Trump pardons Sheriff Joe

[indiucky]

I meant what I said, and I think if you go back through other threads on pardons I've been quite consistent. The only "new" question you asked that I didn't already answer is if it's political. Of course it is. Does that make it a good or bad thing? Well, again, I've stated my position on the pardon system in it's entirety...so....

He is VERY consistent in this regard Kut...Very...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Obviously.

Then you can read it again.

I don't know if he illegally profiled and don't care enough to look into it just to argue with you one way or the other. I meant what I said, and I think if you go back through other threads on pardons I've been quite consistent. The only "new" question you asked that I didn't already answer is if it's political. Of course it is. Does that make it a good or bad thing? Well, again, I've stated my position on the pardon system in it's entirety...so....

So, do you think you should face fail time but be denied a jury trial?

I believe you that you are consistent. I'm not questioning that. You're really not coming down one way or the other on the actions of Arpaio, so the use of the technicality is fine. And no, I do not think a person should be denied a jury trial (and yes, I'm clear).

 

[Fargo]

I know I am in the distinct a minority here, but I have believed that Sheriff Joe belonged in prison going back probably well over a decade. I always wondered what it was that he had on the feds ( he is a former federal agent ) that stopped them from going after him over what appeared to be open public corruption.

I still wonder that, since the only folks willing to go after him were the judiciary, even the local US attorney's office bailed as soon as the contempt charges were tendered.

Petty little tyrants deeply in love with their own power should be feared by anyone who loves freedom, not given a pass just because they lean to the right.

 

[olhorseman]

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.

Statistics don't support your idea if you are "Mexican" (I am assuming you mean someone having a latino appearance) on a construction site that you are illegal. The percentage is high in construction (15%) and even higher in agriculture. I just don't feel it is justified to stop 6 legal citizens doing their jobs to find 1 illegal.
5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I do not think a person should be denied a jury trial (and yes, I'm clear).

Then it's a political use of an outdated power that shouldn't exist to right the wrong of a Constitutional violation of the right to trial by a jury of one's peers, no?

 

[Trigger Time]

I disagree totally. American citizens should not be burdened with having to prove they are citizens just because of the color of their skin. Just as they should not have to prove they are doing anything else illegal because of the color of their skin.

If the glove fits

 

[Kutnupe14]

Then it's a political use of an outdated power that shouldn't exist to right the wrong of a Constitutional violation of the right to trial by a jury of one's peers, no?

No, it's a practical use, that's applied uniformly. Something that both of use have, obviously, repeatedly supported.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

No, it's a practical use, that's applied uniformly. Something that both of use have, obviously, repeatedly supported.

Ok, enjoy your argument. If you need any more of "my side", just go ahead and assign it to me.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ok, enjoy your argument. If you need any more of "my side", just go ahead and assign it to me.

Noted... but I doubt there are any "your side" technicality, fence sitters.

 

[Fargo]

LOL, The inherent power of a court to enforce it's orders through contempt has been enshrined in this country's constitutional and judicial system since day one. It is curious to me that many are just now finding a problem with it, but I haven't heard a word about all the people that go into the can on contempt charges weekly out of the Indiana courts.

I see remands on a weekly basis for contempt. Will no one stand up for all the dead beat dads, fugitives, and FTAer's?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I am glad to see Mr. Trump begin to release Political Prisoners. Keep it up Mr. President!

I'm in agreement with you, BF. My research, detailed in the first post quote below, summarized in the second, indicates that it was a political witchhunt, not following the norms of contempt findings. The court's own findings do not support that Arpaio continued to detain illegal aliens "solely based upon" them being "unawfully present" "without more". Instead, it used a standard not found in the injunction, that he detained illegals without state charges.

The injunction banned detention "solely based upon the knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present in the United States." The number is actually 171 (there were 14 at the end of 2011) "persons not charged with a (state) criminal offence turned over to ICE." (page 7 lines 5-13). ICE implemented their Priorities for Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Aliens program June 30, 2010 (see memo link below). The fact that ICE accepted these individuals indicates that they had prior felonies, federal warrants, detainer requests, and/or prior removal orders. THAT is not the same as "solely based upon... WITHOUT MORE". That is MORE and does not require the withdrawn [STRIKE]208g[/STRIKE] 287g jurisdiction.

And ICE was aware of the injunction and would not accept "mererly" illegals from Arpaio as of Dec 15, 2011, the same time as the injunction:

DHS Cuts Off Sheriff Joe Arpaio?s Access To ICE Programs ? Talking Points Memo

In other words, all indications are that if ICE took them, there was MORE than just unlawfully present.

In fact, the decision quotes that ICE policy was that they "only want to pick up felons" (page 5, lines 9-12). Also on page 5, lines 24-28, there were 3 individuals without state charges, who ICE would not take (no mention of if they fit the ICE Priority memo, had warrants, detainers, etc or not). For example, those three could have had detainers and when ICE was contacted, they determined the detainers no longer met the 2010 policy and refused. Or they could have been low on the list with the courts backed up and they just refused. This is detail that should be explained in a legal decision to categorically state whether or not there was "more" for these three individuals.

So, from the decision, I can find only three who were possibly detained for an hour and a half who might have been "merely" illegal. And, if they had ICE detainers that ICE for whatever reason choose to renege upon, that is still MORE than MERELY unlawfully present.

Decision:

https://drive.google.com/viewerng/v...cimages/news/arpaio%20contempt%20decision.pdf

ICE June 2010 Priority Enforcement Memo:

https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2010/civil-enforcement-priorities.pdf

tl;dr: Except for three individuals where the facts are not presented, it appears that Sheriff Arpaio did abide by the plain meaning of injunction. It is possible he abided by the injunction in those three cases as well. The 157/171 detainees mentioned in the press were collected by ICE under the priority enforcement program indicating they were detained for more than simple unlawful presence, i.e. outstanding warrants, detainers or deportation orders.

Edit: The program that allows state/locals to enforce immigration law is 287g, not 208g. Corrected in red.

That is more than fair, it took me awhile to dig this up and read it. My point boils down to Judge Bolton's decision bases the contempt of the injunction charge upon detaining illegals without Arizona state charges. That's not what Snow's injunction says, it said that they were barred from detaining based solely upon unlawful status and nothing more. IMO, it is a very reasonable reading to conclude that individuals with federal/other state warrants, existing deportation orders and/or ICE detainers qualify as "more" than simply found to be unlawfully present. They are fugitives. ICE accepted 171 of the 174 the sherriff's office detained, under the priority enforcement order, indicating they were most likely convicted felons. It's unknown if the other three had warrants/orders/detainers as the decision incredibly does not explore their status beyond no state charges.

Had Judge Snow intended that Arpaio could only detain based upon state charges, he should have written the injunction that way. He didn't.

 

[churchmouse]

I honestly don't know what you mean. If I found nothing wrong, why wouldn't I let them go?

Dancing my friend. Dancing.

I know what you are saying and I would expect nothing less from you.

You made my point.

 

[hopper68]

A different point of view. By pardoning Joe Arpaio, Trump took away the opportunity of extremist to make a martyr out of him. With him sitting in jail his supporters would have held a rally giving the extremist an opportunity to try to make it their own while looking for trouble. Then extremist on the other side would show up and then another American City would be scarred by violence. Whether intentional or not Trump just may have prevented future violence.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Dancing my friend. Dancing.

I know what you are saying and I would expect nothing less from you.

You made my point.

No, I honestly don't-know-what-you-mean. I'm sure you can be more explicit, so I'd appreciate dispensing with the cloak and dagger routine.

 

[churchmouse]

No, I honestly don't-know-what-you-mean. I'm sure you can be more explicit, so I'd appreciate dispensing with the cloak and dagger routine.

You stop someone. For what ever reason. You find nothing wrong. You bid them a nice day and carry on.

It is the same with your statement the "What If" someone gets caught up in a profile stop. If they are cool then nothing happens. If not, well, you know.
Nothing more than this.

If the system actually worked all that would be needed is a proper drivers license. If you are an illegal you will not have a "Proper" drivers license. 1st red flag. Proceed.
Proper ID.....have a nice day sir/Ma'am.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

So if a few American citizens get caught up in the meantime, that's ok?

I didn't find where this entered into the contempt finding... I believe you are referring the the time before the injunction when Arpaio and company were using their 287g authority to look for illegal aliens who were "only" present unlawfully?

I honestly don't know what you mean. If I found nothing wrong, why wouldn't I let them go?

And if they had a state/federal warrant, deportation order or ICE detainer? What about an FBI "detainer" for a crime witness?

 

[Fargo]

You stop someone. For what ever reason. You find nothing wrong. You bid them a nice day and carry on.

It is the same with your statement the "What If" someone gets caught up in a profile stop. If they are cool then nothing happens. If not, well, you know.
Nothing more than this.

If the system actually worked all that would be needed is a proper drivers license. If you are an illegal you will not have a "Proper" drivers license. 1st red flag. Proceed.
Proper ID.....have a nice day sir/Ma'am.

Whether they are cool or not, something has already happened. They have been forced to submit to official authority, questioned, and their liberty impede upon by the state. That is something that should not be happening without a lawful prior reason.

 

[2A_Tom]

I know I am in the distinct a minority here, but I have believed that Sheriff Joe belonged in prison going back probably well over a decade. I always wondered what it was that he had on the feds ( he is a former federal agent ) that stopped them from going after him over what appeared to be open public corruption.

I still wonder that, since the only folks willing to go after him were the judiciary, even the local US attorney's office bailed as soon as the contempt charges were tendered.

Petty little tyrants deeply in love with their own power should be feared by anyone who loves freedom, not given a pass just because they lean to the right.

I have to say that my support for him is not partisan.

Give me the most progressive Democrat Sherriff, who is for law and order, stiff sentencing at hard labor and deporting illegals and I will back him too.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Whether they are cool or not, something has already happened. They have been forced to submit to official authority, questioned, and their liberty impede upon by the state. That is something that should not be happening without a lawful prior reason.

Right. That's why I think I'm not understanding Church. I wouldn't have gotten caught up in a pre-contextual stop in the first place. If the stop is for a legitimate reason, and during the business of the stop something else comes up, then I'd be obligated to act.

 

[Trigger Time]

So would this charge have prevented him from carrying a gun for the rest of his life?