Ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio found guilty of criminal contempt

Former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio was found guilty on Monday of criminal contempt for defying a judge's court order to stop traffic patrols that targeted immigrants.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/31/ex-...tempt.html

---

You know trouble is right around the corner when your best friend tells you to hold his beer!!

Good. Lock his racist corrupt self up.

---

Free Sheriff Joe: The True American Hero!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Well, there is such a thing in this country called "the rule of law" and that includes, if a judge issues an order, whether you think the order is reasonable or not, you either obey it or appeal it. You don't get to ignore it.

---

Speaking as someone who lived in Phoenix and knows police officers who work down there, the man is as corrupt as Corrine Brown. All that's missing is the fancy hat.

---

Somebody educate me here, because none of the "news" stories make it clear.

A judge basically told him that he couldn't enforce a law?

He enforced the law anyway because it was part of his job?

Somehow because he enforced a law he is in contempt?

Since when can the judicial branch of government mandate what the executive branch of government does?

A judge can't tell a law enforcement person not to enforce any law.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Somebody educate me here, because none of the "news" stories make it clear.

A judge basically told him that he couldn't enforce a law?

He enforced the law anyway because it was part of his job?

Somehow because he enforced a law he is in contempt?

Since when can the judicial branch of government mandate what the executive branch of government does?

A judge can't tell a law enforcement person not to enforce any law.

 He apparently decided he was going to enforce immigration laws and find illegal immigrants.   He was sweeping up latinos without charge, and turning them over to the border patrol.   Someone brought a class-action racial profiling case and won.   (Seems like a slam dunk case to me.)

He continued to arrest people without charge, and so he went to trial for criminal contempt and got convicted. 

So basically, he lost a civil case, refused to abide by the ruling, and that is a crime. So he was charged with criminal contempt.

As for all of your questions about judicial vs executive branch, we have a system of checks and balances that prevents the executive branch from doing whatever it wants.  The Constitution.  The Sheriff doesn't have unlimited power to do whatever he wants, thank God.

---

Somebody educate me here, because none of the "news" stories make it clear.

A judge basically told him that he couldn't enforce a law?

He enforced the law anyway because it was part of his job?

Somehow because he enforced a law he is in contempt?

Since when can the judicial branch of government mandate what the executive branch of government does?

A judge can't tell a law enforcement person not to enforce any law.

 He apparently decided he was going to enforce immigration laws and find illegal immigrants.   He was sweeping up latinos without charge, and turning them over to the border patrol.   Someone brought a class-action racial profiling case and won.   (Seems like a slam dunk case to me.)

He continued to arrest people without charge, and so he went to trial for criminal contempt and got convicted. 

So basically, he lost a civil case, refused to abide by the ruling, and that is a crime.  So he was charged with criminal contempt.  

As for all of your questions about judicial vs executive branch, we have a system of checks and balances that prevents the executive branch from doing whatever it wants.  The Constitution.  The Sheriff doesn't have unlimited power to do whatever he wants, thank God.

So what you're saying is that a Judge ruled that he could not order his deputies to seek out and detain illegal aliens.  His deputies, under his orders continued to seek out and detain illegal aliens and somehow that's wrong?  After all, was he not enforcing immigration laws?

What am I missing here?

The Sheriff wasn't "doing whatever he wants", he was enforcing the law.  The judicial branch of government can't prevent law enforcement from enforcing "certain laws".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

 He apparently decided he was going to enforce immigration laws and find illegal immigrants.   He was sweeping up latinos without charge, and turning them over to the border patrol.   Someone brought a class-action racial profiling case and won.   (Seems like a slam dunk case to me.)

He continued to arrest people without charge, and so he went to trial for criminal contempt and got convicted. 

So basically, he lost a civil case, refused to abide by the ruling, and that is a crime.  So he was charged with criminal contempt.  

As for all of your questions about judicial vs executive branch, we have a system of checks and balances that prevents the executive branch from doing whatever it wants.  The Constitution.  The Sheriff doesn't have unlimited power to do whatever he wants, thank God.

So what you're saying is that a Judge ruled that he could not order his deputies to seek out and detain illegal aliens.  His deputies, under his orders continued to seek out and detain illegal aliens and somehow that's wrong?  After all, was he not enforcing immigration laws?

What am I missing here?

The Sheriff wasn't "doing whatever he wants", he was enforcing the law.  The judicial branch of government can't prevent law enforcement from enforcing "certain laws".

I don't know how to explain it any better.   Let me try again.  

It was a clear cut case of racial profiling.   He was sweeping up Latinos without charge, and turning them over to the border patrol.   Someone brought a class action lawsuit, and he lost.  

We have a Constitution.  You can't just arrest people because they're brown.  That's what he was doing. 

So the judge rules, he has to stop doing that.   But he ignores the judge and goes on doing it.  That turns it from a civil case into a criminal case.  

You don't seem to understand the Constitution at all.  You say, "The judicial branch of government can't prevent law enforcement from enforcing "certain laws.""   They absolutely can.  The judicial branch can stop the government from doing things.   That's what they are there for.   If you don't like it, you can appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court.   But no matter who you are, you cannot ignore a court order period. 

You act like the Sheriff is the king of the world, and he should be able to do whatever he wants.   No, he cannot.   We have courts, we have judges, we have a CONSTITUTION.   Thank God we do, or else some day some law enforcement person might decide to arrest you without charge, because you fall into some ethnic group or maybe he just thinks you look kind of suspicious.  

You really think the Sheriff should be free to do whatever he wants?  Seriously?  And no one can stop him?

---

So what you're saying is that a Judge ruled that he could not order his deputies to seek out and detain illegal aliens.  His deputies, under his orders continued to seek out and detain illegal aliens and somehow that's wrong?  After all, was he not enforcing immigration laws?

What am I missing here?

The Sheriff wasn't "doing whatever he wants", he was enforcing the law.  The judicial branch of government can't prevent law enforcement from enforcing "certain laws".

I don't know how to explain it any better.   Let me try again.  

It was a clear cut case of racial profiling.   He was sweeping up Latinos without charge, and turning them over to the border patrol.   Someone brought a class action lawsuit, and he lost.  

We have a Constitution.  You can't just arrest people because they're brown.  That's what he was doing. 

So the judge rules, he has to stop doing that.   But he ignores the judge and goes on doing it.  That turns it from a civil case into a criminal case.  

You don't seem to understand the Constitution at all.  You say, "The judicial branch of government can't prevent law enforcement from enforcing "certain laws.""   They absolutely can.  The judicial branch can stop the government from doing things.   That's what they are there for.   If you don't like it, you can appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court.   But no matter who you are, you cannot ignore a court order period. 

You act like the Sheriff is the king of the world, and he should be able to do whatever he wants.   No, he cannot.   We have courts, we have judges, we have a CONSTITUTION.   Thank God we do, or else some day some law enforcement person might decide to arrest you without charge, because you fall into some ethnic group or maybe he just thinks you look kind of suspicious.  

You really think the Sheriff should be free to do whatever he wants?  Seriously?  And no one can stop him?

Was he "sweeping up Latinos" or was he sweeping up illegal aliens?  Arresting without charge?  Were Latinos that are legal U.S. citizens arrested "without charge"?  Latinos arrested that are not U.S. citizens certainly do have a charge against them.  They are illegal aliens.  They broke the law by entering the country illegally so therefor they are not "arrested without charge".  It doesn't matter how they were caught, they still broke the law.

You are wrong regarding the judicial branch.  They cannot rule to prevent the enforcement of existing law.  The most that they can do is rule a law un-constitutional.

That didn't happen in this case.

Put it this way, if a judge ruled that law enforcement officers cannot arrest child sexual predators, would that prohibit law enforcement from doing so?  Under your flawed logic, yes.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I don't know how to explain it any better.   Let me try again.  

It was a clear cut case of racial profiling.   He was sweeping up Latinos without charge, and turning them over to the border patrol.   Someone brought a class action lawsuit, and he lost.  

We have a Constitution.  You can't just arrest people because they're brown.  That's what he was doing. 

So the judge rules, he has to stop doing that.   But he ignores the judge and goes on doing it.  That turns it from a civil case into a criminal case.  

You don't seem to understand the Constitution at all.  You say, "The judicial branch of government can't prevent law enforcement from enforcing "certain laws.""   They absolutely can.  The judicial branch can stop the government from doing things.   That's what they are there for.   If you don't like it, you can appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court.   But no matter who you are, you cannot ignore a court order period. 

You act like the Sheriff is the king of the world, and he should be able to do whatever he wants.   No, he cannot.   We have courts, we have judges, we have a CONSTITUTION.   Thank God we do, or else some day some law enforcement person might decide to arrest you without charge, because you fall into some ethnic group or maybe he just thinks you look kind of suspicious.  

You really think the Sheriff should be free to do whatever he wants?  Seriously?  And no one can stop him?

Was he "sweeping up Latinos" or was he sweeping up illegal aliens?  Arresting without charge?  Were Latinos that are legal U.S. citizens arrested "without charge"?  Latinos arrested that are not U.S. citizens certainly do have a charge against them.  They are illegal aliens.  They broke the law by entering the country illegally so therefor they are not "arrested without charge".  It doesn't matter how they were caught, they still broke the law.

You are wrong regarding the judicial branch.  They cannot rule to prevent the enforcement of existing law.  The most that they can do is rule a law un-constitutional.

That didn't happen in this case.

Put it this way, if a judge ruled that law enforcement officers cannot arrest child sexual predators, would that prohibit law enforcement from doing so?  Under your flawed logic, yes.

I will try one last time. 

I don't think the judge ruled that he couldn't arrest illegal aliens.   I think the judge ruled that he couldn't arrest latinos under suspicion that they were illegal aliens, without having a cause to do so. 

There was a civil case against him for racial profiling.   He lost that case.   So the court ordered him to stop doing things the way he was doing them.  They weren't telling him to stop enforcing the law.   They were saying the way he was enforcing the law was illegal.  

But then he refused to follow the judge's order.  Refusing to follow a court order is a crime.   So then he gets charged and convicted for that crime.  And that's why he's going to jail, pending appeal.

Now, about your question about child sexual predators. If a sheriff decided that most child sexual predators were on the westside of Jacksonville, would that give him the right to search every hard drive on west side Jacksonville for child pornography? Of course not. Any judge would rule, you cannot do that. So a judge has the right to put a stop to illegal acts by the Sheriff. And that's what happened in this case. The judge ruled that Sheriff Arpaio was acting illegally, and told him to stop. A judge does have the right to rule that law enforcement is acting illegally.

You see, your assertion "it doesn't matter how they were caught..." is wrong. If a cop enters your house without a warrant and searches it, that is illegal, and a judge would throw out whatever evidence they found. He wouldn't be "stopping them from enforcing the law." He would be stopping them from acting illegally.

---

Well, there is such a thing in this country called "the rule of law" and that includes, if a judge issues an order, whether you think the order is reasonable or not, you either obey it or appeal it.   You don't get to ignore it.

That's funny. The prior President did exactly that by telling Immigration to ignore their duties under law. Need I go on?

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

I don't know how to explain it any better.   Let me try again.  

It was a clear cut case of racial profiling.   He was sweeping up Latinos without charge, and turning them over to the border patrol.   Someone brought a class action lawsuit, and he lost.  

We have a Constitution.  You can't just arrest people because they're brown.  That's what he was doing. 

So the judge rules, he has to stop doing that.   But he ignores the judge and goes on doing it.  That turns it from a civil case into a criminal case.  

You don't seem to understand the Constitution at all.  You say, "The judicial branch of government can't prevent law enforcement from enforcing "certain laws.""   They absolutely can.  The judicial branch can stop the government from doing things.   That's what they are there for.   If you don't like it, you can appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court.   But no matter who you are, you cannot ignore a court order period. 

You act like the Sheriff is the king of the world, and he should be able to do whatever he wants.   No, he cannot.   We have courts, we have judges, we have a CONSTITUTION.   Thank God we do, or else some day some law enforcement person might decide to arrest you without charge, because you fall into some ethnic group or maybe he just thinks you look kind of suspicious.  

You really think the Sheriff should be free to do whatever he wants?  Seriously?  And no one can stop him?

Was he "sweeping up Latinos" or was he sweeping up illegal aliens?  Arresting without charge?  Were Latinos that are legal U.S. citizens arrested "without charge"?  Latinos arrested that are not U.S. citizens certainly do have a charge against them.  They are illegal aliens.  They broke the law by entering the country illegally so therefor they are not "arrested without charge".  It doesn't matter how they were caught, they still broke the law.

You are wrong regarding the judicial branch.  They cannot rule to prevent the enforcement of existing law.  The most that they can do is rule a law un-constitutional.

That didn't happen in this case.

Put it this way, if a judge ruled that law enforcement officers cannot arrest child sexual predators, would that prohibit law enforcement from doing so?  Under your flawed logic, yes.

Was he "sweeping up Latinos" or was he sweeping up illegal aliens?  Arresting without charge?  Were Latinos that are legal U.S. citizens arrested "without charge"?  Latinos arrested that are not U.S. citizens certainly do have a charge against them.  They are illegal aliens.  They broke the law by entering the country illegally so therefor they are not "arrested without charge".  It doesn't matter how they were caught, they still broke the law.

You are wrong regarding the judicial branch.  They cannot rule to prevent the enforcement of existing law.  The most that they can do is rule a law un-constitutional.

That didn't happen in this case.

Put it this way, if a judge ruled that law enforcement officers cannot arrest child sexual predators, would that prohibit law enforcement from doing so?  Under your flawed logic, yes.

I will try one last time. 

I don't think the judge ruled that he couldn't arrest illegal aliens.   I think the judge ruled that he couldn't arrest latinos under suspicion that they were illegal aliens, without having a cause to do so. 

There was a civil case against him for racial profiling.   He lost that case.   So the court ordered him to stop doing things the way he was doing them.  They weren't telling him to stop enforcing the law.   They were saying the way he was enforcing the law was illegal.  

But then he refused to follow the judge's order.  Refusing to follow a court order is a crime.   So then he gets charged and convicted for that crime.  And that's why he's going to jail, pending appeal.

Now, about your question about child sexual predators.   If a sheriff decided that most child sexual predators were on the westside of Jacksonville, would that give him the right to search every hard drive on west side Jacksonville for child pornography?  Of course not.  Any judge would rule, you cannot do that.  So a judge has the right to put a stop to illegal acts by the Sheriff.  And that's what happened in this case.  The judge ruled that Sheriff Arpaio was acting illegally, and told him to stop.  A judge does have the right to rule that law enforcement is acting illegally.

You see, your assertion "it doesn't matter how they were caught..." is wrong.   If a cop enters your house without a warrant and searches it, that is illegal, and a judge would throw out whatever evidence they found.  He wouldn't be "stopping them from enforcing the law."   He would be stopping them from acting illegally.

He was sweeping up people without probable cause for doing so.  STOPPING AND DETAINING.  People, Latinos and Otherwise, were stopped and detained "Without Charge" which more accurately should be said without probable cause.  The only cause the had was this Sheriff manufacturing his own policy as to what is sufficient, and disregarding the laws most police abide by.  

This assertion that "it does not matter how they were caught" is being willfully oblivious to the policies effect on other people who already are citizens, and the FACT (I cannot believe this has to be explained in 2017) that this County's fundamental policies apply to all individuals.  

He and his deputy have already been found in Civil Contempt.  Now, he himself is a criminal, and like most criminals, his own words were his undoing. 

His actions have already resulted in the County being forced to set up a VICTIM (you may know them as the people he was illegally stopping and detaining, one would think) Compensation fund to reimburse them.  

He was found guilty Court Order to discontinue his own policy of DETAINING people without reason to do so, or a reason he manufactured on his own because of his own improper profiling.

You didn't even need to get into the pretextual other reasons people are stopped, because this fool announced over and over that he wasn't going to follow a Court Order.  His own words were used against him, MORE THAN 20 TIMES,  because he continued to think he could be above the law and choose what to chose to do.


You should consider this pathetic example of a law enforcement tried to sell out his subordinates and pin his Orders on them, or on another point, that the Order of the Court was ambiguous.

As far as the attempt to misdirect the issue of arresting child predators, this has nothing to do with this issue.  It makes no sense in regards to this issue.  But many a time a Court has Ordered the police to discontinue a policy as a violation of the Constitution.  I guess your point is that police should be able to arrest anyone they magically THINK are child predators based on physical characteristics without any evidence, probable cause be damned.  

This criminal had plenty of chances to abide by the Court's lawful Order in this 8 year old case.  He willfully chose to disobey.  I hope he gets a cute pink uniform and serve 60 days or so (with the Court showing a tad bit of mercy he doesn't deserve, instead of the 6 months.)

---