SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1503853317

Message started by raydawg on 08/27/17 at 10:01:57

Title: ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Post by raydawg on 08/27/17 at 10:01:57

Let me see if I have this right.....

He was charged with not obeying the federal government, in asking a Hispanic looking person for proof of citizenship, right?
They say you can't do that, and charged him for failing to honor that, right?

Then if another federal law is ignored, and public officials ignore its intent, are they guilty of the same offense at Joe Arpaio ?

Should they be charged too?

If not, why.....?
what mitigating circumstances exist that make it different?

If harboring known law violates, is not a crime, then why have others been charged as accomplices, for not partaking in the actual act of a crime, but by having prior knowledge of it?

Why are officials allowed to forgo their duty of law and prudence to its legal citizenry, for those who are not granted the same considerations/rights?

Here is a definition of sanctuary city:

From Wikipedia
Not to be confused with Cities of Refuge.

In the United States and Canada, a sanctuary city (French: ville sanctuaire, Spanish: ciudad santuario) is a city that limits its cooperation with the national government effort to enforce immigration law. Leaders of sanctuary cities want to reduce the fear of deportation and possible family break-up among people who are in the country illegally so that such people will be more willing to report crimes, use health and social services, and enroll their children in school. Municipal policies include prohibiting police or city employees from questioning people about their immigration status and refusing requests by federal immigration authorities to detain people beyond their release date, if they were jailed for breaking local law.[1] Such policies can be set expressly in law (de jure) or observed in practice (de facto), but the designation "sanctuary city" does not have a precise legal definition. The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates restrictive immigration policies, estimates that about 300 U.S. jurisdictions, including cities, counties and states, have adopted sanctuary policies.[2]

Opponents of sanctuary cities argue that cities should assist the federal government in enforcing immigration law. Supporters of sanctuary cities argue that enforcement of federal law is not the duty of localities.[3] Legal opinions vary on whether immigration enforcement by local police is constitutional.[4] Studies that investigated the relationship between sanctuary status and crime have found that sanctuary policies either have no effect on crime or that sanctuary cities have lower crime rates and stronger economies than comparable non-sanctuary cities.[5][6]

In the United Kingdom and Ireland, sanctuary city refers to cities that are committed to welcoming refugees, asylum seekers and others who are seeking safety. Such cities are now found in 80 towns, cities and local areas in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.[7] The emphasis is on building bridges of connection and understanding, which is done through raising awareness, befriending schemes and forming cultural connections in the arts, sport, health, education, faith groups and other sectors of society.[8] Glasgow, Sheffield and Swansea are noted Cities of Sanctuary.[7][9]

Title: Re: ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/27/17 at 10:18:42

He was Charged with contempt of court.

ruled Monday that former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was guilty of criminal contempt of court.

Title: Re: ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Post by raydawg on 08/27/17 at 11:04:34

253A3C3B2621102010283A367D4F0 wrote:

He was Charged with contempt of court.

ruled Monday that former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was guilty of criminal contempt of court.

Maybe I need to dig a little deeper on this issue.
but let me ask you, could he not of pleaded the 5th, like the Obama folks, and avoided any further scrunity?

Title: Re: ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/27/17 at 11:52:44

He was TOLD
Stop deciding who to ask for proof of citizenship BECAUSE they look like they might not.

He continued.
Judge called that
Contempt.

It IS.
And I hold nothing but contempt for the court, too.

How is it you have such strong opinions about what you clearly don't know much about?

I haven't spent much time on it, but that's what I got from a quick scan of a couple of articles.

Title: Re: ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Post by MnSpring on 08/27/17 at 12:32:34

716E686F72754474447C6E62291B0 wrote:

He was TOLD
Stop deciding who to ask for proof of citizenship BECAUSE they look like they might not. He continued. Judge called that Contempt. It IS.
And I hold nothing but contempt for the court, too. How is it you have such strong opinions about what you clearly don't know much about?
I haven't spent much time on it, but that's what I got from a quick scan of a couple of articles.

SO if,
It Looks like a, Duck,
It walks like a, Duck,
It, Quacks like a, Duck.

The P.C., (Correct thing is)
You can, NOT, call it a DUCK !

‘Profiling’. Such a Nasty thing.
Gotta stop all that Profiling, of ALL, sales people,
selling All sorts of things.
When they, ‘Profile’, the potential Customer.

Title: Re: ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Post by raydawg on 08/27/17 at 17:16:22

3E2127203D3A0B3B0B33212D66540 wrote:

Why do you think my opinions are strong?
If they were, I wouldn't put my "thoughts" out there to be scrunized, for I wouldn't care what others think.

Can you show me where I errored, or gave you that impression in this post?
I posted this as a question, and extended it under my lack of knowing all the dope on this episode.

Title: Re: ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Post by Eegore on 08/28/17 at 06:07:35

I'm not sure what the OP's question is.

He violated a court order, was prosecuted and sentenced.

The President pardoned him.

So should others who are in contempt of court be prosecuted/sentenced? Yes, just like Arpaio was.