Sheriff Arpaio was shafted for upholding the law. So this is good news that President Trump has pardoned him. Yes, very good news. He (Arpaio) should treat himself and his Wife to a nice steak and a quiet evening. PS Isn't it nice that Trump and Arpaio are bigger news than a monster killer hurricane which is closing in on Texas? Otherwise, we might have missed it.
I don't know about criminal abortions (I thought that was legal everywhere in the USA???). My understanding is that he followed Arizona law regarding illegal immigration. My understanding of the ideals of Christianity is that we could do worse.
I'm not on the right nor an Obama supporter, but I'm thinking "well played" whoever did it. Savvy politics.
The question is a little ambiguous, but I'll assume you are asking how or why a law enforcement officer suspects a person as being an illegal alien. First, he's near the border with Mexico. Lots of Mexicans live there, see, and all Central Americans who sneak in to the USA come from Mexico. Second, migrants look like migrants completely apart from their skin color and physical features. Clothing, luggage/backpacks, and demeanor are giveaways. Third, and you'll really howl at this one, but cops near the border develop a sixth sense for immigration crime, just like urban cops can look at a person on the street and tell whether he is on his way to the office or the gym, versus looking for addicts to sell dope to. Sometimes it's an inarticulable vibe, but they just know in many cases. Have they ever improperly profiled a person who turned out to be a citizen? Obviously, yes. I'm sorry. But law enforcement ain't easy. Try it sometime.
It isn't a strawman. What was Joe convicted of huh? The judge said don't enforce the law. Joe's job is to enforce the law. And Joes actions were lawful
See above in large font: Arpaio was told not to detain anyone whom he had "knowledge" was illegal; he defied this insane order. Good on Trump. Now the left can't say he hasn't done anything.
An American patriot is freed, Trump is unwavering in his commitment to his country, the libs are throwing yet another fit of hysteria and rage.... A great day so far... Praying for Texas.
You are correct. This is why they like to give young lefties "participation trophies". It conditions them to get used to losing.
Joe Arpaio is an American patriot. The America hating libs/progs/ANTIFAS/resist lynch mob - not so much.
He defied a ridiculous direction from the bench in order to uphold the law; pardons were made for situations like this, though the left may prefer $lick Willie'$ parti$an chicanery.
What does it say when even the liberal judges join conservative judges in finding no fault in law enforcement officers disregarding constitutional rights?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/u...-of-rights-by-sheriff-joe-arpaio.html?mcubz=0 Arpaio's racial profiling led to the arrest of CITIZENS of the USA and PERMANENT RESIDENTS of the USA. Cause Arpaio assumed they were illegal simply due to their ethnicity. that's some ****ed up ****.
Racial profiling is not legal. It's telling he got the boot by the same people who voted him into office.
That was a stupid move. Try your projection on someone else. You are silence on this issue though. Telling.
I have a more unorthodox view. I ask myself what is the chance/ opportunity for recidivism? Was this a violent crime? and how much time has the guy done for this offense? Is this possible payback or favoritism? could the cell space be better used? How solid was the courts reasoning for the sentence? Is there a case for early discharge based on simple judicial mercy? Is there evidence of sincere contrition. On some of these basis I find some legitimacy. but this sentence was solid, he is not due to start his formal sentence until October, and there is no contrition and there is plenty of evidence that this is political. So I guess it divides in half. that is not good enough.
Even so, he was not convicted for violation of civil or constitutional rights. Rather he was convicted for contempt of court. This suggests the courts believed the charge of contempt of court carried far more weight of importance than any violation of constitutional rights held by private citizens. What does that say of the courts themselves?