Thread: Sheriff Joe
View Single Post
Old 04-30-2009, 04:01 AM   #44
Darth Avlectus
@Darth Avlectus
I'd buy that for a dollar
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: My pervert mansion
Posts: 4,397
Current Game: A dirty old man.
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post


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.
There is not reason enough evidence to believe one event must inevitably follow another without argument for such claim. The fact itself that he is willing to employ questionable tactics may have merit. However the flaw in your argument is that he is already capable of doing so, given his position.

By the by: If I had a violent coworker (and I do speak from experience) who was going around decking people in the eye, well sure he might come at me, that's not what I find fallacious. The emphasis, however, speaks to conjecture. Which prove's nothing but one's own paranoia. Not a good argument.

Furthermore, as construction is one of my occupations and I work around dangerous power tools: If you appear to be unstable or dangerous, I won't hire you. Plain and simple. If you prove it after the fact, well, you are no sheriff if you're coming to me for work. I have also a legal right to defend myself and to fire you if you prove dangerous. I may even press charges. Fair warning: if you intend to go that way, I've been in situations where people have even used weapons (knives, guns, pipes) and tried to kill me. .....I'm not dead. I can and will defend myself, especially if law enforcement's ETA is 15 minutes where I don't have but 30 seconds because you're lunging at my throat.

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, you asked where breaking the law to enforce it might be acceptable. The "shakiness" you attested to would imply that it isn't kosher w.r.t. staying within the bounds of the laws. You have even pointed out that: Just because you have probable cause, it does not make a case. So even if the guy is as dirty as they come, you still had to overstep your bounds and I'd imagine you'd still catch some kind of hell even if you succeeded.

In terms of what to go on...did you have some other criteria? Just for the record, no I'm not necessarily in support of Arpaio's tactics on a frivolous level. However, if you have a camper/truck/van that doesn't look well maintained, driver is acting weird avoidant or distant, and vehichle's possibly large enough that it might be carrying contraband cargo as in: drugs, weapons, or most relevant illegals...that constitutes "suspicious enough to be pulled over".

Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
Well, one it is ironic that a vet who fought for free speech was insulted at an expression of free speech...
They know they are in another country. It's contempt.

Two, kind of a douche for pulling down someone's property and destroying it.
Funny thing is you were so quick to get on it when someone showed the least bit of disapproval for the president with a sign (which too is expression). Nice ad hominem to the vet, BTW.

Three, again ironic that he's stopping expression even though he fought for it...
It's in contempt of the symbol of the country's sovereignty. I rather suspect you'd also take their side in their own country if one of ours did the same thing.

Nice to see your standards allow us to be 'walked on'.

Four, how outside of a political cartoon is it insulting?
You fought for your country, possibly took a debilitating injury for it. You see its glory being stepped on by a business who feels it is their land and not all of our land. Contempt.

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.
No, when you raise a flag it symbolizes sovereignty over that land of that symbol. This is the way EVERY nation is. Has been for a long time. Will be long after you or I are dead.

What a joke.
I dare you to say all of that to an American legion full of vets during one of their meetings. Not worth your time? Not worth tolerating the blatant contempt, either.

Seems like to you everyone BUT the USA is allowed to be proud of displaying their soverignty. If USA does it, we're automatically arrogant?

What the ****?

Don't even try to tell me "but it was formed with blood on our hands" as justification--you won't find any nation in the world that wasn't formed that way.

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.
If you come into a country demanding to be a part of it and then spit on it once in, that's Arrogant, contemptuous, and ungrateful. I would not, as a guest, deprecate those who would have taken me in no matter how repugnant I felt those persons to be. There is an unsaid level of mutual respect. It's what makes civility great--without which you have nothing but squabbling and it is doomed to failure.

Here America is handing out $$$ to you, and you shout VIVA le Mexico? Bull****. I don't have to take that and I won't.
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: