Trump pardons Sheriff Joe

[SheepDog4Life]

Again INGO is devided.

Some believe everything that the media and the left wing white house said and say about Joe, and some believe everything that the media and the left wing white house said and say about Joe is BS.

BF, I've looked for myself, in detail, about exactly two Arpaio facts. One is his conviction, which I pointed out in detail to be a sham and political payback (it was based solely upon political speech, not actions as required by the federal contempt law). The second was this made up quote that is just a lie. The left can't help itself... even if it has a case, it has to lie and pretend there is something there is something more, bigger, more ominous... and in the process of lying, and getting caught lying, loses all credibility.

I'm starting to think that the main reason they are out to get him isn't because of one legally present alien he detained, or 3 "solely" illegal aliens he might have detained after an injunction, but because of the success he had in detaining and deporting large numbers of illegal aliens.

 

[KLB]

Federal judge OKs section of Arizona immigration law allowing police to question status of suspected illegals | Fox News

"Show me your papers." Some judges don't get it.

Why did you post that article? It is from Sept 2012.

 

[Kutnupe14]

BF, I've looked for myself, in detail, about exactly two Arpaio facts. One is his conviction, which I pointed out in detail to be a sham and political payback (it was based solely upon political speech, not actions as required by the federal contempt law). The second was this made up quote that is just a lie. The left can't help itself... even if it has a case, it has to lie and pretend there is something there is something more, bigger, more ominous... and in the process of lying, and getting caught lying, loses all credibility.

I'm starting to think that the main reason they are out to get him isn't because of one legally present alien he detained, or 3 "solely" illegal aliens he might have detained after an injunction, but because of the success he had in detaining and deporting large numbers of illegal aliens.

You, of course, are entitled to your opinion. Don't call your opinion "facts."

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why did you post that article? It is from Sept 2012.

It's stuff like that from judges that allow people Arpaio to infringe on the rights of citizens.

 

[KLB]

It's stuff like that from judges that allow people Arpaio to infringe on the rights of citizens.

Well, it looks like it this judge was merely following the lead of the USSC.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, it looks like it this judge was merely following the lead of the USSC.

Who have always been known to get it right.

 

[jamil]

Again INGO is devided.

Some believe everything that the media and the left wing white house said and say about Joe, and some believe everything that the media and the left wing white house said and say about Joe is BS.

There's an area in between. Some just listen to the things he's actually said, and think, wow. That's actually pretty ****ed up.

 

[KLB]

Who have always been known to get it right.

Of course they do

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Federal judge OKs section of Arizona immigration law allowing police to question status of suspected illegals | Fox News

"Show me your papers." Some judges don't get it.

The quote is false... this is not a stop just to show papers. It allows checking status AFTER an already legal stop if the officer has reasonable suspicion to suspect the person is in the country illegally. And, just being brown is not enough.

AND SCOTUS ALREADY RULED ON THIS! Do you expect this judge to overrule SCOTUS!?!?!?

There's an area in between. Some just listen to the things he's actually said, and think, wow. That's actually pretty ****ed up.

I agree with this... so why do some feel the need to lie and make things up? For example, that the contempt charge was for racial profiling? No, it was for allegedly violating an injunction against detaining individuals soley based upon immigration status.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The quote is false... this is not a stop just to show papers. It allows checking status AFTER an already legal stop if the officer has reasonable suspicion to suspect the person is in the country illegally. And, just being brown is not enough.

AND SCOTUS ALREADY RULED ON THIS! Do you expect this judge to overrule SCOTUS!?!?!?

Oh now you agree with rule of law as determined by the judiciary?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

You, of course, are entitled to your opinion. Don't call your opinion "facts."

Then please point to where, in the court's decision, Bolton found a SINGLE individual detained solely for being present unlawfully. It doesn't. THAT is a fact.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Oh now you agree with rule of law as determined by the judiciary?

And you support, I don't know, say an Alabama Supreme Court justice giving the SCOTUS the finger on same sex marriage.

(I don't, btw, even though I think SCOTUS should have left it to the states, and I would have voted for it, given the chance)

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Did you actually watch the video? Even Glenn Beck knows he's full of $#@&. Look at his face when Arpaio says "They’re worried—and if they have their speech, what they look like, if they just look like they came from another country." He looks away from the camera clearly says "wut?" in disbelief that such an idiotic thing would be said. There is absolutely no federal law that says such, and if you believe so, I'd challenge you to find it. I'll be waiting for you to magically pull that out out of thin air.

No idea about the federal law, but according to the 9th Circuit, factors that can contribute to "the totality of circumstances" whether it's reasonable to suspect someone is illegally present for a Terry stop include: Hispanic appearance, not understanding English, only Spanish and being in a location where there is a high proportion of illegal aliens or border crossings. Those three ALONE are not enough since a large portion of legal population fits those characteristics, but they do contribute to "reasonable suspicion".

And, behaving erratically or scared when they see the police or ICE? Yup, that's in there too. In the Rodriguez-Sanchez case, the 9th said at that point, it would have been a close call, but then the driver cut across multiple lanes of traffic in an unsafe manner to get to an exit ramp in an obvious attempt to evade, which made their job easy and obvious.

And, this is from the notoriously liberal 9th circuit.

https://openjurist.org/557/f2d/1299/united-states-v-avalos-ochoa

UNITED STATES v. MANZO JURADO | FindLaw

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/669790/united-states-v-carlos-rodriguez-sanchez/

And, these are all about what can be used to make a stop of a vehicle, to initiate contract, i.e. Terry. If the vehicle is already stopped for a broken tail light and the driver has no license plus all of these other characteristics? Probable cause? I think not, IMO. Reasonable suspicion, IMO, easily.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Then please point to where, in the court's decision, Bolton found a SINGLE individual detained solely for being present unlawfully. It doesn't. THAT is a fact.

That may be a fact (and I haven't looked into it), but:

... exactly two Arpaio facts. One is his conviction, which I pointed out in detail to be a sham and political payback (it was based solely upon political speech, not actions as required by the federal contempt law). The second was this made up quote that is just a lie.

... which I addressed, Is not.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

That may be a fact (and I haven't looked into it), but:


... which I addressed, Is not.

I would agree that on the second one, the level of distortion necessary to constitute a lie is a matter of opinion. Changing a quote from his understanding of what a federal law allows (misguided or not) to make it look like stating his own policy, including lopping off the beginning of a sentence, qualifies, IMO.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Yeah, this was a political witch hunt. It's too bad that the judge who convicted him was appointed by George W. Bush

Another falsity in this thread... Judge Susan Bolton, who convicted Arpaio of contempt, was appointed by Clinton, nominated July 21, 2000 and confirmed in October.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Ritchie_Bolton

 

[Kutnupe14]

Another falsity in this thread... Judge Susan Bolton, who convicted Arpaio of contempt, was appointed by Clinton, nominated July 21, 2000 and confirmed in October.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Ritchie_Bolton

That's the same chick who let the "show me your papers" law go forward. Hmmm, that's interesting.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

That's the same chick who let the "show me your papers" law go forward. Hmmm, that's interesting.

Not quite accurate, well, actually wrong... she heard the original case in 2010 and blocked section 2, and some other parts of SB 1070. The SCOTUS upheld most of her SB 1070 decision, and blocked some additional parts, but reversed her on section 2. When they reversed her on Section 2, that got sent back down to her to "fix" her decision to match the SCOTUS decision (remand).

She didn't let it "go forward." She blocked it but the SCOTUS overruled and sent it back to her.

And, just to be clear, SCOTUS was unanimous on upholding section 2: "All justices agreed to uphold the portion of the law allowing Arizona state police to investigate the immigration status of an individual stopped, detained, or arrested if there is reasonable suspicion that individual is in the country illegally."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070#U.S._Supreme_Court_ruling

 

[Fargo]

I would agree that on the second one, the level of distortion necessary to constitute a lie is a matter of opinion. Changing a quote from his understanding of what a federal law allows (misguided or not) to make it look like stating his own policy, including lopping off the beginning of a sentence, qualifies, IMO.

Do you not understand that the "which I will enforce" portion that you added actually makes the quote much much worse for the sheriff than the part that I quoted? Are you really so dense that you are going to call me a liar based on that or are you just a reading comprehension impaired ass?

 

[2A_Tom]

Wow, Fargo, dial it back a little. You are getting pretty personal your last couple of replies to him.