You have a right to not incriminate yourself, from what I am reading Joe wasn't the one on trial. As I understand it, largely from TV, you kinda can't exercise your right to not incriminate yourself if you are testifying about someone else.
Like, I kinda think maybe he couldn't have actually taken the fifth.
Yes, you can take the Fifth when testifying. Part of the reason prosecutors give immunity is because it compels testimony.
Maybe not punishable, but we should at least respond as if he told us fucking leprechauns did it.
That is to say "I don't recall that major thing I did a week ago" should be treated with the same level of screaming disbelief as if you tell someone a magical fucking fairy did it. Saying "I do not recall" is the most shitty way to plead the fifth.
How about just saying "I have nothing to say about that matter".
Did you do X?
"I have nothing to say on that matter."
Maybe not punishable, but we should at least respond as if he told us fucking leprechauns did it.
That is to say "I don't recall that major thing I did a week ago" should be treated with the same level of screaming disbelief as if you tell someone a magical fucking fairy did it. Saying "I do not recall" is the most shitty way to plead the fifth.
How about just saying "I have nothing to say about that matter".
Did you do X?
"I have nothing to say on that matter."
At least you're being honest.
Exactly, it's bullshit and it's manipulation to make people go easy on you.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Now that is a statement I will wholehearted agree with.
My objection is the thoughtcrime like attitude coupled with the authoritarian "It should be illegal!" All kinds of things I hate, dislike and think are harmful to society are not crimes and I don't really think they should be. Something being negative and it being illegal are pretty separate things for me. That lack of that idea is part of what makes Sheriff Joe so popular.
Now that is a statement I will wholehearted agree with.
My objection is the thoughtcrime like attitude coupled with the authoritarian "It should be illegal!" All kinds of things I hate, dislike and think are harmful to society are not crimes and I don't really think they should be. Something being negative and it being illegal are pretty separate things for me. That lack of that idea is part of what makes Sheriff Joe so popular.
Oh yeah, I understand. We can't go all authoritarian because of him. But I'm sure there's a way we can do the good we want without the bad. Sometimes it just means we need to think harder about what creates these situations to begin with.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
You have a right to not incriminate yourself, from what I am reading Joe wasn't the one on trial. As I understand it, largely from TV, you kinda can't exercise your right to not incriminate yourself if you are testifying about someone else.
Like, I kinda think maybe he couldn't have actually taken the fifth.
Well then that makes it even worse! He should know these things and "I forgetted it!" is too convenient of a defense. This is on duty law enforcement stuff is it not? WHY for art there not objective records of this crap?
I didn't quite get that from the new times article, it sounds a lot more like he's claiming he only had very general knowledge of what was going on. And then when confronted with his numerous showboating statements in the press that imply the exact opposite, he claims he was just reading pre-prepared press releases, or someone in the dept had provided quotes for him, or he was just "following orders" from other people.
I think everyone in that room knows he's full of shit, but the article also points out, though it appears to be based on conjecture, that the feds aren't going to touch him anytime soon, at least not until after the 2012 election, so what does he care, he knows nobody in AZ can bring him down.
Shockingly, everyone in that video is old and white.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Everytime I see this thread on the first page I think for a split second "Good, this fucker is finally in Jail".
I am always disappointed.
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
edited December 2011
So apparently if you contract out Sheriff Joe's department to provide police services to your town, they will be tough on crime. Unless that crime is rape or child molestation. At which point they won't bother.
So apparently if you contract out Sheriff Joe's department to provide police services to your town, they will be tough on crime. Unless that crime is rape or child molestation. At which point they won't bother.
I explained that to my wife that the voters Joe appeals to are old white people, and they don't care about sex crimes.
Joe doesn't do any enforcement of crime outside of poor immigration enforcement, there are stories of the countless violent felony warrants rotting in his county.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Sheriff Joe is a symptom of what happens when a city becomes a retirement community. The elderly residents go to war against school, social services and anything that takes their tax dollars and puts it back into the commonweal. Since they have no local ties, the migratory elderly do not care what effect they have on their new neighbors.
As the community withers, they support politicians who play to their fears and hatreds, making things worse for everyone but those inside the gated, sequestered playgrounds for the aged.
Phillishere on
0
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Sheriff Joe is slightly biased against anyone not white?
Never woulda guessed
So they found clear bias, but they aren't going to do anything unless Sheriff Joe doesn't voluntarily do something himself? What a god damn cowardly way of dealing with the situation.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Preacher: I can't see Arpaio doing anything of the sort, so it's just a matter of time before the lawsuit is filed.
Anyone know what the repercussions of losing the suit would be for Arpaio and the MCSO?
No what he'll do is have the appearence of doing something while doing nothing, so then another investigation has to happen, and then another "you better change or we'll do something maybe." and the cycle continues. Its how he's been able to do all this shit and have nothing happen.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Hooray! Man's an asshole and I hope he gets shitcanned fast.
Isn't he an elected sheriff? Good luck with that.
This should pretty much seal the deal for him, though I think he wasn't planning on running for sheriff again anyway. The justice dept. report is about as scathing as it can get. Apparently Latino's were 4-9 times more likely to be subjected to traffic stops in the Phx metro area. It also turns out that MCSO was flat out ignoring sex crimes cases (not clear if it was just latino sex crimes, or sex crimes in general), which is still under investigation, as well as the ongoing abuse of power grand jury investigation over all those "corruption" investigations on anyone who spoke ill of the MCSO.
He'll be very lucky to not end up in the prison the way this is going.
Old white rich people don't end up in prison for fucking over minorities or poor people
Unless he wasted the time of a Mexican billionaire, he's never going to see a cell
It wasn't just minorities and the poor. He still has to answer for the all the missing cash and abuse of credit cards, and the myriad phony investigations on his critics. It's establishing a pattern, and not a very good one. No he won't ever do time unless something really bad surfaces, but I wouldn't be surprised if that happens.
Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre of the MCSO said that “this is targeted strictly by the Obama administration for votes in 2010, that’s the only purpose for it,” according to Hensley.
I can think of better ways and areas of the country for Obama to target to try and get votes in solidly republican districts than to release a report about a sheriff with a long history of being a nozzle.
Posts
Yes, you can take the Fifth when testifying. Part of the reason prosecutors give immunity is because it compels testimony.
That is to say "I don't recall that major thing I did a week ago" should be treated with the same level of screaming disbelief as if you tell someone a magical fucking fairy did it. Saying "I do not recall" is the most shitty way to plead the fifth.
How about just saying "I have nothing to say about that matter".
Did you do X?
"I have nothing to say on that matter."
At least you're being honest.
Exactly, it's bullshit and it's manipulation to make people go easy on you.
My objection is the thoughtcrime like attitude coupled with the authoritarian "It should be illegal!" All kinds of things I hate, dislike and think are harmful to society are not crimes and I don't really think they should be. Something being negative and it being illegal are pretty separate things for me. That lack of that idea is part of what makes Sheriff Joe so popular.
Oh yeah, I understand. We can't go all authoritarian because of him. But I'm sure there's a way we can do the good we want without the bad. Sometimes it just means we need to think harder about what creates these situations to begin with.
I didn't quite get that from the new times article, it sounds a lot more like he's claiming he only had very general knowledge of what was going on. And then when confronted with his numerous showboating statements in the press that imply the exact opposite, he claims he was just reading pre-prepared press releases, or someone in the dept had provided quotes for him, or he was just "following orders" from other people.
I think everyone in that room knows he's full of shit, but the article also points out, though it appears to be based on conjecture, that the feds aren't going to touch him anytime soon, at least not until after the 2012 election, so what does he care, he knows nobody in AZ can bring him down.
"are you invoking your fifth ammendmant right?"
If they say no, then say "Then I advise that you think harder, find the answer and give it."
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/10/28/356099/radical-sheriff-arpaio-has-secret-birther-plan-to-keep-obama-off-2012-ballot/
I am always disappointed.
http://articles.boston.com/2011-12-04/news/30475413_1_child-molestations-crimes-police-officers
$2.7 million buys you some fine police work Lou.
I explained that to my wife that the voters Joe appeals to are old white people, and they don't care about sex crimes.
Joe doesn't do any enforcement of crime outside of poor immigration enforcement, there are stories of the countless violent felony warrants rotting in his county.
pleasepaypreacher.net
As the community withers, they support politicians who play to their fears and hatreds, making things worse for everyone but those inside the gated, sequestered playgrounds for the aged.
Never woulda guessed
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/12/feds-to-announce-results-of-probe-of-arizona-sheriff-arpaio/1
pleasepaypreacher.net
Anyone know what the repercussions of losing the suit would be for Arpaio and the MCSO?
No what he'll do is have the appearence of doing something while doing nothing, so then another investigation has to happen, and then another "you better change or we'll do something maybe." and the cycle continues. Its how he's been able to do all this shit and have nothing happen.
pleasepaypreacher.net
That was fast.
Isn't he an elected sheriff? Good luck with that.
Yep elected by racist white snowbirds, also known as the GOP's base.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This should pretty much seal the deal for him, though I think he wasn't planning on running for sheriff again anyway. The justice dept. report is about as scathing as it can get. Apparently Latino's were 4-9 times more likely to be subjected to traffic stops in the Phx metro area. It also turns out that MCSO was flat out ignoring sex crimes cases (not clear if it was just latino sex crimes, or sex crimes in general), which is still under investigation, as well as the ongoing abuse of power grand jury investigation over all those "corruption" investigations on anyone who spoke ill of the MCSO.
He'll be very lucky to not end up in the prison the way this is going.
Edit: Yahoo posted a pretty decent AP write up: http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-feds-arpaio-violated-civil-rights-164947314.html
Unless he wasted the time of a Mexican billionaire, he's never going to see a cell
pleasepaypreacher.net
It wasn't just minorities and the poor. He still has to answer for the all the missing cash and abuse of credit cards, and the myriad phony investigations on his critics. It's establishing a pattern, and not a very good one. No he won't ever do time unless something really bad surfaces, but I wouldn't be surprised if that happens.
It ain't just snowbirds, they're just the ones that tip the scales. There is a strong conservative base among actual "residents" of Phoenix.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/joe_arpaio_this_is_a_sad_day_for_america.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Since when? I thought that was the DHS's modus operandi.
I agree with Joe: It is a sad day for America.
He's still in office.
Time traveling voters?