If someone asked if you would support a law that allowed local police officers with minimal cause, to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens for not providing legal documentation, what would you say? In Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been doing just this for the last three years. This election cycle Arizona voters will be able to say definitively if they will still stand for this behavior.
For those who would support such types of enforcement measures, imagine for a moment the following: you are five months pregnant pulling into your driveway after a long day at work. A Sheriff's Officer pulls up, and without citing you for anything, asks you to sit on the hood of your car. It is hot, you are tired, and you refuse. The officer pulls your arms behind your back and slams you, stomach first, into the vehicle three times. He then drags you his patrol car and holds you in custody indefinitely. You are an American citizen who has just been detained for failure to provide identification.
This actually happened. After three years of investigation and countless second chances, the Justice Department finally issued a lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The suit alleges that his office engaged in a pattern of unconstitutional conduct towards American citizens. This includes racial profiling, abuse in jail and blatant disregard for dispensing his sworn duties to protect and serve the people of Arizona.
Sheriff Joe executes the duties of his office based on his own twisted view of the law and an unquenchable thirst for publicity. In that regard he is more like a despot in a third world country than a democratically elected official in the United States. Outside of this lawsuit he has been accused of misusing federal funds, disregarding human rights in his "tent cities," chasing publicity by waging an investigation into the Presidents birth certificate all while failing to investigate over 400 sex crimes
His excuse for this flamboyant behavior has been his passion for enforcing the law. This zeal has mostly been limited to terrorizing low skilled laborers who may or may not be in the country legally. What the voters of Maricopa County did not know, and the DOJ suit makes very clear, is that in the process of "enforcing the law" his office trampled the rights of countless American citizens. In an election year the real question is, who in Arizona would re-elect a politician with so much political baggage hanging over his head?
To be sure the list of Sheriff Joe's supporters in Arizona politics grows shorter by the day. Russell Pearce the only state Senator in the history of Arizona to ever be recalled is gone. Sheriff Paul Babeu, Arpaio's chief disciple among law enforcement officials is embroiled in a scandal that has crushed his Congressional aspirations, Sheriff Joe's lawyer Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas was recently disbarred in a federal abuse of power investigation. At this point Sheriff Joe stands nearly alone.
While many Maricopa County voters say Sheriff Joe is only doing his job, the contents of the DOJ lawsuit say otherwise. Another American citizen was followed to her home, and cited for having a "non-functioning license plate light." This infraction found her face down on the ground with a knee in her back and handcuffs around her wrist. Who in their right mind can defend such actions, let alone in good conscience continue to vote for an elected official who allows the abuse of pregnant women?
There is a strand in Arizona's political DNA which is fiercely independent, that looks at the federal government with healthy skepticism. That is fine. Sheriff Joe is skilled at playing to that impulse which needs to challenge the Government. No one is arguing that Sheriff Arpaio is not a shrewd politician. The voters in Arizona are good hard working people, they deserve answers. Sheriff Joe must answer for the abuse of a pregnant American citizen and countless others. Arizona voters have one question to ask themselves, what more can Sheriff Arpaio do before they stand up and make a change?
Follow Kristian Ramos on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kramos1841
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Suppose that (your name here) and an illegal both apply for the same job. The illegal gets the job while (your name here) does not even though both are fully capable of doing the job. How would that make you feel?
Criminals have no rights IMHO. They broke the law and are now in prison so they should have their rights taken from them until they get out of prison.
Sheriff Joe takes a tough stance on crime and believes in making the criminals pay for their crimes which is the position that EVERY sheriff in america should take, but sadly most do not so for most criminals prison is like a vacation.
I challenge you to do a year long study on sheriff Joe's prisons and the prisons of one other sheriff in a county similar in population size as Maricopa county in the country. See which prisons have most of the same people coming back in that year. My guess is that Sheriff Joe's prisons will not have near as many repeat offenders due to how he runs the prisons.
The people of Arizona who keep voting in back in with HUGE margins.
The American people who want our immigration laws to FINALLY be enforced.
The US government has done the very hijacking of our system that you accuse Sheriff Joe of which is why Sheriff Joe is being made to be the bad guy.
If the US government would just enforce the immigration laws already on the books then Sheriff Joe wouldn't have as many illegals to deal with nor would any other sheriff in America.
The illegals get free healthcare while the poor US citizens have to do without because they cannot afford it.
Who pays for the illegals? We do with our tax dollars.
If the DOJ would do its job instead of going after Sheriff Joe simply because he is doing what the DOJ refuses to do there would be way less illegals and way less of a crime rate.
All the woman had to do was show her id like she was asked to and she would not have been on the ground.
If a police officer tells you to do something you do it unless you know for a fact that what the police officer asks you to do is illegal.
One would think that these guys need to know a little law before being voted in by their communities to enforce the law.
Preventing violent crime?
Nope:
http://washingtonindependent.com/91520/violent-crime-is-down-in-arizona-up-in-sheriff-joe-arpaios-county
At catching criminals in broad sweeps?
Nope:
http://www.azcentral.com/community/surprise/articles/2010/06/21/20100621joe-arpaio-crime-sweeps.html#ixzz1uUtv9Lgt
At handling sexual assault cases quickly and respectfully?
Nope:
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/joe-arpaio-s-office-says-to-hell-with-the-children/
At gracefully dealing with his detractors?
Nope, he harasses them:
http://newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/486/Disagree-with-Sheriff-Joe-Arpaio-Get-ready-to-have-your-office-searched-be-subject-to-arrest-and-frivolous-vendetta-law-suits.aspx
At upholding the law?
Nope, he claims to be above it:
http://immigrationmexicanamerican.blogspot.com/2010/07/arpaios-goon-squad-continues.html
"Arpaio has said he doesn't need the law to hold his suppression sweeps in Latino neighborhoods"
Protecing people's civil rights?
Nope, he throws those out the window.
"Joe Arpaio on False McDonald's Arrest: Take All Brown People into Custody, Release Citizens Later"
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/03/joe_arpaio_on_false_mcdonalds.php
I suspect that it's his rhetoric and a base that enjoys seeing discrimination, fear mongering, and rhetoric like they'd hear in action movies .....
Also President Obama is a Muslim. A missionary to Africa who visited the church I go to told us that an African soldier told her that Obama is indeed a Muslim.
Y'all people need to wake up. The Muslims have succeeded in getting one of their own into the top government position in America. Does that not alarm you?
How about a geeric description such as "male, 25 to 30, brown and black (eyes and hair color), 6 feet, 190 pounds, wearing jeans and t-shirt" - how many men would be stopped and questioned and how much time wasted without further description?
Want to sue someone for "racial profiling"? Then sue each and every law enforcement agency from the FBI on down to your local police department when they use words like "white - black - hispanic - asian" in their descriptions.
Racial profiling is when I get stopped (and investigated) for blocking the intersection..because I happen to drive a fancy luxury car in a "affluent" neighborhood ..while the cops ignore the car ahead of me (driven by a white person) who abruptly stopped (in that intersection) thereby creating the problem
Racial profiling is when a person is mugged by an assailant (of hispanic, italian or black descent...victim unsure of identity) and the young african-american business executive (who happens to be wearing a business suit) is questioned and ask to provide evidence that he is not the mugger
Now let's say you don't speak any English, or don't have a drivers license or expired tags, then the cop can question your immigration status.
Actually a cop needs NO probable cause to question immigration status, see Muehler vs Mena, a SCOTUS ruling which was UNANIMOUS saying cops can question your status without probable cause. This is why SB 1070 is going to hold up.
Did the victims of the police brutality file charges against the law enforcement officers responsible?
If so, these two complaints should be part of the DOJ investigation.
Does Phoenix have a police department?