Mexican Drug Cartel Allegedly Puts a Price on Arizona Sheriff's Head

[American Nationalist]

$1M offered for Arpaio, $1K to join cartel

Updated: Thursday, 29 Jul 2010, 6:48 PM MDT
Published : Thursday, 29 Jul 2010, 6:48 PM MDT

PHOENIX - He's been at the center of the discussions and controversies surrounding illegal immigration enforcement in Arizona for quite a while.

On the day parts of Arizona's immigration law, SB 1070, went into effect, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is in the news for another reason: there's a price on his head - allegedly offered by a Mexican drug cartel.

The audio message in Spanish is a bit garbled, but the text is clear.

"It's offering a million dollars for Sheriff Joe Arpaio's head and offering a thousand dollars for anyone who wants to join the Mexican cartel."

A man who wants to remain anonymous says his wife received the text message Tuesday evening. It also included an international phone number and instructions to pass the message along.

"She showed it to me..I was kind of disgusted..I reported it to the Sheriff's department yesterday..they said they were going to direct the threat squad on it."

Lisa Allen of the Sheriff's office says they believe the message originated in Mexico.

Although the Sheriff has received numerous death threats in the past, they believe this threat is credible because of its timing.

"Arpaio gets threats pretty routinely, but obviously with this heightened awareness of his role in the immigration issue we've got to take this one a little bit more seriously with a million dollar contract out on him," said Allen.

But she says what really concerns investigators is how quickly the message may have been spread. "It's going so many different places that our folks are looking at it and thinking well at any given point in time it could land in front of some crazy person who thinks I can do that."

As for Arpaio's reaction to the threat, "It's a little bit like water off a duck's back for him, but you never know if it's that sense of false bravado with him..you just can't read it, I'm sure he's concerned, I'm sure he's concerned for his family more than anything else," said Allen.

The Sheriff's office says investigators are trying to trace exactly where the text message came from, but because it did originate from an international number, that will be difficult too.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/immigration/mexican-drug-cartel-sheriff-arpaio-07292010
Guess he is doing his job right:cool:

[ammorris]

It would probably be inappropriate to say that I hope they get him.

[TheConstitutionLives]

Ahh.... the "War on Drugs". The feds could end all this madness overnight if they'd end the drug war. Oh well.

[james1906]

and offering a thousand dollars for anyone who wants to join the Mexican cartel."



I'm glad somebody's hiring in this economy.

[Dr.3D]

It would probably be inappropriate to say that I hope they get him.

Yes, it probably would. I can't for the life of me figure out why somebody would hope the bad guys kill a good guy.

[low preference guy]

Yes, it probably would. I can't for the life of me figure out why somebody would hope the bad guys kill a good guy.

Who is the good guy? The guy who kills and jails people for holding plants? Or the guy who wants to corrupt state officials? I can't see a good guy among those two.

[Dr.3D]

Who is the good guy? The guy who kills and jails people for holding plants? Or the guy who wants to corrupt state officials? I can't see a good guy among those two.

Then wouldn't you hope they kill each other?

[low preference guy]

Then wouldn't you hope they kill each other?

I'm not hoping anybody kills anybody. I just want to figure out who is the good guy.

[American Nationalist]

It would probably be inappropriate to say that I hope they get him.

Yes, it would. If the Federal Government did their job and secured the border, Sheriff Arpaio wouldn't have so much on his plate.

[low preference guy]

Yes, it would. If the Federal Government did their job and secured the border, Sheriff Arpaio wouldn't have so much on his plate.

I don't think there was a border problem in the 1920's, and prohibition still wrought havoc during that time.

[Dr.3D]

I'm not hoping anybody kills anybody. I just want to figure out who is the good guy.

Well, that is an interesting observation.

Let's look at the prohibition and observe Al Capone vs. those who were after him.
Would we call Al Capone a bad guy? I think we would, considering he was pretty ruthless. Would we call those who were after him bad guys? Well, they were trying to uphold the current law at the time, so, myself I would have to call them the good guys, even if the law they were trying to uphold was wrong.

[American Nationalist]

I don't think there was a border problem in the 1920's, and prohibition still wrought havoc during that time.

No there wasn't, then again, at that time, we had no social services, and the low earner jobs were still done by White Immigrants.

But the problem is, we have a border problem now, and it needs to be solved.

[low preference guy]

Well, that is an interesting observation.

Let's look at the prohibition and observe Al Capone vs. those who were after him.
Would we call Al Capone a bad guy? I think we would, considering he was pretty ruthless. Would we call those who were after him bad guys? Well, they were trying to uphold the current law at the time, so, myself I would have to call them the good guys, even if the law they were trying to uphold was wrong.

So when people were enforcing the Fugitive Slaves Act in the 19th century, you'd call the people who captured the slaves the good guys? They were trying to uphold the current law at the time.

[low preference guy]

No there wasn't, then again, at that time, we had no social services, and the low earner jobs were still done by White Immigrants.

But the problem is, we have a border problem now, and it needs to be solved.

I have the belief that whatever policy and resources you put in the border, you'll still have gangs putting prices on sherrifs' heads as long as you keep prohibition.

[American Nationalist]

Well, that is an interesting observation.

Let's look at the prohibition and observe Al Capone vs. those who were after him.
Would we call Al Capone a bad guy? I think we would, considering he was pretty ruthless. Would we call those who were after him bad guys? Well, they were trying to uphold the current law at the time, so, myself I would have to call them the good guys, even if the law they were trying to uphold was wrong.

Yes, I would say Al Capone was a bad guy, no question. How could anyone suggest otherwise? He was a mobster, first and foremost, and would have found another racket if not alcohol.

But I wouldn't say he is as bad as the mexican heroine and meth dealers we have to deal with today. I say this because their crime ring is far more extensive and heroine and meth are far more damaging than alcohol.

[Dr.3D]

So when people were enforcing the Fugitive Slaves Act in the 19th century, you'd call the people who captured the slaves the good guys? They were trying to uphold the current law at the time.

If you don't like the law, you fight to change it.... but you don't call those who are enforcing it the bad guys. They were doing what the law said they should do.

[low preference guy]

Yes, I would say Al Capone was a bad guy, no question. How could anyone suggest otherwise? He was a mobster, first and foremost, and would have found another racket if not alcohol.

What racket? If it wasn't for the government making beer, prostitution, and other non-crimes illegal, there wouldn't be any racket available. Well, maybe kidnapping.

[low preference guy]

If you don't like the law, you fight to change it.... but you don't call those who are enforcing it the bad guys. They were doing what the law said they should do.

Nonsense. If the law is unjust, it's immoral to comply with it when it punishes innocent people. Under your argument, killers in Nazi Germany who said they were "just following orders" would be "good guys".

[Dr.3D]

Nonsense. If the law is unjust, it's immoral to comply with it when it punishes innocent people. Under your argument, killers in Nazi Germany who said they were "just following orders" would be "good guys".

Have it your way...

[American Nationalist]

I have the belief that whatever policy and resources you put in the border, you'll still have gangs putting prices on sherrifs' heads as long as you keep prohibition.

They legalized all drugs in certain quantities in Mexico, and the cartels still are waging war on the Federales, and have an effective monopoly on all hard drugs. and they are killing at the same rate as before. And these Gangs aren't just involved in drug smuggling, they are involved in human smuggling as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/world/americas/21mexico.html

[American Nationalist]

What racket? If it wasn't for the government making beer, prostitution, and other non-crimes illegal, there wouldn't be any racket available. Well, maybe kidnapping.

weapons smuggling, construction, warehouses.

[low preference guy]

weapons smuggling, construction, warehouses.

What about the Second amendment? Weapons smuggling shouldn't be a crime.

Warehouses illegal? For storing what?

[low preference guy]

They legalized all drugs in certain quantities in Mexico, and the cartels still are waging war on the Federales, and have an effective monopoly on all hard drugs. and they are killing at the same rate as before. And these Gangs aren't just involved in drug smuggling, they are involved in human smuggling as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/world/americas/21mexico.html

Duh. If the production of all drugs isn't legal, the cartels will have a violent hold on the trade of the drugs that remain illegal. To get rid of cartels you have to get rid of every drug prohibition.

[American Nationalist]

Duh. If the production of all drugs isn't legal, the cartels will have a violent hold on the trade of the drugs that remain illegal. To get rid of cartels you have to get rid of every drug prohibition.

Who in mexico has enough to get into the cocaine and heroine business an compete with the drug cartel monopoly, or charge at a lower price? What is going to stop the Cartels from turning their guns on a possible emerging competitor if it gets to that point? Same in America, who is going to produce enough cocaine and heroine and dispense it into the general population(At a lower price) to break the Latin American monopolies? Your argument with pot makes sense, since their is no effective monopoly and many people grow at home, or get it from clinics. I support legalizing marijuana, but oppose legalizing hard drugs and letting the cartels reign free and fuck up people's lives.

[American Nationalist]

What about the Second amendment? Weapons smuggling shouldn't be a crime.

Warehouses illegal? For storing what?

True.

But warehouses don't have to store illegal stuff, mobs have still historically run them.

[cindy25]

I'm surprised they didn't do it before this; unfortunately this would just make the Sheriff a martyr.
and give the fascists more excuses

[American Nationalist]

I'm surprised they didn't do it before this; unfortunately this would just make the Sheriff a martyr.
and give the fascists more excuses

I am glad they are making him a martyr. It shows the drug cartels are on the same side as the open border socialists.

[low preference guy]

I am glad they are making him a martyr. It shows the drug cartels are on the same side as the open border socialists.

I'm not an open border person, but if I had to pick sides, I'd be with the drug cartels over the puritan prohibitionists.

Telling people what they can and cannot put in their bodies? What a joke. And many times these drug cartels have to take arms in self-defense, if they don't, the police will not protect their plantations, their private property. More than that, they will destroy them even if they have no evidence the owner harmed anyone.

[t0rnado]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maricopa_County_Sheriff%27s_Office_controversies#I nmate_deaths_and_injuries

[American Nationalist]

I'm not an open border person, but if I had to pick sides, I'd be with the drug cartels over the puritan prohibitionists.

Telling people what they can and cannot put in their bodies? What a joke. And many times these drug cartels have to take arms in self-defense, if they don't, the police will not protect their plantations, their private property. More than that, they will destroy them even if they have no evidence the owner harmed anyone.

I don't consider banning black tar heroine puritanical, I am incredibly socially liberal. I support abortion, gay marriage, marijuana legalization, and legalized prostitution among other things. But if that is the way you are going to phrase it, than call me John Winthrop, because I support securing the border and killing and or locking up everyone of these guys.

I don't think it is a joke, these drugs destroy lives, and destroy the quality of life of people around them. Not to mention, all these cokeheads will end up on the welfare rolls.

I would hope the police don't protect private drug plantations, they should be raiding them.

[low preference guy]

I would hope the police don't protect private drug plantations, they should be raiding them.

Sure. They should also control your diet to make sure you don't eat too much sugar.

And they also should control what you read. Because your philosophy of life has much more impact on your overall life than doing one of even the hardcore drugs.

ETA: Are you aware Ron Paul wants to legalize all drugs? Not that it makes it the right position, just wondering if you are aware.

[American Nationalist]

Sure. They should also control your diet to make sure you don't eat too much sugar.

And they also should control what you read. Because your philosophy of life has much more impact on your overall life than doing one of even the hardcore drugs.

ETA: Are you aware Ron Paul wants to legalize all drugs? Not that it makes it the right position, just wondering if you are aware.
That would be absurd, you can't OD on sugar, not lethal or damaging when taken in regular amounts, where as heroin is.

I doubt that, it is much harder to overcome a drug addiction than to change your religious or political views, I have changed both my political and religious views.

He wants to get rid of all federal laws, he doesn't oppose state legislation. but yes, I am aware of his position, and i don't support it fully. But I doubt it would be a priority of his to legalize heroin.

[low preference guy]

But I doubt it would be a priority of his to legalize heroin.

Except that he would pardon all non violent drug offenders (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=85475) if he gets the chance.

[American Nationalist]

Except that he would pardon all non violent drug offenders (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=85475) if he gets the chance.

Can you provide me a link? And if I accept your claim, he still never said anything about releasing violent drug offenders, that is those with a criminal record of violence.

[low preference guy]

Can you provide me a link? And if I accept your claim, he still never said anything about releasing violent drug offenders, that is those with a criminal record of violence.

I provided a link. Click in the blue part. And the point about violent drug offenders is irrelevant because I argued for the legalization of drugs, not violent drug offenders. What does that have to do with anything?

[low preference guy]

in case you didn't see my link (in blue, three posts above):

YouTube - Ron Paul's Shocking Statements On CNN (Pt.1of2)1-10-08 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7FwULXnM_E&)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I want to live in the free society that does not regulate what you can or can not put into your body.

I want to live a free community where people do not want to initiate violence against people producing or consuming cocaine that do not harm anyone.

I want the freedom to do a line if that is what I want to do.

In my ideal free community where cocaine is condoned the market will eventually come up with solutions to reduce the physical effects of withdraw and addiction.

In my ideal free community where cocaine is condoned if I wanted to do a line I would be able to patron the establishment of a cocaine expert who would be interested in my general welfare as a customer. I would be able to do a line just for shits and grins to try it and then pop a pill the next day to offset addiction.

My ideal community has extremely smart scientists to produce high quality cocaine and pharmaceutical products to offset withdraw. My ideal community has extremely smart doctors and a market that can come up with market based solutions to reduce the risks of overdose. My ideal community has world renowned educational institutional institutions to educate people in these highly skilled science and medical professions.

My ideal community might have a Wal Mart with a cocaine shop and a medical facility in addition to the McDonalds and community bank.

[American Nationalist]

I provided a link. Click in the blue part. And the point about violent drug offenders is irrelevant because I argued for the legalization of drugs, not violent drug offenders. What does that have to do with anything?

What that provided was a link to a thread, and the OP in that thread included no link. So please, it should be easy, provide me a link.

The point is, even if we except your premise(which you have yet to prove), Ron Paul wouldn't pardon all drug offenders, he would still keep them locked up if they had a violent criminal history.

[low preference guy]

The point is, even if we except your premise(which you have yet to prove), Ron Paul wouldn't pardon all drug offenders, he would still keep them locked up if they had a violent criminal history.

Which is exactly what I said. See:



Except that he would pardon all non violent drug offenders (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=85475) if he gets the chance.

You're still trying to make me argue for positions I never took. What's wrong with you?

[American Nationalist]

Which is exactly what I said. See:




You're still trying to make me argue for positions I never took. What's wrong with you?

When did I attribute that position to you? Please, give me the post number.

And why do you get so mad when I say he won't release all drug offenders?

[low preference guy]

And why do you get so mad when I say he won't release all drug offenders?

Because that's so obvious that I don't see why you would say it. The only thing that occurs to me is that you might believe I said that, which I never did.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I left out a few things...

My ideal community would also have extremely smart technology people engineering some brilliant technology to perform real time drug testing in the work place.

In addition to all of the brilliant scientists, medical professionals, and world renowned educational institutions, this ideal community is going to manufacture hi tech gadgets because nobody wants to employ someone who shows up to work under the influence of anything.

My ideal community is going to have a whole lot of smart people, technology, engineering, and manufacturing the prohibitionist communities do not have. My ideal community is going to have much higher standards of living than prohibitionist communities due to all of the additional wealth being created through capitalism.

[American Nationalist]

Because that's so obvious that I don't see why you would say it. The only thing that occurs to me is that you might believe I said that, which I never did.
What is so obvious?

[low preference guy]

What is so obvious?

I don't think I can have a conversation with you if you can't keep in mind the context of a conversation. What was the post I quoted in my answer? Here:



And why do you get so mad when I say he won't release all drug offenders?

[johngr]

Ahh.... the "War on Drugs". The feds could end all this madness overnight if they'd end the drug war. Oh well.

Yeah, I'm sure the thugs wouldn't ever consider changing industries like protection/extortion rackets, white slavery, etc.

[low preference guy]

Yeah, I'm sure the thugs wouldn't ever consider changing industries like protection/extortion rackets, white slavery, etc.

Ending alcohol prohibition did reduce crime a lot. The same thing will happen again.

[johngr]

What that provided was a link to a thread, and the OP in that thread included no link. So please, it should be easy, provide me a link.

The point is, even if we except your premise(which you have yet to prove), Ron Paul wouldn't pardon all drug offenders, he would still keep them locked up if they had a violent criminal history.

My parsing of when Ron Paul said, he would pardon "non-violent drug offenders" in his speech in Philadelphia was that "non-violent" referred to the crime they were serving time for, not the offenders themselves. I shouldn't think Dr. Paul would be so illogical as to hold that a violent criminal history, provided one has already paid the penalty for such crimes, is a justification for locking someone up for a non-violent, victimless crime.

[johngr]

Ending alcohol prohibition did reduce crime a lot. The same thing will happen again.

If you had said, "reduce the level of this madness" I wouldn't have taken issue with your statement.

[low preference guy]

If you had said, "reduce the level of this madness" I wouldn't have taken issue with your statement.

It wasn't my statement. But I agree with the guy who made it. There probably wouldn't be people putting a price on the head of American Sheriffs by Mexican drug gangs.

[YumYum]

I'm glad somebody's hiring in this economy.

lol!!!

[constituent]

So when people were enforcing the Fugitive Slaves Act in the 19th century, you'd call the people who captured the slaves the good guys? They were trying to uphold the current law at the time.

Yes, yes he would... until the laws were changed.

It's call the "rule of law" lpg. It outweighs all other concerns.

[low preference guy]

Yes, yes he would... until the laws were changed.

It's call the "rule of law" lpg. It outweighs all other concerns.

Lol.

The rule of law for me means mostly "don't kill" and "don't steal".

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Is there any reason Congress could cut not a letter of marque or reprisal with a large bounty on the specific individuals who issued this bounty?

[tjeffersonsghost]

WOW!

Some of you are quick to call for this guys head because of the drug issue you forget about the people whos property is being used to do all of the smuggling and human trafficing. Do their property rights not matter? It is the property owners complaining to the sheriff about these things, do their rights or feelings not matter?

Put yourself in the shoes of a property owner who cant even go on his own land in fear of being shot by human or drug smugglers. The Federal Government wont do anything about this and if they did we wouldnt even be having this discussion.

[Dr.3D]

WOW!

Some of you are quick to call for this guys head because of the drug issue you forget about the people whos property is being used to do all of the smuggling and human trafficing. Do their property rights not matter? It is the property owners complaining to the sheriff about these things, do their rights or feelings not matter?

Put yourself in the shoes of a property owner who cant even go on his own land in fear of being shot by human or drug smugglers. The Federal Government wont do anything about this and if they did we wouldnt even be having this discussion.

Well, some like to play the outlaw when they feel a law is unjust, rather than go about the proper way to change the law.

[jmdrake]

So when people were enforcing the Fugitive Slaves Act in the 19th century, you'd call the people who captured the slaves the good guys? They were trying to uphold the current law at the time.

Apples and orangutans. Those who were trying to help slaves escape were trying to help people. Those who are trying to smuggle drugs are merely trying to make a profit. They don't look at it as some "righteous crusade to get pot to the cancer victims who need it". Conductors on the underground railroad did it for free because they thought they were doing a great service to mankind. You never heard of conductors on the underground railroads having gun battles with each other to secure territory. In fact many were Quakers who were pacifists and wouldn't kill anyone.

[low preference guy]

Apples and orangutans. Those who were trying to help slaves escape were trying to help people. Those who are trying to smuggle drugs are merely trying to make a profit. They don't look at it as some "righteous crusade to get pot to the cancer victims who need it". Conductors on the underground railroad did it for free because they thought they were doing a great service to mankind. You never heard of conductors on the underground railroads having gun battles with each other to secure territory. In fact many were Quakers who were pacifists and wouldn't kill anyone.

so jmdrake is another puritan prohibitionist. i'm shocked.

[jmdrake]

so jmdrake is another puritan prohibitionist. i'm shocked.

Because I think there is an obvious difference between guys with machine guns mowing down people in the street over profit and some unarmed Quaker helping to point an escaped slave to freedom I'm a "puritan prohibitionist"? :rolleyes:

Let me coin another phrase for you. It's called RPF madness. I see it all the time. I may have been a victim of it, but I try not to be. It's when someone says something that goes against your argument and so you automatically assume he's against everything you are pushing. The war on drugs is a farce. But that doesn't make some greedy thug willing to kill his own people to make a few slimy bucks in the drug trade a hero. There just is no logical comparison between those who used civil disobedience in order to help slaved get to freedom and some drug cartel scum in the trade merely for profit and who is willing to murder innocent bystanders in order to murder police officers who are upholding the law.

The fact is, your analogy sucked. It just did. Does that mean the WOD is a good thing? Of course not. You just used a bad analogy. Get over it. You want sympathy for your argument? Instead of arguing on behalf of some drug lord taking out hits on his competition and on those in government who would stand against him, post a story about someone growing pot in their back yard and giving it away or selling it at cost, and never using violence to protect or advance what he was doing. That would be closer to the "fugitive slave law" example.

[John Taylor]

It would probably be inappropriate to say that I hope they get him.

Sheriff Arpaio is doing a great job here in Maricopa County. You're damned right it would be inappropriate.

[John Taylor]

Repeal bad laws, release non-violent drug offenders, and limit jurisdiction.

[AmericaFyeah92]

Arpaio=fascist, statist, redneck

AT least the Cartels are offering a product people actually want, rather thank pink underwear :rolleyes:

[FrankRep]

Arpaio=fascist, statist, redneck

AT least the Cartels are offering a product people actually want, rather thank pink underwear :rolleyes:

You're siding with the violent Mexican Drug Cartels?

:mad:

[American Nationalist]

I don't think I can have a conversation with you if you can't keep in mind the context of a conversation. What was the post I quoted in my answer? Here:

But what won't he do?

[osan]

It would probably be inappropriate to say that I hope they get him.

Well, you hold the right to say what you want. That you'd want to say this pretty well nails the conclusion that there is something hopelessly wrong with you.

You must be so proud.

[constituent]

The whole idea that they'd have to put a price on his head is absurd.

If the cartels wanted him dead, he'd be dead. :)

Truth is, no one important enough really gives a s* about Joe Arpaio.

[low preference guy]

Because I think there is an obvious difference between guys with machine guns mowing down people in the street over profit and some unarmed Quaker helping to point an escaped slave to freedom I'm a "puritan prohibitionist"? :rolleyes:

Let me coin another phrase for you. It's called RPF madness. I see it all the time. I may have been a victim of it, but I try not to be. It's when someone says something that goes against your argument and so you automatically assume he's against everything you are pushing. The war on drugs is a farce. But that doesn't make some greedy thug willing to kill his own people to make a few slimy bucks in the drug trade a hero. There just is no logical comparison between those who used civil disobedience in order to help slaved get to freedom and some drug cartel scum in the trade merely for profit and who is willing to murder innocent bystanders in order to murder police officers who are upholding the law.

The fact is, your analogy sucked. It just did. Does that mean the WOD is a good thing? Of course not. You just used a bad analogy. Get over it. You want sympathy for your argument? Instead of arguing on behalf of some drug lord taking out hits on his competition and on those in government who would stand against him, post a story about someone growing pot in their back yard and giving it away or selling it at cost, and never using violence to protect or advance what he was doing. That would be closer to the "fugitive slave law" example.

shorter version: jmdrake doesn't approach issues from a principled position. it's all a matter of degrees for him. he wouldn't mind if no income tax is replaced with 0.1 income tax. no biggie.

[jmdrake]

shorter version: jmdrake doesn't approach issues from a principled position. it's all a matter of degrees for him. he wouldn't mind if no income tax is replaced with 0.1 income tax. no biggie.

I don't think it's principled to equate murdering thugs with Quakers. I think it's stupid. I don't think the profit mongers who are willing to gun down innocents in their battle for turf deserve my sympathy or yours for that matter. The problem isn't that I don't have principles. It's that you've put forward an unprincipled argument. If those running the underground railroad were had been doing it for profit and gunning down innocent third and even their own clients, then they should have been reigned in too.

Or since you like "short answers", here's one for you:

"Low preference guy put forward a tortured argument with which no principled person could agree".

[AmericaFyeah92]

You're siding with the violent Mexican Drug Cartels?

:mad:

Against Arpaio? Any day. He's a corrupt, authoritarian, ignorant bully.

The SS was filled with men like him, people who just LOVE trampling on the weakest, most helpless members of society, whom they dehumanize and view as scum.

[xd9fan]

careful ammoris and other "free thinking" ronpaulers........if you are on the wrong side of this one ..if you dont think we as a nation do not have a right to protect our border.....you will lose support en mass.

[Zippyjuan]

Joe is doing OK it seems. Local paper questioned about how somebody on his salary could invest ten times that amount in real estate. Sherriff Joe asked his records sealed and brought legal action against the paper for publishing public information and even had them arrested.
http://mediacrit.wetpaint.com/page/The+Phoenix+New+Times+and+Sheriff+Joe+Arpaio

The Phoenix New Times and Sheriff Joe Arpaio


by Ashleigh Crowther, posted October 30, 2007

Jim Larkin and Michael Lacey, October 18, 2007. Photo: Giulio Sciorio, copyright Village Voice Media LLC, 2007.


Getting arrested for voicing an opinion is probably the most flak a journalist can get. That’s what happened to Jim Larkin and Michael Lacey, owners of Village Voice Media LLC and the Phoenix New Times, on October 18 in Phoenix, Arizona. The trouble began more than 3 years ago.

On July 8, 2004, Phoenix New Times columnist John Dougherty and reporter Paul Rubin published an article questioning the local sheriff’s ability to own expensive land parcels throughout the county. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, who makes about $78,000 per year from his sheriff’s salary, had managed to invest $790,000 cash in real estate between 1995 and 2004. Dougherty questioned how Arpaio could have afforded these purchases, and commented that Arpaio had suspiciously requested that the County Recorder’s office seal his records from public view, invoking a state law that allows sheriffs to hide their personal information from the public. (Other citizens’ information about their personal real estate investments is publicly accessible.) Dougherty published Arpaio’s home address at the end of the article, which gave Arpaio legal grounds to pursue Dougherty and the Phoenix New Times.

Sheriff Joseph “Joe” Arpaio is used to being criticized by the Phoenix New Times. Since becoming Sheriff in 1993, Arpaio has become known for his harsh, unorthodox methods for treating prison inmates. The Phoenix New Times has been keeping an eye on Arpaio, maintaining a special archive devoted to stories about Arpaio on its website.

When a media outlet receives negative feedback, it is referred to as “flak,” a concept articulated by Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent. Arpaio hit the Phoenix New Times with flak after Dougherty’s violation of Section 13-2401 provided grounds for legal action. Arpaio filed a lawsuit claiming that the Phoenix New Times had violated Section 13-2401 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, which makes it a felony to publish a sheriff’s personal information on the internet. An August 24 grand jury subpoena to the Phoenix New Times demanded "all documents related to articles and other content published by Phoenix New Times newspaper in print and on the Phoenix New Times website, regarding Sheriff Joe Arpaio from January 1, 2004 to the present." The subpoena went even further to request information about all visitors to the Phoenix New Times website since January 1, 2004, including which websites they had visited prior to the newsweekly’s.

Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin were outraged by the subpoena’s invasion of readers’ privacy, and they decided to take action. The October 18 issue of the Phoenix New Times hit newsstands with a cover story written by Larkin and Lacey titled "Breathtaking Abuse of the Constitution." It gave readers a detailed overview of the lawsuit, alleged that the prosecuting attorney Dennis Wilenchik had been violating codes of courtroom conduct by requesting special meetings with the judge, and informed readers that the court had requested online visitors’ personal information. The online version of the article included a full copy of the subpoena, which readers could access by clicking on a link within the article.

Police officers arrived at Lacey’s and Larkin’s homes that night to arrest them for revealing grand jury secrets, which is a misdemeanor. According to Richard Karpel, Executive Director of the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies (of which the Phoenix New Times is a member,) the arrest came as a surprise. “I can’t imagine they thought in their wildest dreams that they’d get arrested,” he commented in a phone interview. However, Lacey did not seem phased when he emerged from jail at 4am the next morning and spoke to a group of waiting reporters. "We're being arrested for raising hell,” he commented to Stephen Lemons, a Phoenix New Times columnist. Phoenix New Times editor Rick Barrs, who was also present, remarked to a reporter from the Arizona Republic, "They're trying to muzzle us… This is retaliation against us. And it's not just retaliation against us, it's retaliation against the press." Barr’s assertion that the arrest was meant to intimidate news outlets relates directly to Chomsky’s concept of flak, since flak may be used to deter the media from reporting on issues that are unflattering to interest groups (in this case, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.)


more at link

More recent case:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/09/arizona.tough.sheriff/index.html


Arizona sheriff under investigation for alleged abuse of power
By Chuck Conder, CNNJuly 9, 2010 7:03 p.m. EDT

Phoenix, Arizona (CNN) -- Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio calls himself "America's toughest sheriff." He is famous for creating a tent city jail in the Arizona desert; for providing pink underwear for inmates; for bragging that he spends more to feed his dog than a prisoner in his jail.

This year he has made national headlines for his tough enforcement of Arizona's anti-illegal immigration laws and for his vocal support for a controversial new immigration law that takes effect at the end of July.

But the 77-year-old lawman is himself the subject of serious allegations of abuse of power. Arpaio's critics say he has a long history of launching bogus criminal investigations against political opponents and anyone else who gets in his way.


Arpaio has launched -- either on his own or in conjunction with the county attorney -- high-profile criminal investigations against a who's who of Maricopa County politicians and officials. The list includes the mayor of Phoenix, a former police chief, two members of the board of supervisors, Superior Court judges, and even a former state attorney general.

The charges have included public corruption, misuse of taxpayers' dollars, bribery, rape and even child molestation. What all these investigations hold in common is that they were launched with great public fanfare, but rarely resulted in convictions. Among the investigations recounted in this report, the only conviction has been on the misdemeanor charge against Dowling.


He sent in a SWAT team to arrest an unarmed school official at her home he claimed had been stealing money. No money was missing. The civil rights/ police abuse people would be seriously up in arms over that raid.

[Aratus]

sheriff arpaio is someone at least half the california TEA PARTY EXPRESS people would support
until doomsday, and for the cartel to once again put a price like 1/4 or 1/2 or 3/4 of a million
or the million dollar amount once again, this is brazen. this lamentable development has
people now supporting the governor of arizona even more fiercely and stubbornly.

[Lord Xar]

I have to laugh at these anarcho libertarians, or more apt - marxist libs.

Hey knuckleheads, Gunny needs money for his campagin - pony up you friggin wannabe's.

Damn jerkoffs are just another wedge in the liberty movement.

[Kregisen]

Well, that is an interesting observation.

Let's look at the prohibition and observe Al Capone vs. those who were after him.
Would we call Al Capone a bad guy? I think we would, considering he was pretty ruthless. Would we call those who were after him bad guys? Well, they were trying to uphold the current law at the time, so, myself I would have to call them the good guys, even if the law they were trying to uphold was wrong.

Sheriff Joe said on freedom watch he would enforce a law even if he knew it was unconstitional.

He lost all respect from me after that.

YouTube - Sheriff Richard Mack vs. Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Freedom Watch 06/26/10 p.5/7 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq7WYuKebj0)

at 3:45 mark

[WaltM]

You're siding with the violent Mexican Drug Cartels?

:mad:

do u side with peaceful Mexican cartels? Or violent American cartels?

[low preference guy]

You're siding with the violent Mexican Drug Cartels?

:mad:

What the fuck are you talking about? It's the people in government who side with the Mexican cartel! They made it possible! They could cut all their source of income immediately simply by legalizing all drugs. And they shouldn't be illegal anyway, as governments have no business telling people what they can and cannot put in their bodies. Yet they let the idiotic cartel keep earning money through artificial high prices and barriers to competition created by government.

[Kregisen]

What the fuck are you talking about? It's the people in government who side with the Mexican cartel! They made it possible! They could cut all their source of income immediately simply by legalizing all drugs. And they shouldn't be illegal anyway, as governments have no business telling people what they can and cannot put in their bodies. Yet they let the idiotic cartel keep earning money through artificial high prices and barriers to competition created by government.

And because of that, the U.S. taxpayers are forced to pay $13.6 Billion every year, and there are 10,000 more homicides a year*.

(* = estimated by Milton Friedman, most popular economist alive)


The whole drug war is fucked up on so many levels.

[ammorris]

Some of you folks seem to have an odd definition of the term "good guy."

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/03/scum-also-rises.html

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2009/12/thin-blue-whine-pt-ii-crybaby-thugs-of.html


Here is the really relevant issue:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/19/sheriff-joes-enabler/


Bolick says their perseverance is also due to the polarizing effects of the immigration debate. Immigration "is extremely divisive," he says. "In the eyes of a lot of people, because they're cracking down on illegal immigrants, Thomas and Arpaio can do no wrong. So there's justification for whatever they do, and any criticism of them on any issue is a betrayal of the cause. It's really unfortunate that it's causing a lot of good people to turn a blind eye to ineffective law enforcement and abuses of power."

I have no problem with enforcing immigration laws. I don't even have a problem with well-intentioned law enforcement officers who enforce absurd drug laws. I do have a problem with a fascist sheriff who has turned his territory into something resembling a third-world police state while making a habit of abusing and even killing inmates in his custody.

[jmdrake]

What the fuck are you talking about? It's the people in government who side with the Mexican cartel! They made it possible! They could cut all their source of income immediately simply by legalizing all drugs. And they shouldn't be illegal anyway, as governments have no business telling people what they can and cannot put in their bodies. Yet they let the idiotic cartel keep earning money through artificial high prices and barriers to competition created by government.

I don't think you'll find a single person in this thread arguing against legalizing drugs. That said, the cartels are violent murderous thugs. It's that simple. You never know. The sheriff himself might support drug legalization. But he still has a job to do and part of that job is stopping people who don't mind killing anyone who gets in the way of profit. These are "freedom fighters" or "underground railroad conductors" or "Robin Hoods" or any other romanticized outlaw you can think of. They are profiteers, some of whom would sell out their own mothers to make a buck. I'm all for taking away their marijuana profit center. I'm also for law enforcement protecting the innocent that get in their way while we wait for the congress and courts to come to their senses.

[Vessol]

I have to laugh at these anarcho libertarians, or more apt - marxist libs.

Hey knuckleheads, Gunny needs money for his campagin - pony up you friggin wannabe's.

Damn jerkoffs are just another wedge in the liberty movement.

Insults and disenfranchising certain segments of the community isn't the way to lead a successful liberty movement.

I've put my money where my mouth is, what about you?