|
March 20, 2010
How big is the Joe Arpaio tent?
Probably because I don't like repeating myself, I don't say as much about police abuses as I should. Stuff like SWAT team abuses, civil rights violations committed in the name of the "drug war," and police retaliation against critics, go on all the time, as do a lot of things I don't find the time to write about. I guess it's because my goal is to be creative and entertaining, and ideally, I try to never write about things unless I have something new to say. I also don't like to dump on other bloggers, especially bloggers I like who are philosophically in more or less the same, um, "camp" as myself. This leaves me in a bit of a dilemma where it comes to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. I think the man is a rogue cop who epitomizes bad law enforcement, and yet he is very popular among conservatives, mainly because he's tough on illegal immigration. As I think illegal immigration is out of control, if his only excesses related to his department's dealing with illegals, I probably wouldn't bother with a post. After all, not only am I a notorious compromiser, but these people are not citizens, and regardless of what the Supreme Court has said, violations of the rights of non-citizens are not as bothersome to me as violations of the rights of citizens. I realize there's a slippery slope, but still.... People are pissed off about illegal immigration, and I can understand why they would like Joe Arpaio for his get-tough, tent-city-in-the-desert policies. However, I find it disturbing that they seem so willing to overlook the fact that Arpaio and his department have a long track record of appalling abuses. Like this incident described at The CATO Institute: One of the most appalling cases occurred in Maricopa County, Arizona, the home of Joe Arpaio, self-proclaimed "toughest sheriff in America." In 2004 one of Arpaio's SWAT teams conducted a bumbling raid in a Phoenix suburb. Among other weapons, it used tear gas and an armored personnel carrier that later rolled down the street and smashed into a car. The operation ended with the targeted home in flames and exactly one suspect in custody--for outstanding traffic violations.The deputies were described as laughing at the dog's suffering. I don't like stories like that, and if a SWAT team did that to Coco, I would devote the rest of my life to righting the wrong. Radley Balko has been detailing Arpaio's misdeeds, and also those of a local prosecutor he calls "Sheriff Joe's enabler." Arpaio has waged war against a local newspaper and arrested it's newspaper editor (more here). Detailing more of such tactics, James Joyner has called him a "corrupt thug and bully." There's a list of victims which the UK Progressive calls "sickeningly endless": * Charles Agster, a 33-year-old mentally handicapped man, died in the county jail three days after being forced by sheriff's officers into a restraint chair and placed in a "spit hood" when he suffered a seizure. He was declared brain dead three days later and a jury awarded his parents $9-million.While the list comes from a left wing site (which made me skeptical until I Googled all the names to verify them), the paper claims they are not isolated incidents of "a few bad apples," and that Much of the department is as rotten as its sheriff and the Maricopa County court files are stuffed full of literally hundreds of similar cases involving sheriff office abuse.The Agster story checks out, as does Norberg, who was described as having been "handcuffed by guards, kicked, stomped on, and then strapped into a restraint chair": There, guards held a towel over his head, literally suffocating him. Medical records later revealed that he had been shot with a stun gun at least 14 times and beaten so badly that his larynx cracked.Crenshaw was described as "discovered comatose in his cell with a broken neck, ruptured intestines, broken toes, and severe internal injuries": Only sheriff's guards had contact with Crenshaw in his cell, but Arpaio still maintains that Crenshaw sustained his life-ending injuries by falling out of his bed.Richard Post was a paraplegic arrested for mouthing off in a bar, and later restrained by Arpaio's men in a metal chair which broke his neck, while Flanders was beaten nearly to death by inmates who used tent stakes while deputies allegedly watched. These incidents (and others cited in the articles) have cost the county tens of millions in damages. There's another list here which includes additional names. I think the record demonstrates that Arpaio is bad news. He and his department epitomize precisely the type of police methods and tactics I feel guilty about not criticizing more often. The fact that he is willing to vigorously enforce the immigration laws seems to have endeared him to many conservatives, but I find myself wondering why they are so willing to turn a blind eye to the repeated abuses of civil rights of Americans over which he presides. There are plenty of Americans who are disgusted with the Democrats; yesterday I cited the example of Howard Stern, who said "I will never vote for a Democrat again." That's because like yours truly, they fear and loathe socialism. But that does not mean that they support police abuses in the name of the war on drugs, SWAT team excesses, or thuggish sheriffs like Arpaio. Clearly the anti-socialist tent is a big tent. I hope it's big enough to hold Joe Arpaio, his conservative lovers and his libertarian critics. So I'm of two minds about the conservative love affair with Arpaio. Part of me wants to ignore it in the hope it will go away. But part of me worries that ignoring issues like this never makes them go away. I may be wrong, but it seemed healthier to write this post and clear the air than let things sit and fester. My apologies to all Arpaio lovers I have offended. UPDATE: My thanks to Radley Balko for the link! While I am very flattered at being called "intellectually honest" (a characterization with which many would disagree), I do not include John Hawkins in the "knuckle-dragging lumpentariat wing" of the conservative movement. For starters, Hawkins did a great job of rebutting Jerome Corsi's and WorldNetDaily's crazy North American Union http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/10/john-hawkins-unloads-on-north-american-union-truthers/Truther conspiracy theory. And he was one of the conservatives who led the way in debunking the Birth Certificate Truthers. I might not always agree with Hawkins; but that doesn't place him in the knuckle dragging wing. Of course, these things are relative. Here in Ann Arbor, I am every inch the knuckle dragger! posted by Eric on 03.20.10 at 12:37 PM
Comments
First comment is right. I don't have much of an opinion about Arpaio's exact activities since I wouldn't know which news reports to trust. That is the sad state of media in the US. Joe must know he cannot discourage illegal immigration or lower the crime levels. So I assume his dramatic conduct comes from other beliefs. The political climate is clearer. Joe is going to federal prison. I doubt it will matter if he is actually guilty or not. The question is when the DOJ acts. And the Sheriffs department may be supervised by a federal court for years.
KTWO · March 20, 2010 05:33 PM Why are you worried about offending Arpaio lovers? He's a thug with a badge and that overrides any ideology. Donna B. · March 20, 2010 09:09 PM Donna B: I don't really care if I irritate his supporters. In fact he seems to have none. He may be guilty and deserve what he will get. Or he may not be guilty and and in prison anyway. I have no personal knowledge and regard any given news as an indication of what the writer believes. Or wants me to believe. I don't regard it as factual. Eric has written an article. I can't read his mind, only his words. Same with the sources who produced what Eric cites, or Joe, or Holder, or the US Attorney for the Maricopa area. Thus I feel certain he will be tried on many counts. Acquittal is a poor bet. The trend in law enforcement is to federalize everything. That is why I expect the Sheriffs Department will be supervised by a federal court for years after Joe and perhaps some of his cohorts are removed.
KTWO · March 21, 2010 01:35 AM The reason I'm worried about offending Arpaio lovers, is that I respect some of them (I won't name them, but some of them are big conservative bloggers). I realize why they like Arpaio's anti illegal immigration stand, but cannot understand why they turn a blind eye to his serious problems. I find myself wondering whether they don't know, or whether they're just looking the other way. Wanting to stop open borders is one thing, but with Arpaio they've got the wrong poster boy. Eric Scheie · March 21, 2010 01:24 PM It has never occurred to me that I need fear offending you by disagreeing because you are (from where I stand) a "big conservative blogger". Nor has it ever occurred to me that it would be disrespectful toward you to disagree with you. In fact, to my mind it would be disrespectful to assume you weren't smart enough to defend your stance intelligently and "big" enough to accept that others will disagree. Granted, the way one expresses disagreement can be disrespectful, but that's an entirely different matter. Is there something I'm just not understanding? Something I've overlooked? Donna B. · March 21, 2010 02:05 PM Donna, you need not fear offending me because disagreeing with me does not offend me. However, many bigger people take offense when they are disagreed with, and to many bloggers, disagreement is seen as either an invitation to start an argument, a personal "attack" or even a betrayal of conservatism.(To say nothing of being a "cheap shot by a smaller blogger trolling for attention" -- something I will not do.) It's a no-win, and really has nothing to do with the merits. It doesn't matter which big respectable conservative bloggers (or which senatorial candidates) like Arpaio, so much as the fact that he is liked by them. Eric Scheie · March 21, 2010 02:52 PM Donna, for reasons that I can't fully explain, the problem has gotten worse since Obama took office. There is a new "you're either with us or against us," take-the-offensive, conservative Alinskyesque mentality. If you disagree, you are liable to be labeled an "elitist" or accused of eating aragula or pronouncing paella properly or something. (A good example is the extreme touchiness surrounding any criticism of Sarah Palin from the conservative or libertarian side. While I haven't experienced it personally, as I like Palin, I can't remember seeing anything like that before. Even during the 08 primary.) Eric Scheie · March 21, 2010 04:23 PM I think I understand what you are saying... but I'm too independent to take it personally serious in most respects. And... this goes way back for me. The first blog I ever read was Little Green Footballs during Rathergate. I was inspired to start my own blog and became *almost* influential enough to be accepted as a Pajamas Media blogger. For reasons I can't quite explain, LGF disappeared from my blogroll before the election. For similar reasons, PZ Myers disappeared. The similarity, as I now understand it was the uniformity of the comments... that was both disturbing and boring. I agree that the problem (whatever it is!) is worse since Obama took office. I have seen some bloggers who I considered thoughtful and reasonable become rigid and doctrinaire. Perhaps one of the things that upset me most about you saying you didn't want to offend the "big conservative guys" was that I feared you falling into that trap. One of the things I have always admired and appreciated about Classical Values is the honesty of the opinion whether I agreed with it or not. Of course I liked that I mostly agreed. Not to mention that I am in love with Coco. I think I've pretty much wimped out on this issue by completely avoiding blog posts about Obama and politics for the last year. As usual, I'm slow on the uptake, but I am still unwilling to compromise what I think are my ideals... and if I think Alinskyesque mentality is wrong for the "opposition" it must also be wrong for me. I'm fairly ashamed of myself right now. I have failed to have to courage to commit to what I think is right... because? I'm not sure, but I hope I can find out why and then how to overcome that.
Donna B. · March 22, 2010 03:31 AM I really dislike this man. I'm all for taking a tough, no-nonsense approach to fighting crime that doesn't concern itself with the delicate sensibilities of criminals. But I also care about the Constitution, individual freedom, and the notion that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Sheriff Joe doesn't seem to be too concerned about those things, especially if they get in the way of him crowning himself King of Maricopa County. RustyShackleford · March 23, 2010 02:17 PM You can't mention Sheriff Joe without the Adam Stoddard affair and subsequent circus. Michael Chaney · March 25, 2010 04:08 PM I know that last sentence was written w/tongue firmly in cheek. :P Seriously, though, Arpaio should apologize to America for being an asshat. I am SO living in a dreamworld.... Andrew Williams · March 25, 2010 04:17 PM Annoy the far left and right! Buy a gun and join NORML! Anonymous · March 25, 2010 04:18 PM Why would you apologize to "all Arpaio lovers I have offended." If you agree Arpaio needs to go then his "lovers" are part of the problem not the solution. So perhaps offending them might be the first step in getting them to realize that a problem exists. Lew · March 25, 2010 07:12 PM "I am still astonished that the FBI has not shut this department down." Why is that? Cops are cops, no matter the uniform. Joe Public · March 25, 2010 10:02 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
March 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2010
February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
The New Iraq Emerges
Gay director maligned -- by culture war bigots! Libertarians should be shocked! But should they be electrocuted? A proactive (not reactive) approach to guilt by association Waste Fraud And Abuse Repeal It Or Feel It Communication is communicable! To a Truther, denial of a false charge is proof of guilt! Those quiet and discreet violent libertarian thugs! Clearing Up Misconceptions
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I am still astonished that the FBI has not shut this department down.