Sheriff Arpaio Spanked

It was meant to be a joke.

Foxrac said:
Probably none because his ass is TOUGH like rock. :lol:

Joe Arpaio's tactic will not stop me from moving to Arizona but I won't live in Maricopa County.

I love Flagstaff, so Tucson is good city. :)
Click to expand...
 
TXgolfer said:
Sorry, It doesn't sound like they did anything illegal to me. They simply verified your identity and let you go once verified. I don't see how being asked questions would be emotionally distressing.
Click to expand...

incorrect. in majority of cases - the detainees were mistreated and treated with hostility. no one should ever be treated like a criminal. in this case - it's systematic and abused.
 
Foxrac said:
They refused to give reason about why I got pulled over.

They constantly asked a lot of questions, including why I can't speak English (oral)? why I have broken English? They pressured on me to tell an truth if I was in US illegally. They asked same questions repeatly and yelled at me for not gave an answer that they demanded for.

Our state police told us about those police activities are unacceptable and illegal, end of story.
Click to expand...

it's a typical interrogation tactic with fear and confusion to cause undue stress on suspect to make sure he is keeping his story straight under duress. asking 10 different questions for same thing.
 
TXgolfer said:
:hmm: That is interesting.... Never heard of a police officer refusing to give the reason for a stop.

If this is true, you should sue them.
Click to expand...

they don't need to. and it's borderline illegal. that's why the federal judge has ordered him to cease his operation since it was systematic and abusive.
 
Jiro said:
incorrect. in majority of cases - the detainees were mistreated and treated with hostility. no one should ever be treated like a criminal. in this case - it's systematic and abused.
Click to expand...

I was referring to that one specific incident. But back on topic now.

I disagree with the label of abuse.
 
Jiro said:
the federal judge disagrees with you.
Click to expand...

Yes he does, which I would expect. It's the sad situation we find ourselves in these days.....a federal judge working against local authorities and citizens at the expense of safety.
 
TXgolfer said:
Yes he does, which I would expect. It's the sad situation we find ourselves in these days.....a federal judge working against local authorities and citizens at the expepese of safety.
Click to expand...

and the federal judge disagrees. he believes that Arapio is terrorizing the citizens.
 
Jiro said:
incorrect. in majority of cases - the detainees were mistreated and treated with hostility. no one should ever be treated like a criminal. in this case - it's systematic and abused.
Click to expand...

Yes, if they have done to me again so their ball will in federal court.
 
TXgolfer said:
Obviously. He is a Federal Judge.
Click to expand...

obviously. Sheriff Arpaio seems to think he's above the law and a federal judge has to spank him to remind him that he does not stand on the book of law.
 
Jiro said:
obviously. Sheriff Arpaio seems to think he's above the law and a federal judge has to spank him to remind him that he does not stand on the book of law.
Click to expand...

No, they simply disagree on The best application of law and the best way to protect citizens of Arizona. Sadly, many judges find that the constitution currently allows the Federal government to hamper local officials from protecting citizens in ways that fit the local environment. It is the largest and most common flaw of federalism.
 
TXgolfer said:
No, they simply disagree on The best application of law and the best way to protect citizens of Arizona. Sadly, many judges find that the constitution currently allows the Federal government to hamper local officials from protecting citizens in ways that fit the local environment. It is the largest and most common flaw of federalism.
Click to expand...

What part of the constitution exactly would you like to get rid of? Personally i'm pretty fond of it the way it is. And the "if you've got nothing to hide" argument you mentioned before doesn't hold water.

There are a lot of things joe has done that i like but if he is harrasing innocent people just because of what they look like i find that disgusting.
 
jonnyghost said:
What part of the constitution exactly would you like to get rid of? Personally i'm pretty fond of it the way it is. And the "if you've got nothing to hide" argument you mentioned before doesn't hold water.

There are a lot of things joe has done that i like but if he is harrasing innocent people just because of what they look like i find that disgusting.
Click to expand...

"if"
 
jonnyghost said:
What part of the constitution exactly would you like to get rid of? Personally i'm pretty fond of it the way it is. And the "if you've got nothing to hide" argument you mentioned before doesn't hold water.

There are a lot of things joe has done that i like but if he is harrasing innocent people just because of what they look like i find that disgusting.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm pro-human rights and I believe that they should properly treated, however LEO and prison guards don't have to be lenient because they designed to be strict, but went far - beyond the constitution isn't okay.
 
TXgolfer said:
No, they simply disagree on The best application of law and the best way to protect citizens of Arizona. Sadly, many judges find that the constitution currently allows the Federal government to hamper local officials from protecting citizens in ways that fit the local environment. It is the largest and most common flaw of federalism.
Click to expand...

Sheriff Arpaio's version of "the best way to protect citizens of Arizona" is grossly misguided and racist because it's solely based on the color of skin.
 
Back
Top