for pete's sake. We're spending so much time and money trying to put the Middle East together while we trying to push Mexico under the rug like a bad stain.

If we can get Mexico stable again and boost the quality of life, your immigration problem should slow down. It should also make them a better trading partner and increase relations with South America, which would be better investments than a lot we're doing nowadays.

While it is notoriously hard to convict law enforcement of anything, I mostly agree.

And, on that note, could we get more sources on the man in question?

Sheriff Joe isn't TECHNICALLY breaking the law. He pulls them over for a minor infraction. So the questions regarding breaking a law to enforce the law are irrelevant to the topic. That's why he isn't in jail. It's shady as heck. It's about the same as asking someone to open their trunk when you catch them speeding. Then you find they have a trunk full of cocaine. That's why it's ok Achilles. How he's going about it is very shady though. I don't agree with his tactics. Honestly, I think it would be just fine to check the legal status of all persons pulled over. Much like the warrant check they do every time you get a ticket.

That would certainly be an effective sidestepping of the thorny issue. No questions asked, just consult the database. Only problem you might really run into is that if someone decides there're an "unnaturally" high incidence of minority drivers pulled over. Still, the burden to prove the charge that they stops were racially motivated would be much more difficult. However, might lead some to suspect that Big Brother just got another step closer. Afterall, what else might be in such a database (admittedly another thread topic by itself)?

Racial profiling is not illegal, but it sure as hell is unethical.

Hmmm, you'll have to refresh my memory on this one. Pretty sure a cop needs probable cause in order to be able to search a vehicle without a warrant.

Sure they ask, and yeah it's a good idea to say "yes", but you can also say "no" and be within your rights. Of course don't expect to get away with a warning if you jerk the officer around just to "flex" your rights.

I guess I'm still not convinced. Illegal immigrants come in all shapes, colors, and sizes. As do U.S. citizens. I'm not buying that it's okay that Sheriff Joe drives into Avondale, pulls over a dozen latin americans (who are all citizens) for "broken windshields", but lets a dozen vehicles driven by caucasians (who are canadians with expired visas) with broken windshields go on their merry way.

You're saying that police officers are within their rights to pull over anyone with "broken windshield" and I agree. However I think once you start discriminating between which "broken windshields" justify a stop and which ones don't (and the basis is race), then you have a problem. I'm not asking you to clarify what is currently legal. I'm asking your to distinguish between right and wrong.

Emphasis on "all persons pulled over".

In my local newspaper (I live in AZ, FYI), the opinions page was always filled with how Joe was being a total rascist jerk. One of the raids a couple of months ago was on a library, with something like 20 or so armed policemen. I'm not talking like sidearms and tasers. I mean shotguns and the like. I think he has gone overboard.

However, most of that has been overshadowed by the masses of people who think that the new speed cameras are evil and are against the law.

@ Astor: Tent City (its what we locals call it, ask Shem) has been around for about 15-16 years, it's just that Joe has been filling it up faster. It is just an extentsion of The local county jail.

Jesus. When will America learn that they're not the end-all-be-all when it comes to international politics?

Didn't we learn our lesson in Iraq?

We have no right to do anything to Mexico. We also don't have the economy to fund such an endeavor. In fact, the entire suggestion is foolhardy.

_EW_

Won't get any argument from me on that point.

An officer can find a way to get probable cause. but that's one of my beefs with law enforcement altogether, and kinda sideways to the topic.

In AZ though by and large the illegal immigrants do tend to originate from Mexico. Just like serial killers are majority white men, with a few exceptions. It makes sense to go fishing where you know you're going to catch fish.

Let me be clear then. While not illegal, it is unethical and therefore wrong. I do not agree with how he is conducting business.

Guess I should also add "so long as those pulled over are not pulled over based on ethnicity." Heck I'm Japanese. It wouldn't hurt my feelings any if, while being stopped, I'm asked to produce proof of citizenship.

Police officers are not the only component to the judicial system. Lawyers would have a field day going to before judges and making a case that officers are abusing probable cause for routine traffic stops.

I don't see where this negates my point.

I was wondering how long it would be before you divulged your minority status.

Getting it to stick is the hard part.
Didn't think I was trying to negate the point.
Japanese, Caucasian, African American, and Native American. I don't really associate with any ethnicity. I fit mostly with those(in that order). But having grown up in Texas, and having several Hispanic friends both there and here, I can understand the issues better haha.

One thing I find rather funny is that Texas is way tougher on their illegal immigrants. But AZ gets all the media attention.

Never said America should do it, but frankly if we want them to stop coming here for better living conditions and jobs the "easiest" (this being relative) thing to do is... have Mexico be a less ****ty place to live.

Should we do it? It is our job?

You know, with all the money we spend trying to keep people out it makes me wonder how well that could be spent elsewhere.

And, frankly, despite the Iraq failure it is not an inherently bad thing to try to help a country run by drug money. It is certainly a better idea than Iraq considering it is our border country and Iraq is half way around the world.

Why not the UN? Why just America? How about Canada helps them?

I could give a **** who does it, but our current failing attempts to keep them out have been failing. We -could- keep our hand and money out of Mexico, but Mexico is still sending its drugs and immigrants up here. Their little gang war has made it into our country as well, and by then I think it is our damn business whether the country below us is a third world ****hole or not that has no government to enforce any laws of any kind.

Doing nothing is equally stupid, actually more. They are a major trading partner. Also, b/c the border is soo damn porous, their problems have a way of metastasizing into ours as well. We also don't have the economy to fund many of the president's ambitions, or hadn't you noticed that?

@TA--unfortunately, the UN is more useless than tits on a bull and the rest of the world isn't much better, for that matter.

Well since you put it into such a generalized question but such a specific point, forgive me if it becomes supposition. It depends on the situation and individual.

If you knew someone that the judge was going to let go and you are not convinced of his innocence...I'd think that by this point you'd see arrest, prosecution and imprisonment has failed.

If it was letting a child molester go, I would not blame the parent for taking out a gun and shooting the mother****er point blank the first chance he/she got. Deserves to die and I hope he burns in hell.

I would frankly not blame an officer for stalking someone for awhile and hiding any evidence of their being an officer of the law if it were going to catch the criminal in question. Surveillance isn't illegal. If the person isn't breaking laws or hanging around children...I'd say for the time being let the person go. If the person is breaking laws and the cop caught that person in question...Hell, beat the slimball's ass. So in this specific case, yes.
If you indeed do believe this individual's intent to be mallicious, you are only doing a favor to your community. Where this might cross the line is possibly as a s***ty justification.

Every case? It depends on the specifics. That's as specific as we can get, hyper specific. Specific in a general sense, we cannot.

OK. Then how do you propose (in some method OTHER than letting them go) we find out illegal status?

A barrel of oil for every illegal we accept? Just a suggestion. It might encourage them from an economic standpoint to work with us.

Concept is one thing, blatantly doing it because you want wherever you go to be your Mexico (in contempt of and insullt to the country you are now in) is completely another.

In Reno NV a vet got pissed off that a mexican restaurant flew their mexican flag over ours. So he took it down, kept the US flag and shredded and cut the Mexico flag. I don't blame him. He fought for this country. Not only is it contempt and insult to the country, it's illegal to do.

With what money?


Thank you. Sort of gives credibility to my above answer "depends on the situation".

True, there should be more enforcement to catch the Canadians.

Which I do believe busting the drug cartels to be a major step in that direction. It's a start.


I'd think eVerify would rectify many problems. A gov't. database website where you could check to see if an applicant really is who they claimed to be?
Sounds good to me.

SO, Why are we trying to enact the realID act (basically to track and monitor you whatever you do, wherever you go all the time) when we have not even given eVerify a chance? It would be rather effective at screening for illegals at jobs. Lou Dobbs even had a thing on about it. But the current admin just turned it down claiming it would be "too costly and make too much bureaucracy". Yet it wants to spy on its own people, making just as much bureaucracy and probably costing just as much if not more than running a database website where it could just be discretionary at the employer's hands? That's pretty F***ed up. Doing nothing is stupid, we have problems and they won't solve themselves.

There's enough straw in that argument to make a scarecrow. One, no one here has said otherwise, but unless you know this (your wildly exagerated scenario) to be the case, it's also a giant red herring. It's obvious that the whole point of this thread is nothing more than going "ZOMG! Arpaio is a racist 111!!!111!!!." Big whup.. If he's found guilty, he'll face the music.

I don't see how. If the law states that an officer can search a vehicle if they can show probable cause, then searching a vehicle after establishing probable cause is within the law. Not the same thing as breaking the law to catch a lawbreaker.

The problem with using the ends to justify the means is that it puts things on a very shaky foundation. Kinda like dating a guy/girl that broke up with his/her boy/girlfriend to be with you. Sure you're getting some now, but you're a fool if you think that person is loyal or can be trusted. I may decide that I want to be on the Sheriff Joe bandwagon and cheer him on as he uses questionable methods to bust illegals, but how do I know that he won't use similarly questionable methods to violate my rights later?

White people not from here come in more flavors that just "Canadian". If we want to make immigration status standard operating procedure for every stop, that's one thing. If we want to harass brown people on the basis of their being brown, then that's another. If I was a 3rd generation citizen and I got pulled over on a "immigration round-up" you'd better believe I would be pissed off. And I'm willing to bet that if you really thought about it, you would be too.

:confused: I don't understand how it is that if Arpaio is pulling over minorities for spurious reasons, that he'd come after you when he's "done", isn't a slippery slope.

Well, then I guess I'll modify my prior statement to that: We should just step up immigration enforcement in general so that none get through. My apologies.

Slippery-Slope

Specifically:
Emphasis added.

The fact that he has already demonstrated a willingness to employ questionable tactics to infringe on some individuals constitutes as an argument that he is capable of doing so for others.

Or more simply: If you have a co-worker that walks around punching people in the eye, it isn't a slippery-slope to posit that one day he might walk up and give you a shiner.

Thanks for clarifying, however this isn't very helpful. I'm quite positive that I've heard Sheriff Joe argue that he is doing precisely that right now, yet here we are having the debate. Did you have something more specific in mind?

Well, one it is ironic that a vet who fought for free speech was insulted at an expression of free speech...

Two, kind of a douche for pulling down someone's property and destroying it.

Three, again ironic that he's stopping expression even though he fought for it...

Four, how outside of a political cartoon is it insulting?

And five:
What an absolutely appalling law to have, and frankly I'm insulted that we consider ourselves that highly as a country and would actually make something like putting one flag over another a crime like this was some kind of political cartoon.

What a joke.

I see what you're saying though. But, ask yourself this: If he truly thought Mexico was an amazing place to be... why was he in Reno? His actions speak louder than his expression.

My son had heard that if a U.S. flag touches the ground it is supposed to be destroyed.

He thought is was a curious practice, because "it's just a flag". I had to explain to him that some people had very interesting beliefs when it came to the importance of certain pieces of cloth. I explained what "the rule" was, but agreed with his assessment that the whole thing was pretty silly.

Actually symbolicly placing one flag over another represents which one controls the other. If you notice at the UN all flags are placed at (roughly) equal heights. Placing one higher symbolizes rule over the lower flag. Placing a Mexican flag over the US flag IS a slap in the face to the veteran.

It's all flag etiquette really. Either fly the US flag on equal ground as the Mexican flag or only fly one of the two. Of course it is considered rude to fly a foreign flag on another country's soil.

Gotta laugh about the flag thing too though. to an extent. Ever since I heard Eddie Izzard and his "Do you have a flag?"