Trump pardons Sheriff Joe

[Kutnupe14]

Did Obama hold rally's for the sole purpose so people could tell him how much they loved him?

We have a president who is actually holding re-election rallies and his first year in office isn't even completed. That's crazy, but I have a theory as to why. He knows his administration is in trouble, and should there be a legitimate effort to remove him, he's going to need his staunchest supporters to help him out.

 

[Trigger Time]

We have a president who is actually holding re-election rallies and his first year in office isn't even completed. That's crazy, but I have a theory as to why. He knows his administration is in trouble, and should there be a legitimate effort to remove him, he's going to need his staunchest supporters to help him out.

Let them try. It would be on

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So just so I'm getting this straight, a guy who instructed his organization to flout the Constitution, should avoid being handed punishment for a criminal decisions he was held in contempt of? A contempt charge with a maximum penalty of 6 months, which people figured that (due to his age) would be 30 days of house arrest. And further, it makes sense that the president would pardon such a person, who again disregard the Constitution he was sworn to abide, quibbling over at most a 6 month sentence? Let me ask you this question. Regardless of what you think of other president's use of the pardon authority, do you think this pardon was based on Arpaio's age, or to win political points with his base. And if you view it as the latter, do you think this is a good or bad thing?

Why don't you go back and re-read what I actually said vs what you seem to think I said.

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

This guy was a POS who deserved to spend the rest of his days behind bars. Shame

 

[Sylvain]

It is if you wouldn't stop a bunch of black, white, or asian people walking "south to north, in the desert in Arizona, one mile away from the border." Would you stop those groups? What you're not getting, Sylvian, is that you've already justified stopping them based on reasonable suspicion. It is reasonable, upon seeing a group of people (regardless of their color) walking in the desert, north, one mile away from the US border to be suspicious of them violating immigration law. But back to my first question... would you stop a group of black, white, or asian people under the same circumstances?

Well actually I wouldn't stop either group and assume they are all some legal Arizonian hikers.
I guess I wouldn't be a good Border Patrol agent.

But yes if I had to stop a group under those circumstances I would do it regardless of the color of their skin.
Maybe we have a different definiton of profiling.

To me profiling would involve taking into consideration their behaviour, their clothes, what they are carrying, direction of travel etc ... I guess all the stuff that would give you probable cause to stop them.

To me that's profiling, they fit the predetermined profile of someone crossing the border illegally (based on known past behaviour).Not just based on what you think an illegal alien looks like.

Now if you stop a random guy in Tucson because "he looks Mexican" and could be here illegally that's just racism, not profiling.

 

[Trigger Time]

People coming from Mexico that look Mexican or middle eastern .... Yeah I'm stopping them if I was an officer or agent.

 

[KittySlayer]

I guess I would pose the opposite - why would you not profile an illegal immigrant ? Since the illegal immigrant is, by definition, illegal - why are they to receive the distinction and benefit of the 4th Amendment when they aren't legal citizens of this country.
.

I always wondered this too. It would be like me claiming my 1st Amendment rights as a child with my father only to find him ready to test the limits of the 8th Amendment.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why don't you go back and re-read what I actually said vs what you seem to think I said.

How about you tell me what you disagree with from my post, that way I can know where you stand. I think you're using a technicality to say that you support Joe's pardon, because you're comparing it to other pardons. I'm asking standalone, on it merits, your opinion.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well actually I wouldn't stop either group and assume they are all some legal Arizonian hikers.
I guess I wouldn't be a good Border Patrol agent.

But yes if I had to stop a group under those circumstances I would do it regardless of the color of their skin.
Maybe we have a different definiton of profiling.

To me profiling would involve taking into consideration their behaviour, their clothes, what they are carrying, direction of travel etc ... I guess all the stuff that would give you probable cause to stop them.

To me that's profiling, they fit the predetermined profile of someone crossing the border illegally (based on known past behaviour).Not just based on what you think an illegal alien looks like.

Now if you stop a random guy in Tucson because "he looks Mexican" and could be here illegally that's just racism, not profiling.

That's essentially what Arpaio was allowing his deputies to do.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I guess I would pose the opposite - why would you not profile an illegal immigrant ? Since the illegal immigrant is, by definition, illegal - why are they to receive the distinction and benefit of the 4th Amendment when they aren't legal citizens of this country.

Where is the line drawn that an illegal alien should receive the benefit ? I don't have an answer to my own question. However, I do know how I feel about illegal aliens using our court system against us via the pro bono efforts of attorneys who believe in transforming immigration laws without benefit of enacting legislation.

Because it's impossible to do without infringing on the rights of other Americans? For instance, every cop knows that most cars with a Latino-looking person with plates that come back to Latino sounding business is probably an illegal. You stop them, and you have an easy ONL arrest. I know of people that rack up arrests on people like this over crappy "license plate lights out" stops. The problem, they aren't applying stops based on license plate lights equally. They see a Latino, then look for a reason (they typically don't employ) to make the stop, and go from there. The "legal" stop, is more of a CYA if there's a problem later on. This is called a pre-contexual stop, because the officer isn't really pulling the person over for the infraction, but to investigate something else of which no proof. The problem, is that sometimes you run into a legal real life Latino-looking American citizen... and have just violated his rights.

 

[Libertarian01]

Let me start off by saying that many years ago all I heard about Sheriff Joe Arpaio sounded very good to me, and thus I approved of his methods.

However, over the last several years all that I heard about him led me to believe that he was operating outside of the law and not enforcing it. I heard much abuse about him and his position. I'm too tired to look right now but I may be able to dig up stuff later, some I believe was discussed here on INGO.

Ergo, with new information at hand I am a bit disappointed to see him set free. Even IF I concede that he was elderly and/or in poor health, at least let him serve a few monthes in jail (preferably his own) before opening the door. The President can pardon, it just doesn't mean he has to do it right away.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Trigger Time]

We need to get over calling stupid **** racism in this country. If you are black then it's not racism for me to point out you're black. If you're Mexican and working on a construction site it's not racism for me to assume you are an illegal. Statistics would support that you probably are.

 

[Sylvain]

I guess I would pose the opposite - why would you not profile an illegal immigrant ? Since the illegal immigrant is, by definition, illegal - why are they to receive the distinction and benefit of the 4th Amendment when they aren't legal citizens of this country.

Where is the line drawn that an illegal alien should receive the benefit ? I don't have an answer to my own question. However, I do know how I feel about illegal aliens using our court system against us via the pro bono efforts of attorneys who believe in transforming immigration laws without benefit of enacting legislation.

The Bill of Rights doens't contain the word "citizen".

It doesn't grant rights to citizens, it dictates what the government cannot do.Regardless of your citizenship.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It doesn't say "The right of US citizens ...".

Illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, legal non-immigrants (tourists) and US citizens all enjoy the same rights when it comes to the Bill of Rights.
If you are in the US (legaly or not) you are part of "the people".

Only a few amendments talk about special rights for citizens like the right to vote.

 

[Trigger Time]

Let me start off by saying that many years ago all I heard about Sheriff Joe Arpaio sounded very good to me, and thus I approved of his methods.

However, over the last several years all that I heard about him led me to believe that he was operating outside of the law and not enforcing it. I heard much abuse about him and his position. I'm too tired to look right now but I may be able to dig up stuff later, some I believe was discussed here on INGO.

Ergo, with new information at hand I am a bit disappointed to see him set free. Even IF I concede that he was elderly and/or in poor health, at least let him serve a few monthes in jail (preferably his own) before opening the door. The President can pardon, it just doesn't mean he has to do it right away.

Regards,

Doug

He wasn't going to be behind bars anyways. This is a gesture

 

[Libertarian01]

He wasn't going to be behind bars anyways. This is a gesture

If he wasn't going to be behind bars that what was the point of a bloody pardon? Was he going to be fined or what?

Honest question here, haven't followed this entirely but if he was going to be stuck doing something puny like community service then the pardon just seems overkill.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Kutnupe14]

He wasn't going to be behind bars anyways. This is a gesture

He probably would have been under house arrest for 30 days or so. But, I'd amend the idea that this was gesture, and instead call it a dog whistle.

 

[Trigger Time]

He probably would have been under house arrest for 30 days or so. But, I'd amend the idea that this was gesture, and instead call it a dog whistle.

Well then I'm sitting in a ready position with my tongue hanging out. It worked lol

 

[Kutnupe14]

If he wasn't going to be behind bars that what was the point of a bloody pardon? Was he going to be fined or what?

Honest question here, haven't followed this entirely but if he was going to be stuck doing something puny like community service then the pardon just seems overkill.

Regards,

Doug

Exactly. Doesn't take much really to see that it served two purposes... to make his base happy, and (possibly) to send a message to some people being targeted in the Mueller investigation, that Trump will pardon them if they keep their mouths shut.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well then I'm sitting in a ready position with my tongue hanging out. It worked lol

Lol, you'll see the light eventually... and you will either bite the hand, or Trump will eventually get around to treating you like Old Yeller.

 

[Trigger Time]

Lol, you'll see the light eventually... and you will either bite the hand, or Trump will eventually get around to treating you like Old Yeller.

I like him and I'm loyal. I would fight litteraly for him if he asked