Slashdot Mirror


Arizona Judge Tells Sheriff "Reveal Password Or Face Contempt"

An anonymous reader writes "Four days ago, deputies from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in Arizona conducted a raid against the county government building hosting computers for a law enforcement database. After threatening to arrest county employees who would stop them, the officers proceeded to secure the room and promptly changed passwords on many of the servers. In a hearing on Friday, a Superior Court judge threatened to hold members of the Sheriff's Office in contempt if they did not reveal the passwords by next Wednesday. Following this, the Sheriff's Office claimed to be conducting an investigation against other Superior Court judges. Courts have asked for passwords before, but never under conditions like this."

624 comments

  1. On behalf of arizona... by moogied · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fuck you Joe. I hope you burn in hell you d-bag. (*waves bye to his karma*)

    --
    So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
    1. Re:On behalf of arizona... by iluvcapra · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Mods please consider modding up, or at least going against tradition and not modding him down for swearing. Joe Arpaio probably has it coming.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    2. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Moryath · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Funny. Joe Arpaio enforces the law so well that the drug gangs and illegal immigrant smugglers' gangs are trying to kill him, and the illegal alien amnesty crowd is constantly bankrolling name-smearing campaigns against him. That tends to indicate to me that he's doing the right thing.

    3. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      As a law abiding citizen, if I lived in Maricopa County, I would seriously consider shooting him too.

    4. Re:On behalf of arizona... by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Some Americans actually agree with what's inscribed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.

    5. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you don't live in Phoenix...

      While I can't ague with those results, the ends do no justify the means.

      I've never been afraid of the police before moving to Phoenix.

    6. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Gunnut1124 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      on behalf of those who love liberty and refuse to acknowledge a line in the dirt as a marker for who should be considered human and who not, i have to say that you are at least uninformed and at worst a ignorant worthless coward. You may chose to organize the murder of a mentally handicapped person and file that under "the right thing" but the rest of us, we don't. if you chose to be a ego-maniacal asshat and get your picture taken instead of doing what the rest of the sheriffs in your great state are doing (law enforcement), then you can expect a PR problem.

      If it weren't for better people than "Sheriff Joe" and his band of racists, our nation would be a terrible, backwards, dying hulk... it's too bad that it seems the NeoCons and "Patriots" are winning. maybe we have hope, but we'll have to wait and see on that one.

      --
      America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed. -Eleanor Roosevelt, 1936
    7. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The crime rate usually goes down in areas where the police are corrupt or where the mafia is in control.

    8. Re:On behalf of arizona... by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's a great expose on Sheriff Joe in a recent New Yorker that argues quite the opposite; his obsession with his own self-aggrandizement has eclipsed attacks on real crime in favor of a sensational (and indulgently predatory) approach to law enforcement.

    9. Re:On behalf of arizona... by __aasqbs9791 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this is what this is all about. Is he looking for evidence that the judges are not upholding the law (in his view) when it comes to immigrants? I wonder what the normal procedure would be if you were going to investigate judges? Especially for a wide ranging investigation, involving many judges, DAs, etc. Does it become a federal matter if they are state appointed judges? I'm not trying to take any sides here, I'm actually curious.

    10. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if your states highest court is not fallowing the law then yes it goes up to the federal level. As long as the law is based on federal regulations.

      If its a states specific law and there is no federal law in regards to it then all you can do is get your local goverment to replace the judges. Unless they are the top level judges of the state and then your normally suck in a weird situation until they retire. For some reason i think that the state troopers are the ones who are supposed to be investigating this kind of stuff not the sheriff.. but he is elected so he is probably doing it for voters

    11. Re:On behalf of arizona... by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "Fuck you Joe. I hope you burn in hell you d-bag. (*waves bye to his karma*)"

      I know nothing about Joe, but after reading this article I wished I lived in Arizona:
      "In 1993, vowing that no troublemakers would be released on his watch because of overcrowding, he created the Tent City jail. His popularity grew. He banned cigarettes from his jails. Skin magazines. Movies. Coffee. Salt and pepper. He put inmates in black-and-white striped uniforms and created chain gangs. Later, he decreed that all his inmates must wear pink underwear, socks, and flip-flops. Tells about the thousands of lawsuits and legal claims of abuse filed against Arpaioâ(TM)s department."

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    12. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I make your words mine. Please allow me to add that Arpaio and his minions are an obnoxious herd of sic fucks... with guns... and they are the law...

    13. Re:On behalf of arizona... by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except for the crimes committed by the cops.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    14. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Such a bitter sounding young man. One might suspect that he was a guest of Joe's tent city. Perhaps he doesn't understand the service Joe did for him. Look, the guy finished his GED, he's literate, and posts on /. ! I would say Joe did him a lot of good!!

      Every county needs a sheriff like Maricopa county has. I speak as the parent of a young man who needs Joe in his life. More liberal pussy type sheriffs worry about a criminal's rights, and fail to make an impression on the youngsters lodged in their jail houses. For that reason, those same youngsters are lodged again, and again, and again, until finally, they graduate to the state prison system.

      Oh well - the system works fine, if the purpose of the "criminal justice" system is to fill prison cells, and make prosecuting attorney twats look good, with high conviction rates. No need to fix a system that works so well, right?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    15. Re:On behalf of arizona... by nickdwaters · · Score: 1

      In my experience, having lived in Arizona, and in Phoenix within his jurisdiction for well over 15 years, the only people who dislike sheriff Joe are those who have been busted by him, or have reason to be afraid.

    16. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Citations? I know the crime rates tend to drop when honest citizens are allowed to carry weapons. I know crime rates tend to rise when the right of honest citizens to defend themselves is impaired.

      I DO NOT know that corrupt government officials tend to reduce crime. Put up, or shut up, please.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    17. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "I know the crime rates tend to drop when honest citizens are allowed to carry weapons."

      Please compare then murders in Japan (where honest citizens are not allowed to carry weapons) to those of Texas (where honest citizens are allowed to carry weapons).

      "I know crime rates tend to rise when the right of honest citizens to defend themselves is impaired."

      I know crime rates tend to low when we as a society allow our citizenship to grow as honest people and -just in case, lethal weapons are not easily gotten, neither by honest nor by dishonest citizens.

      Worldwide statistics seem to support my point of view and reject yours.

      "I DO NOT know that corrupt government officials tend to reduce crime. Put up, or shut up, please."

      During Franco's dictatorship certainly crime rates where lower than now -as well as civil liberties, of course.

    18. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Come to Tucson. The weather's better, the landscape is prettier, the people are saner, and there's none of this sort of bullshit.

      There is a little island of sanity in Arizona. :)

    19. Re:On behalf of arizona... by fredklein · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please compare then murders in Japan (where honest citizens are not allowed to carry weapons) to those of Texas (where honest citizens are allowed to carry weapons).

      Yeah, because there are no other differences between Japan and Texas.

      I know crime rates tend to low when we as a society allow our citizenship to grow as honest people and -just in case, lethal weapons are not easily gotten, neither by honest nor by dishonest citizens.

      Go outside. pick of a good-sized rock. That's a lethal weapon. Pick up a branch. Lethal weapon. Etc, etc. Almost ANYTHING can be a lethal weapon if used by the right person. Sure, granny might not able to kill you with a rock, but a muscular 20-year old could easily do so.
      Guns, on the other hand, even the playing field. Yes, a muscular 20-year old might shoot you, but granny can use the gun to protect herself, too.

    20. Re:On behalf of arizona... by s4m7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here's an example: raiding a county office and seizing a computer of which you are neither the sole owner nor the sole user is a crime, even if you are the county sheriff. Unless in doing so they were dutifully executing a warrant or court order to do so, or had demonstrable probable cause to believe that a crime was in progress on this particular site, this action constitutes committing a crime. So, you can be "tough on crime" all you want, but when you start to make your own rules in the process, you become the criminal. If you don't face the consequences with the very same zeal you enforce upon others, you become a hypocrite.

      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    21. Re:On behalf of arizona... by proverbialcow · · Score: 1

      I'm neither, and I dislike him intensely.

      --
      The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
    22. Re:On behalf of arizona... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And they used "guns" to do threaten public employees. That they ARE public employees makes no difference. They obviously didn't have a warrant from a judge and they threatened law abiding employees in a different department.

      Like it or not "law enforcement" is JUST A JOB!!!!! They are no different than any other public employee when dealing with matters like this... BOFH is going to have fun with them.... but if they were smart they'd walk away from their jobs Monday and file civil rights and workplace violence suits against their employers. Not to mention criminal charges with the state police/FBI for hijacking a computer system. Tampering with a public computer system alone ought to get the police 10-20 years!!!

    23. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      > Funny. Joe Arpaio enforces the law so well that the drug gangs and illegal immigrant smugglers' gangs are trying to kill him, and the illegal alien amnesty crowd is constantly bankrolling name-smearing campaigns against him.

      You're nuts. I'm against him because he's incompetent, self-aggrandizing and is costing Arizona taxpayers MILLIONS because he can't do his damn job right. You're just trying to make this political. I'm a Republican. I've never been anything else. I hate him because he's incompetent. Knee-jerk jerks like you giving us incompetent nutjobs like this are the problem.

      Hint: having people trying to kill you is NOT a sign that you're doing a good job! It means you're hated, not that you're effective. If he was so damned effective, he wouldn't have screwed up that big prostitution sting, now, would he? If he was so damned effective, we'd have a lower recidivism rate. If he was so damned effective, he wouldn't have burned down that house during the botched raid, killed their dog, and run over the neighbor's car with his tank.

      People like you who care more about the R next to their name than making sure we have someone competent in charge? It's your fault the Republican party is half dead.

    24. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Texas doesn't have open carry laws, it actually has more restrictive gun laws in the us than many states; for example you need a handgun permit, people under 21 can't own handguns etc. They do allow concealed carry licences though. Most people I know (here in Texas) aren't aware you can apply (and most people who apply for receive) concealed carry licences. Anyways texas is a poor example at best to illustrate your point; texas has a relatively low population density, japan has one of the highest population densities(Tokyo being 10 times as large a city as the largest city in Texas (houston)), lending itself to more crime.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    25. Re:On behalf of arizona... by siliconincdotnet · · Score: 5, Funny

      Come to New Orleans. The only difference between the criminals and the police is a uniform.

      --
      Insert witty .sig here
    26. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow the criminals get uniforms? Oh. Blackwater. Right.

    27. Re:On behalf of arizona... by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The crime rate usually goes down in areas where the police are corrupt or where the mafia is in control.

      The rate of reported crimes probably goes down while the actual crime rate increases significantly.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    28. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "Please compare then murders in Japan (where honest citizens are not allowed to carry weapons) to those of Texas (where honest citizens are allowed to carry weapons)."

      Please do. I'm all ears - I'm willing to learn.

      Oh - wait - you were expecting ME to look up the figures? How might that help you to make your point, whatever the hell that is?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    29. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita%5D

      There you go - I've done half of your homework for you. Read, draw conclusions, then come back and start making claims.

      Meanwhile - I'll tell you a little story.

      Walked into a McDonald's late one night, in New York City. NY, of course, has just about the most restrictive firearms laws in the nation. A young man fumbled in his jacket pocket for some change, and dropped a little bitty pistol on the floor across the room from me. The guy scared me - looked like some kind of a dopehead freak, real nervous, obviuosly not smart because he carried the pistol loose in a pocket, AND he dropped the damned thing. Yes, I was scared.

      Walked into a cafe in the panhandle of Texas for breakfast some months later. Every redneck in the joint had a firearm. Maybe 8 guys had pistols strapped to their hips, and every single truck in the parking lot had a rifle or two in racks. I felt perfectly safe among these people. No fear, no unease, no tightening of the sphincter. Before anyone asks, NONE of these men had badges - they were all cattlemen and ranch hands.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    30. Re:On behalf of arizona... by siliconincdotnet · · Score: 1

      Funny, that. Most of the Blackwater guys that were here after Katrina were wearing plain clothes and weren't (AFAIK) deputized. They were just out of town thugs with guns, not too different from the local thugs with guns. The only way you could tell them apart from the local thuggery was that they had better weaponry.

      I wasn't actually referring to Blackwater, even though it is of course applicable here. I was more referring to the NOPD guys that beat the schoolteacher up during Katrina, the ones that mug you, the ones that guard warehouses full of cocaine, the ones that in 2008 opened fire at an inspection sticker station because they didn't feel like waiting in line. People like Antoinette Franks and Len Davis (both NOPD officers and on death row).

      --
      Insert witty .sig here
    31. Re:On behalf of arizona... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Some Americans actually agree with what's inscribed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty."

      I think most of us citizens in the US do...as long as you come here legally.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    32. Re:On behalf of arizona... by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "If it weren't for better people than "Sheriff Joe" and his band of racists,"

      What is racist about trying to keep people from coming and staying in the country illegally?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    33. Re:On behalf of arizona... by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't be afraid of the Phoenix Police. Be afraid of the imposters.

      In Phoenix, you stand a good change of being the victim of a home invasion staged by Mexican Army Regulars...

      Or Mexicans in Phoenix police drag, fulfilling their contracts...

      Or Phoenix Police whose chief and the Phoenix mayor just can't take much criticism.

      Try and discredit the reports based on the sources I use. Not working. The incidents did happen. Police officers were calling into local radio shows and confirming the reports.

      It seems most home invasions in Phoenix are carried out by those who attack drop houses the 'coyotes' use to stage illegal immigrants on their way to other cities. Taking some hostage and making a quick buck is the motive. Posing as police works very well until the real police show up. then, hope the bad guys run out of bullets, which they often do.

      Our mayor, Phil Gordon, is death against enforcing immigration law, as is our former Governor and now head of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. It's so bad the Feds are demanding that local law enforcement accept a new policy that pretty much prevents them from enforcing the law. That's the 287(g) program that apparently is too successful.

      Sherrif Joe also has tangled with the local alternative paper, which published his and other officials home addresses and apparently violated grand jury statutes. It's only an arcane law when it is applied to you.

      Sherrif Joe has his view of law enforcement. It enrages many of the liberal intelligensia around here, who would rather we put the illegals up in the Phoenician and give them a chance.

      Me? I back Sherrif Joe, knowing full well he can get carried away. The alternative is to have everything not nailed down stolen by the illegals as they stream through here on their way to a better life.

      At least he doesn't PRETEND to be doing his job.

      You ought to live here. Then you would grasp a little more of the nuance. Much too easy to take things at face value. 4 years here has taught me that we have a serious illegal immigration problem. How to solve it is unfortunately simple - clean house, starting with the House of Reperesentatives. Our government has too many conflicts of interest, business sees illegals as cheap labor, Democrats see them as new voters, and regular citizens have no one on their side. But I'm not hopeful.

      Why the focus on illegal immigration? That's the crux of the trouble over Sherrif Joe. That's all it is.

      Bring it on.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    34. Re:On behalf of arizona... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      like somebody on the newspaper site pointed out, another court was still in process about the contents of the computers seized and these police just went and took them. This computer room also hosts several other systems intermixed, that the police don't have jurisdiction, nor the county's authority, to access. The agreement was reached only 3 years ago, so the specific head of the police department agreed to those terms.. not somebody else.

      Best of all though he was seeking emails of other county officials in other departments as evidence.... and he just walked in and took it, from a third party, without warrant.... whatever evidence is in those emails is now strictly off limits for his investigations as he committed contempt of court by violating an ongoing court case and by hijacking the admins by force. Whoever had any incriminations will get to walk from here on!!!! Man needs impeached for sheer legal incompetence.

    35. Re:On behalf of arizona... by tick-tock-atona · · Score: 1

      Go outside. pick of a good-sized rock. That's a lethal weapon. Pick up a branch. Lethal weapon. Etc, etc. Almost ANYTHING can be a lethal weapon if used by the right person. Sure, granny might not able to kill you with a rock, but a muscular 20-year old could easily do so.

      Guns, on the other hand, even the playing field. Yes, a muscular 20-year old might shoot you, but granny can use the gun to protect herself, too.

    36. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know the crime rates tend to drop when honest citizens are allowed to carry weapons.
      ....
      I know crime rates tend to rise when the right of honest citizens to defend themselves is impaired.

      Citations????
      YOU put up, or shut the fuck up.
      Douche bag.

    37. Re:On behalf of arizona... by tick-tock-atona · · Score: 3, Informative

      Go outside. pick of a good-sized rock. That's a lethal weapon. Pick up a branch. Lethal weapon. Etc, etc. Almost ANYTHING can be a lethal weapon if used by the right person. Sure, granny might not able to kill you with a rock, but a muscular 20-year old could easily do so.

      Guns, on the other hand, even the playing field. Yes, a muscular 20-year old might shoot you, but granny can use the gun to protect herself, too.

      And that is better how? I'd much prefer that, if I was the victim of a drive-by, the attackers only had easy access to rocks.
      Also, if a rock are so lethal, maybe you should suggest to the army that you can help them out with cheap new weapons in Afghanistan.

      Face it, a gun is purely designed to maim or kill. It is not a tool and is not designed for any other purpose. The US currently has a worse homicide rate than Albania, Ethiopia, the Ivory Coast and Palestine - and far worse than any other industrialised nation. Please get some reality.

    38. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I blame the parents.

    39. Re:On behalf of arizona... by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Of course guns are designed to kill. The problem is people want to keep law-abiding citizens from having them to protect themselves. Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law. If they want a gun, they're going to get one. It doesn't make much difference to them if it's illegal or not. By making it more difficult for the rest of us to defend ourselves, you're simply creating a society of easy targets. Which house would you rather break into to rob: the one you know doesn't have a gun, or the one that might get you blown away before you get all of your leg through the window?

      It's a simple-stupid, logical argument.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    40. Re:On behalf of arizona... by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I can't ague with those results, the ends do no justify the means.

      What results? The study 'Sheriff Joe' commissioned to show that his methods cut down on repeat offenders didn't show any such thing, and got buried deep.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    41. Re:On behalf of arizona... by jamstar7 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why the focus on illegal immigration? That's the crux of the trouble over Sherrif Joe. That's all it is.

      What do all the lawsuits against Sheriff Joe for civil rights abuses, deaths while in custody, constitutional rights violations and the like have to do with illegal immigration? There's what, 1500-odd cases against him filed so far in Maricopa County courts at the moment?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    42. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So true! Some people actually agree with nothing, which is exactly what's inscribed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.

      Pedantry aside, your point stands. What's been inscribed on the bronze plaque inside the Statue is rather beautiful:

      Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
      With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
      Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
      A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
      Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
      Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
      Glows world-wide welcome
      ; her mild eyes command
      The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
      "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
      With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
      Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
      The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
      Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
      I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
      "

      (Wikipedia)

    43. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I think most of us citizens in the US do...as long as you come here legally.

      Out of curiosity, do you actually know what it's like going through the immigration system?

      Hint: the legal route is insane and there are all kinds of byzantine requirements that people are trying to change to be more sensible.

      Strangely, even Libertarians don't understand how the law of supply and demand works in the case of illegal immigration, even though they understand it just fine when it comes to, say, marijuana.

    44. Re:On behalf of arizona... by jamstar7 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I know nothing about Joe, but after reading this article I wished I lived in Arizona:

      No, you don't EVEN wanna live in Maricopa County. Get too many parking tickets, you'll spend time in Tent City awaiting trial. Get caught tossing a cigarette or styrofoam coffee cup out the window onto a county road, spend some time in Tent City awaiting trial. Be a day late making your insurance payment for your car, the insurance company notifies the DoT computers of the lapse in coverage, the DoT notifies your county sheriff, and a deputy comes out to pull the plates off your car while it's in your driveway, and in Maricopa County, you can go to Tent City to await appearing before a judge.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    45. Re:On behalf of arizona... by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Which house would you rather break into to rob

      The one that doesn't have a dog.

    46. Re:On behalf of arizona... by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Face it, a gun is purely designed to maim or kill. It is not a tool

      i think we know who the tool is. My gun protects my stock from predators. Also, a high rate of Gun ownership does not automatically equate to a high level of gun(or other forms of) homicides. There are plenty of statistics that prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. The problem in the US is the citizenry are bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous

      Haiku's are easy
      But sometimes they don't make sense
      Refrigerator

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    47. Re:On behalf of arizona... by khellendros1984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And Switzerland requires citizens to have assault rifles in their homes. It's not the presence of firearms that causes the problem; it's the cultural differences. We're right next to Mexico. You're trying to tell me that people that shirk the law aren't going to get their guns regardless of their legality in this country?

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    48. Re:On behalf of arizona... by raju1kabir · · Score: 2, Informative

      And Switzerland requires citizens to have assault rifles in their homes.

      Switzerland also requires each person with a gun to undergo rigorous and ongoing training. If that were a requirement in the US I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with it. Also, each bullet in Switzerland is accounted for.

      Despite all this, they still managed to have a pretty gruesome public massacre not that long ago.

      Personally, I'd choose the place with the fewest guns every time. Even though it seems to be true that adjusting the mix of gun distribution in gun-heavy societies can improve murder stats, it's also true that having as few as possible almost invariably makes the stats far, far better still. Unfortunately, it's probably too late to do anything about this in the US; years of unenlightened firearm policy has already rendered the country a public-safety writeoff.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    49. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come to the USA. The only difference between the criminals and the police is a uniform.

      There, fixed that for you.

    50. Re:On behalf of arizona... by B1oodAnge1 · · Score: 1

      Please think about that for a few seconds...

      Crime rates are based on *reported* crime, correct?

      How much crime gets reported when criminals are responsible for reporting it?

      --
      RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
    51. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      tell the kids at Columbine that guns "even the playing field", do you think they could have taken out that many people with rocks?

    52. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      That criminals want to kill him doesn't say a thing about his abilities as Sheriff. The fact is, Phoenix is still a very dangerous city with a high kidnapping rate, numerous rapes, murders, and murders serial killers that operate over long periods without capture. The only people who are afraid of Arpaio are the common citizenry, who barring casual slip-ups and occasional weakness, would not normally be considered part of the criminal element.

      It's interesting to point out that the point on which defenders of Arpaio have had any success is Arpaio's pursuit of illegal immigrants. His defenders never have a legitimate retort against the many other allegations.

    53. Re:On behalf of arizona... by kingturkey · · Score: 1

      Making guns illegal doesn't simply change the name of their status, it also makes them much more difficult to get, a point which you conveniently ignore. I'd agree that if guns were made for the most part illegal in the US tomorrow, it may not be successful in immediately lowering the violent crime rates, but experience in countries with gun control regulations shows that criminals have guns far less often.
      Obviously this depends on other factors relating to the country, and I'm biased because I live in Australia where we have gun control and are also fairly isolated and probably a rather unattractive market to gun smugglers; but I'd wager that the situation is not dissimilar in other countries with gun control.

    54. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      And, this is precisely why so many people fear guns. They want to hide behind the AC tag, and use vulgarity - knowing they are safe. They also expect to be just as safe when they choose to run their mouth on the street. I'll bet my dollar against your penny, if a real man answers his little potty mouth, AC will pick up a rock, a club, a knife, or something because he's AC. When the real man shoots him dead, then that man is in the wrong for having a weapon. Go figure.

      Anonymous COWARD.

      http://www.legis.state.wi.us/LRB/pubs/ttp/ttp-09-2003.html
      http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

      Go, coward, read. The facts are, when the populace is armed, violent crimes go down. When citizens are disarmed, crime goes up.

      Since we have already established that you are a coward, allow me to ask a simple question: If/when you ever creep out of your Mama's basement, hoping to drag a female into your den, would you rather face women who are armed, and are able to resist? Or, would you rather face defenseless women? I don't give you much chance in either instance - but I am perfectly happy with armed women. Knowing that she can shoot you dead if you get out of line just helps to keep a guy honest.

      I love headlines like these, which you will NEVER read in gaywad anonymous coward magazines:
      http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2005/04/jacksonville-great-grandmother-shoots.html
      http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-47396.html
      http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20001128/ai_n9979806/

      Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin were both gun control proponents. I suppose you would like those individuals, right? Douchebag, yourself.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    55. Re:On behalf of arizona... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Since the people who hate him most are organized crime, you have no point.

      We only know that the organized criminals are willing to use force to make their hatred known, we don't know if the law abiding citizens hate him any less or just have much higher restraint when it comes to assassinations.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    56. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "but experience in countries with gun control regulations shows that criminals have guns far less often."

      You're right. The criminals in Nazi Germany had no guns, nor did the criminals in Soviet Russia. Well, not unless you count the criminals who were running the government.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    57. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Valcrus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thats the issue with so much gun control. They want to ban guns to just law enforcment in the US or do something similarly drastic, but the issue is that a criminal isn't going into your local gun shop to have a background check done. The only thing putting heavy restrictions on the gun purchasing will do is make it take longer for me to buy a new gun.

    58. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      It is not a simple-stupid, logical argument. It's just that gun control discussion has been hijacked by the victims' rights crowd. People do stupid things because they frequently lose control over their minds. This is why there is an "excited passion" ("heat of passion") clause in murder in order to reduce a charge.

      The concern isn't that people don't want law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. The concern is that a law-abiding citizen may, in the heat of passion, pull a gun and murder a person. The police don't want to go into a situation with a normally law-abiding citizen who is armed. As I said before, people do stupid things. And in Phoenix, people drink heavily and do stupid things often.

      Recently there has been a big debate over the push to allow guns in bars. This means, bar patrons would be allowed to bring guns into a bar and then drink. Something to think about if you ever accidentally bump into a drunken bar patron.

      The other night, a guy (not even drunk apparently) threatened to beat me up solely because I was critical of his favorite baseball team. He was an obvious rageaholic. What if he had a gun on him and were in a position to use it? Sure, I would have my gun too. But what if I didn't? Ought I be punished for not packing heat 24/7? Don't I pay taxes for law enforcement? If I have to carry my own gun, then I say get rid of the pigs and the corrupt Sheriff. I don't need them eating my donuts and making me uncomfortable while I'm cruising the main drag at night trying to find dinner. I'd rather spend my money on a private police force that will instantly recognize me (a customer) as a good citizen.

    59. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      No, the problem is people who equate the ability to defend oneself with the ability to kill others.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    60. Re:On behalf of arizona... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I don't even live in the US and this person sounds like the scum of the earth, basically torturing innocent people to get elected and feed his unnatural urges, the people in that substandard system are mostly awaiting trial and have not been convicted of any crime. All he does is enrich the lawyers in Arizona after they file successful suit after successful suit and, the foolish hick electorate are too dense to realise how much he is costing the.

      It pretty much sounds like if you actually do support law and order you do have a lot to fear from what seems to be the most corrupt sheriffs office in the US, of course if you are a lawyer it is also by far the post profitable sheriffs office in the US. People from all around the world can now look into what is going on in the US and it is idiots like this that really do demonstrate that the US is not a stable democracy, that justice comes second to profit, sadism is not only more acceptable than nudity it is celebrated and, blatant visible corruption can survive for years.

      The whole states rights thing in the US seems to be a real mess because while there are some really well run and advanced states in the US while some other states seem pretty fucked up and as you go from the north west of the US to the south east there is a definitive deterioration in every qualitative measure.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    61. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Fish+(David+Trout) · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please get some reality

      Physician, heal thyself:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

      Hint: Gun control actually increases violent crime. When there are more guns in the hands of citizens violent crime decreases.

      It's counter-intuitive I know, but there you have it. <shrug>

      --
      "Fish" (David B. Trout)
    62. Re:On behalf of arizona... by berashith · · Score: 1

      Which is why there are people trying to make some dogs illegal also. Cops dont want to confront armed citizens of any kind, be it a dog, a gun , or a board with a nail in it.

    63. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is racist about trying to keep people from coming and staying in the country illegally?

      Uh... "F" in logic, here.

      "The Ends Justify The Means"? Surely you can fight illegal immigration without his "special
      methods", which are also used against US citizens.

      Don't fall for populism.

    64. Re:On behalf of arizona... by McSnarf · · Score: 1

      If that made any sense, you wouldn't be allowed to buy nails in the first place. Prohibiting certain breeds of dogs keeps unarmed citizens safe - remember that, in the "good old times", cyclists in the countryside would carry revolvers to protect them from dogs...

    65. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one that doesn't have a dog.

      Are you really sure your dog will stop a criminal who comes with some meat and a bone for the dog? Dogs who are properly socialized to be friendly around other people are generally completely ineffective. Dogs who are trained to be guard dogs are going to go after every person who enters your house, including friends and family that they don't recognize. Which do you want?

    66. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Frenchman113 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      In this post, you have proven that [b]you[/b] are the coward. Not only do you run your "little potty mouth" from the anonymity of your computer terminal in your mother's basement, you have the nerve to criticize someone else for doing the same. Do you know what you are? That's right, a hypocritical self-serving coward. In fact, if I met you in real life, I would not hesitate one moment in sawing off our limbs, feeding your genitals to dogs, and then burning you alive.

    67. Re:On behalf of arizona... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "Which house would you rather break into to rob"

      The one that doesn't have a gun. Statistically you're much more likely to get shot by your own gun than you are to shoot a robber. As a robber, I would much prefer that nobody got hurt, both because I'm not sadistic and because if I'm caught robbery is a lesser sentence than murder.

    68. Re:On behalf of arizona... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "There you go - I've done half of your homework for you. Read, draw conclusions, then come back and start making claims."

      The US murder rate is many times that of Japan, and most other countries?

      Your story is interesting. I'm not sure what conclusion you meant to be drawn from it, but the one I get is this: people who have guns for no other reason than to shoot people seem dangerous. People who have guns for purposes OTHER than to shoot people with don't seem as dangerous.

      Personally, I walked into a McDonalds the other day and the only weapons of sudden death I had to worry about were the things on the menu.

    69. Re:On behalf of arizona... by mspohr · · Score: 1
      Switzerland does not require citizens to have assault rifles in their homes.

      It does permit soldiers and reservists to keep their rifles in their homes provided they are locked up. They have ammunition in sealed tins. Because of problems (primarily suicides) with this arrangement, reservists are being encouraged to deposit their rifles in their local armoury for safekeeping. The Swiss policy has nothing to do with personal protection. It is about maintaining a standing army against foreign invaders. This hasn't happened in 500 years or so but they are ready.

      Every weekend it's common to see soldiers going off for training with their rifles. They usually take the excellent Swiss trains. However, they don't have ammunition so it's very safe for everyone.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    70. Re:On behalf of arizona... by TheSpoom · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why the focus on illegal immigration? That's the crux of the trouble over Sherrif Joe. That's all it is.

      No, the question is, "Why the focus on massive human rights violations and deaths perpetrated by the sheriff's office?"

      I feel no need to put links on here that are everywhere in the rest of this thread. Oh wait, I specifically have you "use your sources". Way to control the debate!

      In short, you are completely ignoring the issues here and using the standard Rebublican tactic of blaming it on those evil lib'rals.

      Willful blindness.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    71. Re:On behalf of arizona... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      1) County sheriffs (and most elected and appointed law enforcement leaders) have numerous cases filed against them, on a continuing basis. It's the nature of their position to both be responsible for activities that are regularly challenged in court, and to attract complaints from many parties that are motivated and willing to take legal action. This does not explain the volume of cases against Sheriff Joe.

      2) There are, of course, several unflattering reports of Sheriff Joe's performance over the years. It's never good to see suspects die while in custody. Is no there any major jurisdiction in the U.S. that has had no such incidents since 2004? I'm not trying to excuse these incidents so much as considering whether or not these incidents are significantly out of the ordinary for a department of similar size. The LA County Sheriff doesn't enjoy a significantly better reputation, nor do the New York City police, or the departments of Chicago, Detroit, Boston, or even Washingon D.C. Ask around.

      3) How many lawsuits have been filed against our President, Barack Obama? Don't count the ones about his birth or eligibility for the office of President. Again, the position is a magnet for complaints and suits.

      If your measure of good behavior is the number of lawsuits, then only you and I are decent people. And I'm not too sure about you.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    72. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Hinhule · · Score: 1

      If a criminal is going to rob your house, he is going to rob your house. If the culture of the society he is in makes it common for people to have guns in their homes, he is going to bring his own gun and be ready to use it. In a society where guns are uncommon he will bring a gun or baseball bat to subdue the inhabitants.

      Which society do you think have higher murder rates?

      I live in sweden, murders are relatively uncommon and if they happen they make national news coverage.
      9/10 cases the murder victims know their murderers and most of the time gun violence is conducted between rival motorcycle gangs.

    73. Re:On behalf of arizona... by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Of course guns are designed to kill. The problem is people want to keep law-abiding citizens from having them to protect themselves. Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law. If they want a gun, they're going to get one.

      Yes, they're getting them. From the USA. Ask your neighbours down south what they think of the liberal handing out of guns to responsible US citizens.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    74. Re:On behalf of arizona... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I gather a lot of American Indians were asking themselves the same question after 1492.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    75. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Methinks thou doth protest too much.

    76. Re:On behalf of arizona... by fat_mike · · Score: 1

      These all sound like things a mature adult would take responsibility for. You know you can go to the courthouse and get an extension on your tickets. Don't throw your fucking trash on the roads that my taxes help pay for, regardless of what politicians say most insurance AGENCIES (not companies) are more than willing to help you out if you're having trouble paying your insurance.

      Insurance companies don't sell policies, their agents do and most of them are small business owners who understand hard times. They don't want to lose you because they'll lose their commission. Most of them will eat a month or two of your premium until you get back on your feet.

      Saying that, I wouldn't help you. You sound like a punk kid with entitlement issues.

    77. Re:On behalf of arizona... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      It's not like they spent anything on border security. Hell, they didn't even have anybody manning the immigration booth's where the ships from Europe landed.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    78. Re:On behalf of arizona... by nickdwaters · · Score: 1

      Why go after Sheriff Joe when it is in fact the electorate and the knee-jerk politicians who pander to them who create the situation that promulgates what can be perceived as abuse by law enforcement? Sweeping generalities regarding the state of America aside, Joe Arpaio is doing his job enforcing the law. It just so happens that he pays little attention to politics in doing so, thus coming across as though he were brazen. What this underscores, in my view, is that law makers should more carefully consider their laws passed with the "hick" mentality. The sensibilities of a rather vociferous segment of America are mis-educated. yes I said it. Mis-educated. Bible thumpers.

    79. Re:On behalf of arizona... by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      All of the things the GP mentioned are indeed illegal, and generally antisocial.

      However, the punishment has to fit the crime -- the Constitution is quite explicit on this subject.

      Temporarily revoking the licenses of repeat traffic offenders would be a severe -- but appropriate punishment. Being placed in a maximum security prison camp is most certainly not appropriate.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    80. Re:On behalf of arizona... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      a *tool* is purely designed to *task*

      Let's see... hammer, saw, nail, knife, fork, anvil, gun... any of those will fit in the "tool" role, bucko. It is a tool - for killing or maiming, as you put it. But, likewise, a hammer and nails are just tools for ruining wood with holes, right? Wrong. There is a larger purpose to using tools: you build something with nails, and you protect yourself with a gun.

      Regardless of your (or my, or anyone else's) dogmatic opinion on what a "tool" should be defined as, a gun most certainly is a tool, by any common definition.

      tool
      â
      â/tul/
      â"noun
      1. an implement, esp. one held in the hand, as a hammer, saw, or file, for performing or facilitating mechanical operations.
      2. any instrument of manual operation.
      3. the cutting or machining part of a lathe, planer, drill, or similar machine.
      4. the machine itself; a machine tool.
      5. anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose: Education is a tool for success.

      You, sir, make yourself look like a tool through your ignorant ideological "guns are not tools" statement.

      Finally, to the topic at hand, if you take crimes committed by illegals, the US crime rate drops precipitously. Look at crime demographics as they relate to illegal alien population: there is a very strong, direct correlation between illegal alien population density and increased violent crime rates.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    81. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Unlike AC, you sign your name. Like AC, you attack the messanger, rather than the message. Did you read the links? Can you refute them? The answer is "NO", you can't refute them.

      Your comments are rather revealing. Have you had dreams of murder and dismemberment all of your life? I can well understand why you don't want to see a little man with a weapon, or a woman. I've read about individuals who replace sexual stimulation with mucking around inside of a corpse. I guess that disfiguring a real man's genitals would be some sort of compensation for your own inadequacies.

      READ THE LINKS!! They make my case.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    82. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      The point is - when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. Sorry if that wasn't clear.....

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    83. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did not realize that Poland, Ukraine, and Russia weren't industrialized nations. Most of the homicides in the US are by ethnic minorities. We'd love to get rid of them, so if you want to take them off our hands, that would be awesome. Be aware that your crime rate would go up quite a bit, unless you live in the UK. Then you already put up with the highest national violent crime rate in Western Civilization.

      If Texas were as homogeneous as Japan, I bet it would have similar crime rates. It certainly is the case for many states in the northern US.

    84. Re:On behalf of arizona... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Apparently they don't use them to kill people then, because according to your own link Japan, where there are very few guns, has a murder rate that is less than 1/8 that of the US. Canada, France, the UK, all with strong gun control, also have a lower murder rate than the US.

      Were you reading that list upside down or something?

    85. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      http://www.cqpress.com/docs/City%204%20-%20Most%20Dangerous_14E.pdf

      Comparing different nations, and ethnically different people is interesting. Try the link above. American cities are listed by crime rate. Washington, D.C. stands near the top of the list, as does Baltimore, MD, and several California cities. Browse them, and compare their murder rates to their gun control laws. The most restrictive cities in the nation are on that list. California is interesting, because they have gone so far as to take down billboards and advertisements that depict firearms, but they still manage to lead the nation in violent crime. Since all of these cities are US cities, it's fair to compare them.

      Tokyo? I don't mean to sound ethnocentric, but they are very different than anyone outside of Asia. Like most Asians, they are taught from the cradle that honor is more important than anything else in life. In America, we are taught that rights are the important thing. You can't honestly compare their violent crime rates to ours.

      Comparing European crime rates to US crime rates seems reasonable, as our culture is based on theirs. Same goes for Canada and Australia.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    86. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Maxmin · · Score: 1

      In Phoenix, you stand a good change of being the victim of a home invasion staged by Mexican Army Regulars [wordpress.com]...

      Or Mexicans in Phoenix police drag [stratfor.com], fulfilling their contracts...

      Or Phoenix Police whose chief and the Phoenix mayor just can't take much criticism

      ...

      Or Minutemen posing as Border Patrol agents, in a home invasion that ended with a 9-year old girl and her father murdered in cold blood.

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
    87. Re:On behalf of arizona... by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      I would also add that if you have a gun in the USA you or a close family member is *MORE* likely to be killed by a gun than if you don't have a gun.

      It's like driving in a SUV and thinking you are safer than being in a normal car. Wrong again you are more likely to be killed or seriously injured in a SUV than an ordinary car.

    88. Re:On behalf of arizona... by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      But what sort of crime? If burglary goes up a bit, but the murder rate goes down then this is in my opinion a better choice.

      The fact is in the USA you are more likely to be killed by a gun if you have a gun.

      I would suspect that Mahatma Gandhi also supported gun controls (though I have no proof that he did). I think if everyone was like him the world would be a much much nicer place.

    89. Re:On behalf of arizona... by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      The problem is your case is made on a faulty premise. It fails to take into account the whole picture and equates all crime as being the same.

      If you own a gun the suicide rate goes up 25%, and the chances of suffering a gun injury goes up 32%.

      http://ericwalczak0.tripod.com/id10.html

      Clearly owning a gun is not automatically going to making you safer in the home.

      There is *very* little that could be removed from my home that is irreplaceable, and to be honest I doubt a their would take most of them. That is what insurance is for.

      Therefore the question one would have to ask oneself is does owning a gun improve me and my families chances of surviving till tomorrow. If the answer to that is no, and all the statistics point to this being the right answer, then rationally owning a gun is dumb and stupid thing to do.

      It is like driving a SUV and thinking it makes you safer. Wrong per passenger mile traveled you are more likely to be killed or seriously injured in an SUV than almost any other type of motor vehicle. Yet people "feel" safer in a SUV, just the same way people "feel" safer when owning a gun

    90. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I admire Ghandi - the man was brilliant. But, no, he didn't favor gun control. Given the opportunity, he would have put an army in the field to accomplish his goals. Mahatma Ghandi resorted to nonviolent means, because the tools necessary for military resistance were unavailable to him. In effect, he became a general who mastered "assymetrical warfare". The man understood Sun Tzu's teachings better than many recognized generals. Only after Ghandi had age, experience, and a measure of success behind him, might he have favored a prohibition of weapons among the masses. The younger man bemoaned the fact that his oppressors had all the guns, many times.

      http://www.potowmack.org/gandhi.html

      The commentary that accompanies the quote is typical of people who have enshrined Ghandi as something he was not. The commntor simply does not understand Ghandi, and only partially understands what Ghandi's aims were.

      I invite you to read Ghandi's biography - especially that portion of his life spent in Africa. The man was most certainly not a pacifist by choice.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    91. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Preach it brother! Arpaio should be replicated all across the southwest.

      No one should be surprised Napolitano and Obama have an ideological agenda and will misuse the power of their offices to prosecute "enemies."

    92. Re:On behalf of arizona... by defaria · · Score: 1

      I've been living in Phoenix for 2 years now. All I can say is this punk doesn't know what he's talking about.

    93. Re:On behalf of arizona... by jhylkema · · Score: 1

      Then can you explain to me why the violent crime rate in Maricopa County has gone up, not down, when in the rest of the state, it has gone down, not up. Also, the MCSO response times are up, crime clearance rates are down, etc.

      In other words, with apologies to Al Gore, everything that should be down is up, and everything that should be up is down.

      Linkie.

      But don't let facts get in the way of Lush Limbaugh and Fixed News telling you what to think.

    94. Re:On behalf of arizona... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Give it a couple more years, you'll find out.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    95. Re:On behalf of arizona... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yes, it appears that the violent crime - gun link is nonlinear. If you're going to have a significant number of guns, you're safer letting everyone have them. But you're even better off tightly controlling them, at least in cities, and fostering a culture that doesn't regard guns as a form of protection against other people.

      I was just curious why you cited that web site (the national one) as evidence that gun control increases violent crime.

    96. Re:On behalf of arizona... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yes - to properly do the risk-benefit assessment on widespread gun ownership I think you have to add in accidental gun injuries and deaths. Those are the price of gun ownership.

      As it turns out, it appears that tight gun control reduces violent crime but it must reduce total gun related deaths even more.

    97. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US currently has a worse homicide rate than Albania, Ethiopia, the Ivory Coast and Palestine - and far worse than any other industrialized nation.

      That's not a bug, that's a feature.

    98. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Law enforcement is a job, but it is hardly "just" a job. It is an exceptionally difficult and stressful job with constraints and responsibilities far beyond the norm.

      This still sounds like a bad situation, though.

    99. Re:On behalf of arizona... by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The concern is that a law-abiding citizen may, in the heat of passion, pull a gun and murder a person.

      This is where the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment should come in: gun ownership should come with an obligation of training and practice (including both gun safety and marksmanship) on a regular, ongoing basis.

      Recently there has been a big debate over the push to allow guns in bars. This means, bar patrons would be allowed to bring guns into a bar and then drink.

      No it doesn't. It means that people would be allowed to bring guns into the building. Whether or not they're also allowed to subsequently get drunk is a separate question, one which your statement does not address. Now, I'm not saying you're wrong; it's just that your chain of logic is missing a link.

      Personally, I think it's entirely reasonable for people to bring guns to bars (along with everywhere else -- after all, if you've got it with you and have to go somewhere it's not allowed, where are you supposed to put it?!), but that it should be very illegal to actually get intoxicated while they have them. It's analogous to how driving to a bar is fine, but DUI is not. Of course, the ideal solution would be for bars to go back to checking guns at the door, like they used to do a hundred years ago.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    100. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      This is where the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment should come in: gun ownership should come with an obligation of training and practice (including both gun safety and marksmanship) on a regular, ongoing basis.

      Firearms safety and marksmanship training will (somewhat) help prevent stupid accidents (most of these happen because people ignore well-known safety rules out of laziness or inattention), but won't do anything about people acting in the heat of passion (I'd wager that marksmanship training will make such acts _worse_, if anything).

    101. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      I see you point, but as I've heard this discussion on firearms in bars phrased in Arizona, it's been about the right to bring guns into a bar with no other limitation being placed on the carrier regarding drinking. The underlying logic being that people who go to bars generally do so in order to drink liquor, not soft drinks. As it is now, they may have a gun on the property, such as in their cars.

    102. Re:On behalf of arizona... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Ya, because the world is just good and evil, and evil always works together, right? What a simplistic world view..

    103. Re:On behalf of arizona... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      The concern isn't that people don't want law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. The concern is that a law-abiding citizen may, in the heat of passion, pull a gun and murder a person. The police don't want to go into a situation with a normally law-abiding citizen who is armed. As I said before, people do stupid things. And in Phoenix, people drink heavily and do stupid things often.

      Wow... you're stupid. Police coming to arrest you isn't a heat of passion moment. If anything, its usally a suprise moment.. where you won't be able to reach your gun.

      Oh, and people drink heavily everywhere. Get a clue.

    104. Re:On behalf of arizona... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Cops take their guns home. If training is irrelevent, why aren't they always shooting people in "heat of moment" type situtations? Its because you're a nut, and think everyone is like you... ready to snap at a moments notice. Fortunately, most people are much more level headed then that.

    105. Re:On behalf of arizona... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      If a criminal is going to rob your house, he is going to rob your house.

      And if one house has a security system, and another doesn't, he'll pick the easier one. If he knows the house is likely to have a gun, that will likely deter him as well. this is already proven. Some states have passed laws requiring head of house holds to own a gun & ammo, and to take regular training. Crime immediately fell in the town, while nearby towns had crime rates rise. The theory is tht the criminals simply moved to easier pickings.

      If the culture of the society he is in makes it common for people to have guns in their homes, he is going to bring his own gun and be ready to use it.

      Its not as common as the US as you seem to think. And there are plenty of robberies that occur without the use of a gun. People are more less rational; if the risk for robery goes up, rates of it will go down.. criminals don't want to die either.

      Which society do you think have higher murder rates?

      Which society has its head up its ass talking about a country they know nothing about? Today its Sweden. You know as much about the US as I know about Sweden.

      I live in Vermont... smaller than Sweden, and with a slightly higher population density. Murder here is also rare, and if it does happen also makes the news for sure. And unlike most other states I've lived in, VT actually IS a carry state. Other state which were not also had more crime.

      The US is not Sweden; we are an exteremly mobile society. Your largest city has 13 times less people than our largest... and we have 12 cities larger than Stockholm. Please stop talking like you have any clue how to solve our problems.

    106. Re:On behalf of arizona... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      If the other students and teachers were armed, well I doubt they'd have even bothered showing up to try to shoot up the school. Which is the ponit.

    107. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      If the other students and teachers were armed, well I doubt they'd have even bothered showing up to try to shoot up the school.

      Why, because they might get killed?

    108. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Cops take their guns home.

      And that is relevant to a discussion about the second amendment how?

      If training is irrelevent,

      Hold on for a minute - I was talking about gun safety and marksmanship training specifically. Cops (hopefully) receive training in more areas than these two, and are subject to a little more scrutiny than the average gun owner, especially with regards to staying calm under stress and pressure.

      why aren't they always shooting people in "heat of moment" type situtations?

      Hyperbole.

      Its because you're a nut,

      Wow, going straight to the ad hominem, aren't we?

    109. Re:On behalf of arizona... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Most 20 year olds with guns I can take with my fists. They can't use the damn thing, it's like if they had a sword. You've obviously never used a firearm.

    110. Re:On behalf of arizona... by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      "The reported crime rate usually goes down in areas where the police are corrupt or where the mafia is in control."
      There, fixed that for ya.
      The reported rate goes down because in both circumstances the people in control have a vested interest in keeping crime statistics low, so there is serious under reporting of crimes.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    111. Re:On behalf of arizona... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      And that is relevant to a discussion about the second amendment how?

      You're not talking about 2nd amendment rights... you're trying to say gun control needs to be stricter because of these "heat of moments" that might be dangeours.

      Hold on for a minute - I was talking about gun safety and marksmanship training specifically. Cops (hopefully) receive training in more areas than these two, and are subject to a little more scrutiny than the average gun owner, especially with regards to staying calm under stress and pressure.

      Give it a rest. Applicants to become cops with more than a 6th grade eduacation are rejected outright. Besides your point was that the training is not relevent, due to "heat of moment" situtations.

      Wow, going straight to the ad hominem, aren't we?

      Nope, just calling it like I see it.

    112. Re:On behalf of arizona... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Yes... they know going to the school with the intention to shoot it up when they also know the other students and teachers are armed would get them killed. Likewise, if they know the whole society is similarly armed, what would be the point of them trying to mass murder anyway? They'd get a few at most, before they were shot themselves.

    113. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      You're not talking about 2nd amendment rights... you're trying to say gun control needs to be stricter because of these "heat of moments" that might be dangeours.

      WTH? Quote me please. All I was saying is that gun safety and marksmanship training does _nothing_ to help with those "heat of the moment" incidents. Psychological training and anger management training might. Maybe.

      Besides your point was that the training is not relevent,

      And you're misquoting me again. I was specifically referring to fscking gun safety and marksmanship training. You're barking up the entirely wrong tree.

      Nope, just calling it like I see it.

      Whatever you have between your eyes and your monitor ... remove it, and read my posts again.

    114. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Yes... they know going to the school with the intention to shoot it up when they also know the other students and teachers are armed would get them killed.

      For someone who doesn't plan on surviving anyway, that just makes dying easier and a lot more spectacular. Plus, they might get to witness the whole campus shooting up each other as people start misidentifying each other as the original shooter.

      Likewise, if they know the whole society is similarly armed, what would be the point of them trying to mass murder anyway?

      To make the news? To get revenge on society/those jocks/whomever they think needs killing? Just to show that they can actually do it? Does a psycho nutcase really need a reason?

      They'd get a few at most, before they were shot themselves.

      And how's that different from them getting a few and then shooting themselves?

    115. Re:On behalf of arizona... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      they carry firearms... if they can't do their jobs correctly they should get new ones and stop threatening to kill people because their cock didn't get sucked today. Nobody should be in such a position their whole career, just like nobody is president, or a star football player... people grow up, move on.

      That they're stuck in a "dead end" job is their own fault, taking it out on coworkers and the public is no excuse because they can't learn to play nice. The "world" isn't theirs to save, move on, let other people do the job... except TEHY do the job so badly they're scared of being on the other side of the badge!!

    116. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      Troll much?

      The simple point, which you obviously fail to grasp, is that there is currently debate in Phoenix over allowing people to bring firearms *into* a bar where they will be permitted to drink. Drunken bar altercations happen - they can happen anywhere, but when drunken bar altercations are backed by the presence of firearms, things can potentially go very bad. How stupid do you have to be to not get the likelihood of that?

      I don't need a clue. You need one. I don't know what the hell you're talking about an arrest being a heat of passion moment, re-read what I wrote and stop acting like such a reactionary dumbass.

    117. Re:On behalf of arizona... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      For someone who doesn't plan on surviving anyway, that just makes dying easier and a lot more spectacular.

      Not really.. and if you'd actually read anything they wrote, you'd see killing alot of people was fairly important to them as well.

      Plus, they might get to witness the whole campus shooting up each other as people start misidentifying each other as the original shooter.

      Right... because of course we'd just hand guns out with no training whatsoever, and people NOT in the same room would rush in like cowboys. Please, give it a rest.

      To make the news? To get revenge on society/those jocks/whomever they think needs killing? Just to show that they can actually do it? Does a psycho nutcase really need a reason?

      And this is different then what actually happened how, except with more people being dead and the only reason MORE weren't dead was because they killed themselves? You act like I'm saying these things would never happen; I said they might be less likely to happen, big difference, and if they do, it wouldn't be as bad if everyone could defend themselves adequately. And yes, even psychos need reasons... they're often distorted and not based in reality, but they still need a reason.

      And how's that different from them getting a few and then shooting themselves?

      There likely would have been less death, and the survivors wouldn't be fucked up for a while because they were made to feel powerless to defend themselves.

    118. Re:On behalf of arizona... by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And [cops taking their guns home] is relevant to a discussion about the second amendment how?

      He was making an argument by analogy that since cops are (theoretically) always safe with their guns due to their training, that non-cops with the same training would be safe too.

      Hold on for a minute - I was talking about gun safety and marksmanship training specifically. Cops (hopefully) receive training in more areas than these two, and are subject to a little more scrutiny than the average gun owner, especially with regards to staying calm under stress and pressure.

      I apologize: when I mentioned gun safety and marksmanship I intended them to be merely examples, not an exhaustive list. I would want citizen gun owners to complete all the relevant gun-related training that police receive, including (but not limited to!) remaining calm under pressure and defending their weapon from an attacker trying to take it away. Making the average gun owner subject to "a little more scrutiny" is exactly what I propose.

      Besides, a broad definition of "gun safety" includes that stuff anyway!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    119. Re:On behalf of arizona... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Ah; gotcha. In that case, perhaps it's "carrying while intoxicated" that should be prohibited, since being in possession of a weapon is analogous to being in control of dangerous machinery.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    120. Re:On behalf of arizona... by pokechop · · Score: 1

      What is racist about trying to keep people from coming and staying in the country illegally?

      Everything. The United States is allegedly an open society. You can tell because we have open borders. When you keep people out because of who they are, rather than what they do, that is racist.

      --
      xoviquom, ogdeuns
    121. Re:On behalf of arizona... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "I feel no need to put links on here that are everywhere in the rest of this thread. Oh wait, I specifically have you "use your sources". Way to control the debate!"

      What?

      They would be Y O U R sources. What control would I have over those?

      When you stop drooling, come back and give me some sources. All ya gotta do is google a little bit. Sheriff Joe is popular enough to get plenty of ammo, even if most of it is blanks.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    122. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see. Not protecting yourself against a wrong makes that wrong right.

      Or were you going for "funny"?

    123. Re:On behalf of arizona... by fredklein · · Score: 1

      Face it, a gun is purely designed to maim or kill. It is not a tool and is not designed for any other purpose

      Incorrect. The purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet when triggered.

      Now, what they bullet Does (hits the ground, hits a target, injures/kills an animal, injures/kills a person) depends on where it's pointed, which is entirely up to the person that triggers it.

      In any case, you have still not addressed my point, which is that guns allow someone who is not physically capable of defending themselves to... defend themselves. Are guns perfect? Nope. Do they always work? Nope. But not having them mean that any punk with a few muscles (or a few friends) can do anything they want to you. And your wife. And daughter.

    124. Re:On behalf of arizona... by fredklein · · Score: 1

      Recently there has been a big debate over the push to allow guns in bars. This means, bar patrons would be allowed to bring guns into a bar and then drink. Something to think about if you ever accidentally bump into a drunken bar patron.

      You are either misinformed, or lying.

      Check out this article:
      http://www.examiner.com/x-2206-Cleveland-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m6d2-Bill-to-remove-Ohios-ban-on-selfdefense-while-dining-introduced

      "If this bill is enacted, it would still be a felony for a CHL holder to consume alcohol in the restaurant. Concealed carry in such restaurants would only be legal if the CHL holder is not drinking."

    125. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      And you either didn't even bother to read the article you linked to, or you're dishonestly trying to pass off a bill proposal in Ohio as potential Arizona law in order to hijack public concern there.

      The discussion was about Arizona, not Ohio. Ohio HB 203 is completely irrelevant here. You might as well link to an article about midwifery laws in territorial Hawaii. The issue in Phoenix which is being debated and which there is public concern is guns in bars, not guns in restaurants which serve alcohol.

    126. Re:On behalf of arizona... by fredklein · · Score: 1

      This article IS about Arizona, and DOES mention restaurants (well, a "business that serves alcohol":
      http://www.gazette.com/articles/bill-57730-gun-alcohol.html
      "carry a gun into a business that serves alcohol"
      "The measure would ban drinking while packing and allow restaurants to deny entry to gun-toting citizens by posting a sign next to their liquor license."

      As does this one:
      http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-13-arizona-guns_N.htm
      "into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol "
      "Drinking while carrying a weapon would be illegal."

      and this one:
      http://azccw.net/2009/06/09/senate-considers-allowing-guns-near-alcohol/
      "concealed weapons in restaurants that sell alcohol. "
      "People carrying a weapon would not be allowed to drink."

      Sheesh. You really need to know the facts better.

    127. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you tried passing off some law in Ohio? What gives?

      You nuts down in Arizona love pushing boundaries. You bring loaded assault rifles to public events to intimidate the president. So how you going to enforce this one? Are you going to have that wimpy little bartender at Ruby Tuesday or that cocktail waitress at whatever dive you guys have frisk customers as they come in? They're just going to ask yes or no, and then get lied to, man. Is there some big problem with restaurants in your redneck little state where people can't eat their sliders and their boneless chipotle chicken wings without being robbed? WTF.

    128. Re:On behalf of arizona... by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      Thank you for finally providing some *relevant* facts, and without trying to imply that I'm a liar.

      Not only do the articles point out the same concerns I've already mentioned, they bring up the possibility that firearms will get into bars due to the unclear definition of a restaurant. This isn't the '70s. The bar, pub, and restaurant models have mostly merged into a single hybrid model.

      Some places are obviously bars. And some are obviously restaurants, but a huge number are "hot spots" or "new old favorites": places like PF Chang's, BJ's, Pink Taco, Cheesecake Factory, Blue Wasabi, Red Robin, etc. You don't have to be over 18 to enter, you can dine-in, and you can order a range of alcoholic drinks. I know for a fact that several of these restaurants make most of their money at the bar. A restaurant that sells alcohol can in fact be a bar.

      Then you have the question of denying service to patrons carrying weapons. What if the weapons are concealed? I've never been asked if I was packing before, and I doubt I'll be asked after. And even if I were asked, I have no legal obligation to say I am carrying. I might just lie and say I'm not. Most restauranteurs aren't going to hire trained bouncers with metal detectors due to the image and the cost. And most aren't going to start having the hostess due a weapons check at the door.

      In all actuality though, it's not totally a bad idea. But you might as well just let me carry in any building I want because this limitation of bar vs restaurant really doesn't work.

  2. The easy way out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Things like these could be easily avoded if people would remember to forget their passwords.

  3. Summary doesn't make it clear... by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 4, Informative

    Summary doesn't make it clear that the Sheriff in question is Joe Arpaio, a sadistic, authoritarian monster that that believes in making prison as demeaning and painful affair as possible no matter what the offense. He's a sick, twisted psychopath that needs to be stopped at all cost.

    1. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry, forgot link:

      http://www.arpaio.com/index.php

      There's a reason this asshole has such a critical website over him. I firmly believe he's a sociopath.

    2. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I firmly believe he's a sociopath.

      All he does is treat criminals as if they are sub-human and their dignity is his personal property. Besides, there seems to be an approximate consensus among the Maricopa anglo population people convicted of a crime aren't human beings, so clearly it's not sociopathic.

      /sarcasm

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    3. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know how Arizona is, but if it's anything like here in California, Sheriff is an elected office, and the easiest way to stop him is to vote him out. Thus I would suspect that a large portion of his constituency actually agrees with his policies. It's hard to go against the majority in a democracy: bad majorities have created ugly things such as slavery in the past.

      --
      Qxe4
    4. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Actually, Joe Arpaio treats criminals the way they should be treated. That county has the lowest rate of repeat offenders. They know that his jail is hell and they definitely don't want to go back there.

    5. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by mordors9 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He is also extremely popular with his constituents, who fully support the way he operates his office. The US Justice Department now has him as a target (since the Obama Administration came to power) due to his enforcement of Immigration laws. In Arizona he polls 11 points higher than Obama so he is popular statewide.

    6. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most peopleIf you want to have an authoritarian dictator, with no regard for laws or basic human rights (regardless if they are criminal/illegal/mass murderer), than ya you really want this guy, or any idea of you don't spend money you don't have.

      No matter how many times we attempt to get rid of him, he just keeps going, and going. He is the energizer bunny of evil.

    7. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Speaking as a Brit living in Arizona, I can assure you he is NOT popular across all the state.

      His constituents in Phoenix, however, think the sun shines out of his arse.

      This also explains a lot about Phoenix in general.

    8. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Moryath · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Funny. He keeps getting reelected with double-digit margins, despite propaganda like you put forth.

      This probably has something to do with the fact that he actually has his people enforcing the law, and doesn't waste money coddling criminals. Given the amount of ridiculous benefits we see in most prisons in the US that make prison a "no-brainer" for large numbers of people (see here: people actually trying to get themselves thrown in jail), I'd say I like the idea of making prison as unpalatable a concept as possible.

      Of course, this isn't unique to the US. The UK is having the same debate. They just don't also have to deal with a well-funded and ridiculous propaganda campaign based on "legalizing" foreign criminals who jump our borders and cause crime while also having the debate on what prisoners should, or shouldn't, get while incarcerated.

    9. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Are you fucking batshit? Arpaio is among the only SANE Sheriffs in the US.

      Our prisoners should be treated like prisoners. They should not have better food and TV than I have. If you don't like that some people are wrongly incarcerated, fix THAT. Don't expect me to continue paying taxes so that the local rapist can have 400 HD channels + OnDemand while he's locked up.

    10. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's not going to have any fun with the federal government. DHS is now headed by Janet Napolitano. For those that don't know she was the governor of Arizona (and a fairly popular one) until she was appointed to head DHS. She also hates Arpaio for his tactics and flaunting of the law. As such you can bet DHS is going to be on his ass about any and everything they can.

      There is a lesson here about stepping on toes that might be connected to an ass you later have to kiss.

    11. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who's spent any amount of time in Arizona would've known immediately this was Arpaio. This guy needs to have his ass handed to him.

    12. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 0, Troll

      He's a sick, twisted psychopath that needs to be stopped at all cost.

      Or elected to higher office...

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    13. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

      This:

      That county has the lowest rate of repeat offenders. They know that his jail is hell and they definitely don't want to go back there.

      is not sufficient to justify this claim:

      Joe Arpaio treats criminals the way they should be treated.

      His methods may work, but they are almost certainly harsher than they need to be, and possibly excessively so (which would make them unconstitutional). The fact his questionable methods are tolerated is interesting, given that Americans like to cling to the concept of a "moral high ground", which you can't really do when you can't even confidently state that your actions are legal, let alone moral. Only slightly less interesting are the parallels between Arpaio's reign and the Bush administration's torture policy.

    14. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by linzeal · · Score: 5, Informative

      People waiting for trial are not 'criminals'. He has had over half a dozen deaths in custody this year along for people who were not convicted of a crime. County jails should be equivalent in comfort, food and atmosphere to a Motel 6 till you are convicted, imho.

    15. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by jamstar7 · · Score: 5, Informative

      This probably has something to do with the fact that he actually has his people enforcing the law, and doesn't waste money coddling criminals. Given the amount of ridiculous benefits we see in most prisons in the US that make prison a "no-brainer" for large numbers of people (see here: people actually trying to get themselves thrown in jail), I'd say I like the idea of making prison as unpalatable a concept as possible.

      He gets a certain cash amount from the Feds per prisoner to keep them in his 'jails', a bunch of tent cities, population over 4,000. He spends the absolute minimum on these and runs them in a manner consistent with German concentration camps (without the poison gas showers; he doesn't want to kill his prisoners, he wants the money from it), thus creating a cash surplus he uses to make sure his department has enough weapons to take over a Third World country. You can get thrown into one of his 'jails' by having a couple outstanding parking tickets, or defaulting on your child support payments.

      As a resident of Arizona, he makes me ashamed to live here.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    16. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by digitig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      She also hates Arpaio for his tactics and flaunting of the law.

      I thought it was pretty much a sheriff's job to flaunt the law? Oh, unless you mean "flout"... (this isn't spelling or grammar, it's semantics -- you may want to extend your sig).

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    17. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by jonnat · · Score: 1

      The New Yorker recently published an excellent profile of Joe Arpaio. Unfortunately, it's behind a paywall, but here is the abstract: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/07/20/090720fa_fact_finnegan

    18. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree with that sentiment, but Arpaio is accountable for witholding insulin for diabetics, turning paraplegics into quadraplegics, killing at least two mentally handicapped prisoners with multiple taserings, spit bagging, and excessive restraints.

      There's a very distinct and wide line between the barbarism he displays and not pandering to inmates that you're proposing (and I agree with).

    19. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by belmolis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a difference between not "coddling" prisoners and abuse, not to mention the fact that the jail houses not only people convicted of crimes but those awaiting trial, who have not been convicted of anything and should not give up any rights except to the extent necessary to keep them from leaving the jurisdiction. In any case, although he is Mr. Law-and-Order when it comes to immigration, as this case shows he is power hungry and doesn't abide by the law unless it suits him. If you've got a civil dispute with another branch of government, you don't resolve it by sending armed thugs to take control by force.

    20. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And it's all legal and supported by his constituency.

      i wasn't aware that it was legal to take over a govt. agency by force, and to do so while there is an active lawsuit underway, and then to ignore a court order. You learn something new every day.

    21. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by EsJay · · Score: 4, Informative
    22. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is because his constituents are psychopaths also.

    23. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Moryath · · Score: 0, Troll

      Counties in Texas have about the same number of deaths per capita, in the same circumstances. Other counties across the US wind up with similar circumstances as well, so much so that "Custody Death Syndrome" is being bandied about as a term now.

      The jails in Texas are nothing like Maricopa County's. In fact, their jails very much resemble a Motel 6. Free bed, free cable TV, free exercise equipment, free library - the only thing you don't have that you have in a Motel 6, is the ability to leave.

      You can use statistics to lie about anything. For example, anti-police groups use a so-called "steady rise in taser-related fatalities" to try to argue that police are too quick to use tasers. The problem? Their "statistic" matches almost exactly the timeline of increased issuing of tasers to police and increased changes in police policy to favor the use of Tasers over a drawn gun. What you've proposed regarding Arpaio is just another out-of-context "statistic" that means nothing once examined.

    24. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by retiredtwice · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It might be that if more jails/prisons were run this way, we might have fewer return trips. I wonder what his repeat statistics are in comparison to other places that run taxpayer funded country clubs.

      What is it about the words -Criminal- and -Illegal- alien that is so hard for slashdotters to fathom.

      I dont think that prisoners should have access to TV or weight lifting equipment or be allowed to form gangs or get drugs while in prison. I suspect those activities are pretty limited under his command.

      If it is so demeaning to dignity to be in jail, sobeit. It should NOT be a badge of honor like it is treated.

      I am not against immigration or work permits but I am against paying for (via taxes) medical and infrastructure expenses for those who do not contribute and merely send money out of the country. If they pay their fair share and are here legally, good on them and they are welcome.

      (so much for karma in this thread)

      --
      I get it now. If you disagree with the majority on /., you are a troll.
    25. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Speaking as a Brit living in Arizona, I can assure you he is NOT popular across all the state.

      His constituents in Phoenix, however, think the sun shines out of his arse.

      This also explains a lot about Phoenix in general.

      I dont think he's popular in Britian either, not after trying to extradite law abiding british citizens and threaten to humiliate them

    26. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can only applaud the levels of doublethink required to hold up a sheriff in Maricopa County, Arizona, a deeply Republican county in the state John McCain calls home, as an example of durn lib'rul policy in action.

    27. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Nathrael · · Score: 1

      While I agree that criminals are treated far too nicely in most prisons - I really don't think prisons should be like hotels - Arpaio is certainly the other extreme. I don't want my tax money being used to enable some rapist scumbag to watch HDTV, but on the other hand, I don't want to finance Nazi-like concentration camps (aw, Godwin) either. Yes, some (not all) criminals should be treated harshly. But I don't see any reason to subject people who've been late on their traffic tickets or were caught smoking pot (I strongly despise drug use including alcohol and cigarettes on a personal level, but stoners certainly aren't harming anyone and they can shoot themselves to oblivion for all I care) to extremely harsh (and possibly cruel and unusual) punishment which might just be right for the real scumbags.

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    28. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by MrHanky · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "It might be" -- well, there should be statistics. Does he have lower return rates on his prisoners, or is it just wishful thinking on his constituents' part?

    29. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by mog007 · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to www.arpaio.com, Arpaio himself commissioned a study by a college to determine his return statistics (using tax payer money of course) and the college determined that the rates for repeat offenders were no different from the average.

      Also keep in mind, that "tent city" thing he's got set up doesn't just house convicted criminals, it also houses people who are waiting for their court date to appear, and were unable to make bond.

      Besides, I thought prison was supposed to be about rehabilitation anyway, not so much just a punishment. If it were just punishment you were after, why not shoot everybody in the leg for crimes up to rape or murder, and shoot everybody at or above that level.

    30. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's a sick, twisted psychopath that needs to be stopped at all cost.

      Now if they'd just come after Simon Leis in Cincinnati next if that's the criteria...

    31. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by zippthorne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would you think prison was about rehabilitation? Prison terms are specified by the crime committed, not by the estimation of the time required for sufficient behavior modification.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    32. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Delwin · · Score: 1

      Being put in a tent in the desert in 115 degree heat is considered torture in most countries. Apparently not here though.

    33. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by linzeal · · Score: 5, Informative

      People should not die in custody and especially should not while awaiting trial. ---- note the period

      The US has more deaths in custody than almost any other first-world country but Britain is damn close because of the number of heroin-related deaths there. Deaths in custody after the introduction of the taser in both countries rose as deaths related to overdose, homicide by police officer, cardiac-arrest and many others increased substantially. The taser is over-used and mis-used and police are killing people because of it. Don't be an apologist for murderers, it makes you look like a monster.

    34. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh please! you can give criminals hard time without abusing them. I'll give an example from my home state as proof. Here we have at Tucker what is called the "hoe squad" and it is what it sounds like. You get your ass up at dawn and hoe and weed and grow your own food so that the state (us) doesn't have to pay for it. It is hard work, but they don't abuse the prisoners, feed them rotten food, etc like that sicko does.

      I was laughing my ass of a few months back when I happened to land on Cops! spinning the dial and saw the Arkansas State police chasing a guy with one wheel gone and fire shooting out of the car towards the Tenn line. I turned to my GF and said "I bet he don't want to go to the hoe squad!" and sure enough, he stops when he crosses the border and the Ark State Police give him the usual "what are you crazy! Are you trying to get yourself and others killed?" and he says "I did crime In Tenn and I'll confess! I just wasn't gonna stop til I made it here because I ain't gonna go back to the damned hoe squad!"

      So you see you CAN give prisoners hard time without abuse. That Arpaio is simply sadistic and seems to me from interviews gets off on power and the abuse thereof. Our prisoners work their asses off (in fact I passed a local work crew from the county jail coming home cleaning the statues in the court square) but they are given decent food (which they grow themselves), decent medical care, and decent treatment. And for all those "you can't be too nasty!" types? they are gonna get out some day, and you kick and beat a dog long enough they will turn mean as scratch and tear you up. Do you expect humans who have been ritually abused and degraded and starved to act ANY different? Remember that this asshole treats ALL prisoners like that, from hot checks and kids busted with pot to serial rapists. The guy is just a vicious sick fuck, and as we have seen time after time after time that "bullies with badges" just keeping pushing the limit until they go to far and get somebody killed. And the odds are he won't kill some hardened rapist, but some kid caught riding in a stolen car or with a bag of dope. Would you really be fine with that?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    35. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by walt-sjc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Prison about rehabilitation? Hahahahahaa!!!! Not hardly. Prison (not to be confused with Jail, which is different) is about keeping the baddies away from the rest of society so we can be safe. It's about punishment. Rehabilitation is a myth. The number that are rehabilitated is so small that it would probably be the same number if you didn't put ANYONE in prison. The proof that it is about punishment and keeping people away from society is the sentencing guidelines for different crimes, such as selling drugs, rape, child porn, etc.
      Not that sentencing guidelines are rational though - drug dealers usually get heavier penalties than child rapists, at least in my area.

    36. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      So why is it liberals want more and more aspects of our lives run by the government, thus giving guys like Arpaio more control over our lives? Why do liberals scoff at the notion of a limiting Congress to powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

      Hi, I'm a liberal.

      I don't support the election of sheriffs or judges for precisely the reason that a tyranny of the majority can occur, resulting in the sort of human rights violations, deaths, and perversions of the law seen here.

      But feel free to keep doing your strawman thing, it seems to be working well for the Republican party.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    37. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      Uhm, your "statistical analysis" says nothing about whether the use of force has increased or not, it only points out the obvious: taser policy encourages taser use. Did cops shoot as many then as they tase now? No?

    38. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, I thought prison was supposed to be about rehabilitation anyway, not so much just a punishment.

      That's the question, isn't it? I, for one, believe it should be primarily for punishment, with just enough "rehabilitation" to lower the odds of repeat offenders.

    39. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that our immigration laws are largely set up by xenophobes a lot like you. They make it nearly impossible to legally immigrate, so what do you expect? When you have unjust laws, you shouldn't expect people to respect them. This same kind of thing happened during the prohibition era too. But do people really learn? Not really.

      One thing that the anti-immigrant crowd do miss is that a lot of them are holding jobs using assumed SSNs, and taxes are withheld. They don't bother to file to get those withholdings back.

    40. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, I thought prison was supposed to be about rehabilitation anyway, not so much just a punishment. If it were just punishment you were after, why not shoot everybody in the leg for crimes up to rape or murder, and shoot everybody at or above that level.

      Honestly it worked in the past, and the system woudn't suffer under the overcrowding it has now, the only problem is that it there are some innocent people there that got a raw deal. Also prison is a place to separate the troublemakers of society from society, it doesn't necessarily mean its purpose is to rehabilitate.

    41. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is it about the words -Criminal- and -Illegal- alien that is so hard for slashdotters to fathom.

      I know exactly what they mean. I also have a working understanding of the term "universal human dignity." If you want to put a man away for comitting a crime, then do it. But to break a man, to force him to eat moldy food and to sexually humiliate him, let alone reward the state for doing it, is an altogether different thing. Absolute power over others corrupts absolutely; you let cops do awful things to people in jail, and I guarantee that eventually that's how they'll treat people on the outside, too. In this most recent case, they simply invaded a government building and staged a coup -- the police's attitude toward their responsibility as upholders of public trust has been destroyed by their chief's blatant disregard for the law in deference to his political prerogatives and his belief that his role in society is to be an arbiter of violence.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    42. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by 644bd346996 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is it about the words "cruel and unusual punishments" that is so hard for you to fathom?

      Prisons aren't about punishments or retribution or degradation. They're about removing criminals from the society they threaten, and rehabilitating them if possible.

      How we treat our inmates reflects more on us than on them. If we have no qualms about doing things to inmates for the express purpose of stripping them of their dignity and humanity, it is because we have already lost ours.

    43. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I firmly believe he's a sociopath.

      All he does is treat criminals as if they are sub-human and their dignity is his personal property. Besides, there seems to be an approximate consensus among the Maricopa anglo population people convicted of a crime aren't human beings, so clearly it's not sociopathic.

      /sarcasm

      Let me fix that for you. After arrest and before trial comes jail. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. Sooo... Besides, there seems to be an approximate consensus among the Maricopa anglo population that people not yet convicted of a crime aren't human beings.

    44. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I recall Jim Crow laws being popular in some states too.

    45. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If prison sentences were more clearly rehabilitation programs and not punishments, then I doubt they would be badges of honor to the same extent.

    46. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Obvious Troll. But your ignorance is showing. Sheriff Joe doesn't have anything to do with prisons. He runs the Maricopa County JAIL system. Jail is not prison. Furthermore the jail meets all federal and state standards. And Jails should treat all inmates the same.

    47. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by slim-t · · Score: 2, Funny

      Didn't you ever see Raising Arizona? Nick Cage served a lot of time in the Maricopa County Correctional Facility for Men. He was what you call, a repeat offender. Clearly it's not working.

    48. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by xs650 · · Score: 1

      Arizona is a lot like the old deep south except without the rain and humidity.

    49. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      ...those who do not contribute...

      So I guess you seem to believe the actual work they perform in unsafe, below minimum wage conditions for an employer who pockets the money that would go for the guys taxes and FICA is completely worthless? From what do you base "fair share"? Some bureaucrat's spreadsheet? So easy to condemn from the authentic Naugahyde La-Z-Boy.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    50. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The average member of this site would die within 2 weeks out of Slashdot withdrawl. Cable TV and exercise equipment doesn't make it a Motel 6.

    51. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by __aasqbs9791 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not that sentencing guidelines are rational though - drug dealers usually get heavier penalties than child rapists, at least in my area.

      Well, then it clearly isn't about keeping them away from society, either. So what is it really about? Clearly, with the ever increasing numbers (and percentages of population), it isn't working in either case. I have no idea what could replace it, but something needs to be done.

    52. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 1

      Motel Sixes have libraries? Awesome!

    53. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by LaskoVortex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is it about the words -Criminal- and -Illegal- alien that is so hard for slashdotters to fathom.

      It sounds like the sheriff must have broken a law here. But I don't see you, retiredtwice, saying that this sheriff, who has probably done something -Illegal-, should be charged and held as a prisoner until his trial. I'd say it's illegal to raid a law abiding office, to kidnap personnel (i.e. force them to act against their will), to torment law abiding, to commandeer property not your own, and to modify government computers without authorization. Why are you not up in arms about these illegal activities? I can tell you why: because it doesn't matter to *YOU* what crimes someone commits when *YOU* think that someone promotes *YOUR* own distorted ideological agenda. You need to take a look in the mirror. Your morals are corrupt, retiredtwice.

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    54. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Oswald · · Score: 1

      Dude, you are something else. I like your attitude, and I like that you can work "mean as scratch" into a post and still get modded up. Very cool.

    55. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by slashqwerty · · Score: 5, Informative

      The guy is just a vicious sick fuck, and as we have seen time after time after time that "bullies with badges" just keeping pushing the limit until they go to far and get somebody killed. And the odds are he won't kill some hardened rapist, but some kid caught riding in a stolen car or with a bag of dope.

      Some would argue he has already gotten several people killed. And Charles Agster was not some kid caught riding in a stolen car or with a bag of dope. Ambria Spencer's daughter certainly didn't commit any crimes. Richard Post really was caught with dope but he wasn't killed. Instead, the guards broke his neck turning him into a quadriplegic, and then they went on to laugh about it.

    56. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by chill · · Score: 4, Funny

      So, what you're proposing is, because Nicolas Cage made multiple movies, Joe Arpaio's methodologies on running a correctional facility are a failure?

      Sir, you make a compelling case. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    57. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, our immigration laws are set up primarily to please two groups of people: those who want cheap labor that doesn't fall under U.S. labor and wage regulations, and those attempting to protect unskilled union jobs from competition.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    58. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by MartinSchou · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, the best way to judge any society is to see how they treat their jail prison population.

      See, no justice system is infallible. Just look at the number of death row inmates who have been cleared after spending decades behind bars. Are the people who say "we should treat them like shit so they don't want to come back" really willing to put their money where their mouth is and volunteer to spend say six months doing hard time for a crime they didn't commit? How about a year? Five? Ten? Twenty?

      We shouldn't treat inmates as if they're pond scum and that we, as a society, would be better off if they were on the compost heap instead of in prison. Sure, quite a lot of the people we throw behind bars end up committing some kind of crime while behind bars, be it doing drugs, breaking the prison rules, violence etc., but what are you supposed to do, if you're the innocent guy? Just let someone shank you? Rape you? Beat you up? Or are you going to try to fight back?

      We may not like the people behind bars, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't treat them as human beings.

    59. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Minwee · · Score: 1

      I wonder what his repeat statistics are in comparison to other places that run taxpayer funded country clubs.

      Well, I'm pretty sure that those roving gangs of mentally handicapped people are going to think twice before loitering in any convenience stores. I'm sure that Arizonans can be proud of his "tough on being confused in public" stance, and those pansies from Amnesty International just don't understand just how much danger the coffee pot could have been in from that 130 pound giant if Sheriff Joe and his boys hadn't beaten and tortured him to death.

      Of course, I'm just cherry picking the one, lone example of a harmless little guy with the mind of a twelve year old who was murdered by Sheriff Joe. I'm sure that everybody else who has died while in Sheriff Joe's custody have been dangerous, vicious criminals and not, say, people whose only crime was appearing to be mexican, or a blind man serving a short sentence for shoplifting, who accidentally fell out of his bunk so hard that he broke his neck, ruptured his intestines, gave himself severe internal bleeding and broke all of his own toes.

      Yeah, that's the kind of "tough on blind guys who commit misdemeanors" stance that we can all support, isn't it?

    60. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by MartinSchou · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The anti-immigration fans tend to forget a rather important thing: How did they end up here? I don't mean the new immigrants - I mean the fans.

      Unless they are of native American stock, they themselves are either immigrants or descendent from immigrants. And if it's the latter, there's a good chance that their own lineage was a rather violent one - after all, they were the original ones that 'came over here and stole the jobs and the country'.

      America for Americans? Sure - but where are all the white people going to go then?

    61. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's largely because most people who have experienced his treatment don't get a vote any more.

    62. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

      You're a moron. Or an American. (Probably both.)

      Rehabilitation works, punishment doesn't, end of. Try taking a look at some actual civilized countries, like those in Europe...

    63. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by mariushm · · Score: 3, Informative

      In some countries like Norway, rehabilitation actually works.

    64. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by royallthefourth · · Score: 0, Troll

      there seems to be an approximate consensus among the Maricopa anglo population people convicted of a crime aren't human beings, so clearly it's not sociopathic.

      I live in Maricopa county and the thinking is more like "those aren't humans, they're just Mexicans."

      This place makes me sick.

    65. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prisons aren't about punishments or retribution or degradation.

      Yes they are.

      If we just wanted people to be away from the rest of us we'd send them on vacation. Instead we send them to prison, which is supposed to act as a deterrent, and it's not a deterrent if it isn't a shitty place to be.

       

    66. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by mooingyak · · Score: 2, Funny

      Here we have at Tucker what is called the "hoe squad" and it is what it sounds like. You get your ass up at dawn and hoe and weed

      Sorry, but that is definitely not what "Hoe Squad" sounds like at all.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    67. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      It might be that if more jails/prisons were run this way, we might have fewer return trips

      Yeah, of the "I'm not going back.", BANG BANG variety. Making jail unpleasant does little to address the reason people end up there (and never mind that people awaiting trial get the same treatment). You want them to not come back? Give them a way to make a life on the up and up.

      I dont think that prisoners should have access to TV or weight lifting equipment or be allowed to form gangs or get drugs while in prison.

      They aren't allowed to get drugs, they just do. As to the rest of that screed, no weights, no tv, no socialisation - sounds like a great way to drive people insane. How about we just shoot them instead - it'd be more humane.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    68. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I adovcate that suggestion involving the shooting part. AS for 'I thought prison was supposed to be about rehabilitation anyway, not so much just a punishment.' Then the system has been severely broken for a long time. Since prison was supposed to be about punishment (you broke a law and there is consequences and one is to be placed in a box for a set period of time with no freedoms) and rehabilitation is a small part, he is just over reaching. Sociopath? No. Harsh? Yes. Cruel and Unusual punishment? no. Prison isnt a country club. Simplest solution for people now in that part of Arizona:Vote him out. Not in Arizona. Don't go, for any reason.

    69. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      really? i can think of at least a handful of countries where its common every day. It would only be torture if they were deprived the needed water to be ok in the increased heat.

    70. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by StormyMonday · · Score: 3, Informative

      Note -- not prison, jail.

      The people in his jail are waiting trial or serving time for misdemeanors. Hardly the civilization- devouring monsters of Sheriff Joe's imagination.

      --
      Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
    71. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black Panthers, et al., fought hard to get Obama elected. He must be the same as everyone in his constituency too, right?

    72. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as a decedent of a native im all for exporting ALL immigrants :D

      *drools over everyone having over 20 acres each if not more if that happened*

        not trolling or looking for flame

    73. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by iamhassi · · Score: 1, Informative

      "believes in making prison as demeaning and painful affair as possible no matter what the offense."

      Wait... you mean he took away their salt and nudy magazines?! Oh the horror!!

      For all the great descriptive words being thrown about, I see no links with any evidence of anything wrong with this guy.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    74. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How bout we ship all the criminals to your house then?

    75. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by iamhassi · · Score: 0, Redundant

      "Sir, you make a compelling case. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter."

      ROFLMAO!!! where's my mod points when i really need them??

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    76. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by budgenator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope it's not torture, in fact it's business as usual for some of the soldiers stationed in Iraq.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    77. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "Sorry, but that is definitely not what "Hoe Squad" sounds like at all."

      Score:5, Insightful

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    78. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "You're a moron. Or an American."

      He was describing the reality of the situation, not advocating a position. From what I've seen his post is accurate. If you would look past your anti-Americanism for a moment you would see that.

      "Try taking a look at some actual civilized countries, like those in Europe"

      It's a mixed bag. I would not want the USA to emulate Serbia or Romania, but hey, to each his own.

    79. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you also thought Gore should have been president since he won the popular vote and wished for a pure democracy instead of a republic. Your situational ethics underwhelm.

    80. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Prison rape is an especially sickening concept.

      The idea we can't stop crime in prison is idiotic. If people are even intimidating other people in prison, said intimidates should have their ability to interact with other prisoners revoked until they've learned their damn lesson.(1)

      Hey, assholes, we put you in prison because you can't follow the law, you think running around threatening people, aka, committing felony assault, is going to fly?

      Apparently, the answer is yes, and we've decided the prisoners 'deserve' whatever happens to them, and for some reason have failed to grasp what that actually means is we are allowing violent convicted criminals to continue to have fun. Forget a damn TV, how about we deny them the pleasure of raping someone? We don't even let innocent people rape people!

      1) And, for all this talk about 'prison overcrowding', I suspect prison populations would be a lot easier to maintain, even more of them, if we'd simply move the 10% that cause the problems to solitary confinement until they stop causing damn problems.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    81. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Yes, and according to the same article the National Corrections Commission on Health Care (an AMA organization) also removed the health care accreditation of these prisons. That sounds a bit more serious.

      In addition it wasn't quite clear what forms of salt were banned, but it is important to note that salt can be very important if you are doing manual labor in warm climates, such as found in Arizona.

    82. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jail is usually for those awaiting trial, and generally those who can't afford good legal counsel or bail. Jail inmantes are still innocent until proven guilty. That's the highest law of the land. Jail is usually not a place for punishment (except for the short-termers). Punishment is what prisons are for.

      I'm not sure which facilities you're talking about when you say "taxpayer funded country clubs". Have you ever been to a jail or prison? I work in the corrections industry, and through all of your law-and-order chest-thumping, it's clear to me that you haven't got a clue. I highly recommend that you spend some time around our justice and corrections system, the people who work in it, and the people incarcerated within the system. Your opinions may change a little bit with some actual knowledge and perspective.

    83. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not going to have any fun with the federal government. DHS is now headed by Janet Napolitano. For those that don't know she was the governor of Arizona (and a fairly popular one) until she was appointed to head DHS.

      She is FAR from popular. Her leaving the governor's office is the best thing to happen to the state since she took office in th efirst place.

    84. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm American and pro-immigration. However, I only support legal methods of immigration. When you have illegal immigrants in your country, they tend not to assimilate. In fact, they balkanize. We already have regions of Texas and California near the border that isn't American anymore. Culturally, that part of the soil has been eroded away to Mexico and as such, they have complete disregard to our state and federal laws. I suppose calling this region a "no mans land" would be a better description.

      This is what happens when you don't enforce your borders and immigration laws.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    85. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Right. The point of prison is to provide a living environment away from others, without any of the luxuries like TV or whatnot. Perhaps you should be able to earn the right to watch TV, and stuff like that.

      We can argue exactly where the minimum required is, but it should essentially just be a very bland and boring camp. You can read, or you can learn useful skills for the outside, or you can just lay around in your cell staring at the ceiling.

      What it shouldn't be is an attempt to harm you. Prisoners should be not allowed to threaten other prisoners. (Who the hell gave them that privilege?) Anyone who does behave like that should be immediately removed from the general population.

      Medical treatment should be promptly given, period. People should not be sleeping outside in tents either. They should have moderately comfortable beds, and be given eight hours of sleep each night.

      Moreover, I'm going to go past that and say that certain things, like the group showering, shouldn't be tolerated there either. Even ignoring the history of assaults that happen in showers, it is simply there to be demeaning. Demeaning people is a great way to make them feel powerless, and making people feel powerless is a great way to make them exert power over others, often in criminal ways. Way to shoot ourselves in the foot.

      Seriously, people. We're not putting people in prison to torture them. We're putting them there to get them away from the society they hurt, give them a chance to think about their behavior, try to give them some other skill instead of crime. (You will notice that this makes imprisoning people for drug abuse fairly pointless. But, hey, I can't help where logical conclusions go.)

      Yes, some people will assert we're trying to discourage other criminals, but, no, that really doesn't work...criminals almost never believe they'll be caught. And if we really don't think that five years of 'reasonable' prison is nice, and they need five years of 'torture' prison, why the hell don't we just raise the sentencing terms and give them ten years of reasonable prison?

      The answer is: Some people are fucking sadists and have decided that prisoners are 'fair game'.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    86. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by nickdwaters · · Score: 1

      "Don't do the crime if you cant serve the time." - Joe Arpaio

    87. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Nocterro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And parole is determined based on rehabilitation, not crime. So it serves two purposes.

      --
      [clever sig]
    88. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Besides, there seems to be an approximate consensus among the Maricopa anglo population people who aren't anglo aren't human beings, so clearly it's not sociopathic."

      There, fixed that for you.

      It's not that they think criminals aren't people, but rather entire ethnic groups aren't human. As such, they want to use the laws to criminalize whomever they want to keep them in their neighborhoods and away from the good white folk. Then the brown folks, whether actually convicted violent criminals or first-time DUI offenders, (hell, a large portion of the people in Tent City HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANYTHING - they are there awaiting trial) can be locked up in jails that border on POW/refugee camps.

      You do not see many white people, certainly no affluent white people, in Tent City.

    89. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that is definitely not what "Hoe Squad" sounds like at all.

      What? No "hoe and weed" where you come from?

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    90. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Kierthos · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's wishful thinking. The recidivism under "Sheriff Joe" isn't substantially lower then under the previous Sheriff. Plus, you have the fact that he's focusing so much on arresting illegal immigrants, that it's actually affecting how well they are working against other crimes.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    91. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by LihTox · · Score: 2, Funny

      He's flaunting his flouting, perhaps?

    92. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by cdrguru · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By turning a blind eye to illegal immigration you are fostering an evironment which allows employers to continue to have unsafe working conditions and pay below-market wages. If these people were not present in the US, these employers would either have to move to Mexico and employ local people or pay US citizens real wages.

      Why do you think prices at fast food restaurants have pretty much been frozen for 30 years? Because their labor costs have not increased.

      Why is it that we have 10, 15 or even 20% unemployment in areas of the US with high populations of undocumented workers? Because it is cheaper to pay these people than legal workers, even when the employers are fined. If we had stronger employment verification laws, like E-Verify, we just might have significantly less unemployment among US citizens and legal workers. Instead, we are continuing to create an environment where we are importing cheap labor to be abused. Then, as we continue to see from the current administration, we are going to give them all an amnesty so they can be a permanent underclass - that will vote for their amnesty sponsors.

      This isn't a good way to run a country or a labor force. Having illegal, underpaid and abused workers available to displace legal workers just means we are going to be paying more in unemployment and welfare for the legal workers. While the illegals actually are out there working. Doesn't sound right or even like a sensible policy. The answer is not to make them legal in hopes they then will deserve (and get) higher wages and less abuse. The answer is to make it less attractive to stay and to stop importing these low-wage workers.

      Who will do the work then? Well, when there is 20% unemployment plenty of people will line up for jobs. And in cases where the pay is too low and the abuse too much, maybe the employers will either relocate elsewhere or decide to improve conditions. Leaving the illegals in place does nothing except continue the existing practices indefinately. The amnesty in 1986 didn't change anything in this regard and the amnesty in 2009 will not change anything either. Except maybe providing a new crop of grateful Democrat voters.

    93. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      They probably get things like salt given to them to make it more bearable.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    94. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Deanalator · · Score: 3, Interesting

      According to his wikipedia page[1] it looks like he consistently gets reelected by double digit margins. It also looks like a group attempted to circulate a petition to have him recalled, and about 3/4ths of those that were asked refused to sign, with 65% expressing support for his behavior. At this point in a democracy, if you are really opposed to what is happening, your best option is to move.

      1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

    95. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by MartinSchou · · Score: 1, Troll

      When you have illegal immigrants in your country, they tend not to assimilate

      You're quite right. The original immigrants I was talking about never really did understand the idea of accepting the culture of the new land, did they?

    96. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by cdrguru · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Prison rape is there because of a lack of supervision. You can have the Panopticon concept, like Joliet in Illinois where no inmates are housed together and everyone is watched constantly 24 hours a day. But that is extremely expensive to build and operate. So expensive that the concept has been virtually abandoned.

      So instead we house four or five inmates per cell and trust that nothing bad is going to happen. When bad things do happen inmates that report it are punished by fellow inmates. Because of the lack of supervision there is no stopping it.

      So we can choose to spend 5 or 10 times as much on prisons or we can close our eyes to it. As we have pretty much disproven the idea of rehabilitation, it means that a lot of crimes result in life inprisonment - either through repeat offenses or through three-strikes laws. Either way, the criminals are going to end up in prison for most of their lives because you can't really rehabilitate them and make law-abiding citizens out of them. Increasing spending on prisons isn't going to help this, all it is going to do is divert more and more money towards maintaining a population that cannot coexist with the rest of society.

    97. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Salt pills are counter-productive, Military stopped giving them out at least 20 years ago, there enough salt in your food. The only problem is keeping your appetite up. Don't forget they are wearing helmets and body armor, lugging around weapons and ammo, not to mention that fighting is a hell of a lot of work.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    98. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by shiftless · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's funny because I'm sitting in my tent in Afghanistan at this very moment, and it's equipped with an air conditioning unit just like all the other tents. I've been to some of the smallest, shittiest FOBs in this country and haven't yet seen one where the commander is so inhumane as to require his soldiers to sleep in a bare tent in 115+ degree weather. The other day the power went out when it was 100 degrees out and within a matter of minutes the heat inside was un-fucking-bearable.

    99. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

      If we just wanted people to be away from the rest of us we'd send them on vacation. Instead we send them to prison, which is supposed to act as a deterrent, and it's not a deterrent if it isn't a shitty place to be.

      We send them to prison because Australia got a military.

      Prisons don't need to be degrading to be deterrent. A reasonable amount of forced labor, combined with the inherent lack of freedom, should be sufficient. (And if certain other comments are accurate, then it is sufficient when properly implemented.)

    100. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We already have regions of Texas and California near the border that isn't American anymore. Culturally, that part of the soil has been eroded away to Mexico"

      Surely you know the concept "pendulus of history": you eroded it away from Mexico two centuries ago and now they are eroding it again from you. Nihil sub sole novum, I supouse.

    101. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by etherlad · · Score: 1

      Here we have at Tucker what is called the "hoe squad" and it is what it sounds like.

      No... No it isn't.

      --
      Soylens viridis homines es
    102. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, still just the other week I was outside working during a heat wave. Nothing to strenuous but I went through a gallon of water and started getting bad cramps. Licked some salt and the cramps went away.
      Anyways I'm glad not to be accused of a crime down there and not be able to make bail. Doesn't matter if the court finds you not guilty if you have to suffer like that while waiting. Be enough to lose all respect for the law.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    103. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Deadstick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It can be put more succinctly:

      Some societies knowingly sentence their criminals to be gang-raped.

      Others don't.

      rj

    104. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      We used to run jails like that... and it didn't actually work either, with critical, scientific studies proved it was full of sadistic pricks without checks they became just as cruel as the people they were supposed to be "punishing".

    105. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by KutuluWare · · Score: 1

      I wonder what his repeat statistics are in comparison to other places that run taxpayer funded country clubs.

      Mistreating your prisoners so severely that they die in jail before they've even been convicted of anything does tend to drop your repeat offender rate pretty low.

      But the factual answer to your question is that, according to an ASU professer who studied that exact thing, "there was no significant difference in recidivism observed between those offenders released in 1989-1990 and those released in 1994-1995." (Arpaio's first term as sherriff started in 1992.) That's on top of the fact that arrests for actual serious crimes (that is, other than the crime of "being Hispanic") are plummeting, and the FBI claims a 70% increase in violent crimes and a 166% increase in homicides for this clown's county over the past 5 years. Given how absolutely horrible a job he's doing at actually enforcing the laws, it really is mind-boggling how many people buy into his PR stunts and keep relecting him.

    106. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      perhaps the good sheriff will be spending some time there next week!!!

    107. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that rehabilitation works more often than not when the prison population is managed properly, as shown in countless rich countries in Europe.

      Shame that the United States is too poor to do anything correctly.

    108. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      custody death syndrome aka Excited delirium = killed by cops and the officials help cover it up rather than seeking actual justice against the guilty officers.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    109. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Absolute power over others corrupts absolutely;

      While I agree with your post, I'm not sure about this one quote.
      Perhaps it is more

      Absolute power (over others) attracts the absolutely corruptible.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    110. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Whoa there, your saying we should treat people like we expect them to act on the outside?

      That's the one thing about recent Marines training, that they've been working on not actually breaking the troops like they used too because they realized they were being to harsh and simply creating "thugs" not independent, responsible warriors. Jails should be like Boot Camp preparing you to leave, not demeaning you so you don't know how to live without being "broken" daily.

    111. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'll vote for the shoot the son-of-a-bitch punishment!!!!
      personally i'd cap their ass for a lot less then that...
      but here in Texas we handle thing a bit differently than thous fagot ass blue states,
      and if they don't like it their welcome to come on down and file a complaint

    112. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by pedrop357 · · Score: 1

      This is the problem with many in the "law and order" crowd-they're really statists.
      They love "law and order" when it's aimed at the average citizen, but never advocate that same brand of "law and order" be applied to the government and its agents.

    113. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      I am... confused.

      You seem to be stating that for me to believe in democracy at all, ever, I must believe in it for everything. And that somehow, not believing that it's always the right solution makes me a hypocrite?

      Heads of state should be elected. Sheriffs and judges should not. This is why the United States and other countries have a division between the executive branch and the legislative branch; it balances the power and insures that no single branch can rule by fiat. Even when the executive branch is completely replaced, as it often is, the Supreme Court justices, for example, are still there from previous administrations' nominations, and serve as a sanitizing influence, preventing the new administration from massively changing the fabric of the current system.

      Enjoy your black and white politics. Much more comfortable looking at a small section than the big picture, eh?

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    114. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are clearly not an American if you believe any three words you have strung together.

      Elections and votes have zero to do with who is in office or power.

      He murders people that he refuses to arrest. Doesn't sound like its criminals in any way he is after.
      That by definition is not enforcing the law, its breaking it!

      You must just be bitter for not receiving the 'prison benefit' of keeping a virgin asshole

    115. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As we have pretty much disproven the idea of rehabilitation

      No, we haven't. We have time and time again proven that it can and does work. What we have proven is that people prefer to see criminals punished than helped. People dislike it when they hear that their tax dollars are being spent helping criminals take classes and get better jobs. They feel they didn't rob a liquor store and they don't get any help, so why should someone that did something wrong get help? So instead they want to see them punished. And punishment directly interferes with rehabiliation, which is why people who were in prison once are more likely to commit other (often worse) crimes and be arrested again.

    116. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by aynoknman · · Score: 1

      He's flaunting his flouting, perhaps?

      Let's just split the difference, he's obviously a flautist.

      --
      We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
    117. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And that's the problem. If prison were about rehabilitation either instead of or in addition to punishment, the recidivism rates would be far lower than they are at present. You get a lot of conservatives up in arms whenever there's a program that uses tax payer dollars to try and prevent future problems. And a conservative movement up in arms whenever any method other than increasingly strict punishment is used.

      The problem is that prison doesn't work like that. Prison only deters people that think they're going to be caught. It does deter some people, but they're generally the ones that would've been deterred with a fine or public embarrassment anyways. The people that do wind up in prison tend to need rehabilitation badly.

      As far as the sheriff goes, the man is deeply, deeply in need of some rehabilitation himself, as he seems to have found a way of co-opting the legal system to let him engage in the sadism he so badly wants to commit.

    118. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      He is also extremely popular with his constituents, who fully support the way he operates his office. The US Justice Department now has him as a target (since the Obama Administration came to power) due to his enforcement of Immigration laws. In Arizona he polls 11 points higher than Obama so he is popular statewide.

      IMHO from outside the USA this is a bit of a problem with the politicisation of the office instead of having the police led by a professional policeman that got to the position by merit - you have somebody in the post merely because of the party he is in. It's even more bizzare that a "Republican" that holds the same sort of views as King George III is the choice. What happens when the prisons get too full, transportation to the colonies? Where I live I've seen a highly corrupt government push harsh punishment as a popularity move and ironicly enough many of them ended up in prison. In a lot of cases it is the "cheap" vote winner to hurt those that society sees as outlaws as much as society will let them, but the history of your own country will show you how utterly stupid an idea it is to have the sort of harsh penal system that existed before the revolution.

    119. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Howserx · · Score: 1

      Jeez. Man up. I'm sure most people in afganistan have no AC and they survive. I guess they're just tougher than you.

      --
      I support the troops. I pay f'ing taxes.
    120. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) And, for all this talk about 'prison overcrowding', I suspect prison populations would be a lot easier to maintain, even more of them, if we'd simply move the 10% that cause the problems to solitary confinement until they stop causing damn problems.

      Turn the violent 10% over to Arpaio's gang.

      Arpaio and his friends have a ready supply of punching bags, and the violent 10% get their just desserts. Win-win.

      And even if one side comes out on top in a real-life version of Battle Royale, whoever loses, the taxpayer still wins.

    121. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Maestro4k · · Score: 1

      I am not against immigration or work permits but I am against paying for (via taxes) medical and infrastructure expenses for those who do not contribute and merely send money out of the country. If they pay their fair share and are here legally, good on them and they are welcome.

      Well, looking through the sheriff's Wikipedia entry, I haven't even finished reading the list of inmates that have died or been severely injured due to their treatment under Arpaio and I've totaled up at least $20million in settlements the county's had to pay out. Still think the taxpayers are saving money this way? Seems to me they're paying more than they would have if they treated the prisoners more civilly.

      And let's not forget that some of those deaths an injuries involved rather barbaric treatment of the prisoners. Like the guy they forced into a restraint chair, broke his neck with the guards laughing the entire time. Sounds like Arpaio's just the biggest thug of a group of thugs. And we already know what can happen when even normal people are given ultimate control in a prison setting. Letting people naturally inclined to such behavior be in charge of the prisons, and then making demeaning/degrading treatment the norm, is bound to have even worse outcomes --- like all those deaths and injuries listed as happening in Arpaio's prison.

    122. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

      That's in the bill of rights my friend. No evidence has ever shown that abusing prisoners and treating them poorly reduces recidivism. Not one single piece of evidence (if you have one, please come forward). Sheriff Arpaio abuses a marginalized portion of society in order to make people *feel* safer.

      It's about time so-called "conservatives" in this country realize that the most important laws we have are in the Constitution.

    123. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Atario · · Score: 1

      In fact, increasingly, the point of prison is about making profits for the private entity that owns and runs the prison. The very fact that there is a phrase, prison industry, should send chills down everyone's spine.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    124. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      People who've grown up in the heat and whose ancestors have done so for time immemorial have different sweat responses than someone who's grown up with AC. Even so, the heat is probably a leading cause of death in afghanistan.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    125. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I turned to my GF and said "I bet he don't want to go to the hoe squad!" and sure enough, he stops when he crosses the border and the Ark State Police give him the usual "what are you crazy! Are you trying to get yourself and others killed?" and he says "I did crime In Tenn and I'll confess! I just wasn't gonna stop til I made it here because I ain't gonna go back to the damned hoe squad!"

      Sounds like your example is busted: the guy still got rearrested, he just didn't want to go to that jail. Give him some job training and maybe he won't be back to any jail.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    126. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Savior_on_a_Stick · · Score: 1

      What is it about the words -Criminal- and -Illegal- alien that is so hard for slashdotters to fathom.

      Wholly irrelevant.

      Both are legal terms which carry no moral content, nor relate directly to protection of citizens.

      Teaching a black man to read was once a criminal act by definition.

      Copyright violation is now a criminal act.

      Jay walking is illegal.

      So is selling a mattress with the tag removed.

      And as others have pointed out, not everyone in jail is a criminal - some are awaiting trial.

      Weight lifting equipment is just about as cheap a way of channeling prisoner energy as there is.
      You have a better suggestion?

      Television is a way to allow prisoners to retain some connection to the outside world.

      Prisoners losing that connection either become depressed or violent.
      While you don't care about the former, the latter increases prison costs.

      Prison guards either start out abusive, or quickly become that way, or quickly find other employment - no exceptions.

      What needs to happen if people want the crime rate to drop and prison costs to stop spiraling is to put *fewer* people in jail, and spend what it costs to maintain control of prisons - instead of allowing an Escape from New York situation to exist simply because it's cheap and salves their lust for vengeance.

      Don't get me wrong - I know there are people who are not salvageable and need to never be given freedom.

      Most people in prison don't fall into that category.

      Why are we continuing to put a big chunk of the population in prison for non violent drug violations, having sex for money, and other victimless crimes?

      Simply because we still have a big powerful voting block comprised of people who feel entitled and obliged to foist their superstitious religious beliefs on everyone else.

       

    127. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen fuckwit, there is a vast continuum between a penal system that tortures people to death (even non-convicted people) and whose enforcers commit armed robbery against the state, and giving rapists 400 HD channels + OnDemand. Like...vast.

    128. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by mog007 · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you, Arpaio is a perfect example of a government employee milking the system to suit his own needs. He's a sheriff, but he's pulling in as much money from scamming the taxpayers as the private companies do in states with privatized jails.

    129. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm a Criminologist and I find your suggestion there to be very troubling. The US already locks up a startling number of individuals in solitary confinement. In fact, there are entire prisons dedicated to locking up the "worst of the worst", called "Supermaxes", "Maxi-Maxes", and "Administrative Maximum".

      Unfortunately, the kind of 24/7 isolation that these individuals endure, often without anything in their cell besides their sheets and their clothes for entertainment (you try that for a day!), is psychological torture. It is no wonder that many of those "Supermax" inmates develop psychological or have their psychological problems exacerbated. Some literally lose their ability to be around other people, and many go insane. Others react by using the only weapon they have left against the guards: they fling their feces at the guards. There's a fantastic book by Lorna Rhodes called Total Confinement on the matter. I suggest you read that book before advocating locking any other human being into a tiny box with no stimulus for weeks, months, or years.

    130. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by f33dback · · Score: 0

      This makes me sick. I hope this judge gives him the finger and these people can be let go. The whole no evidence required is ludicrous.

    131. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      And that's the problem. If prison were about rehabilitation either instead of or in addition to punishment, the recidivism rates would be far lower than they are at present.

      OK. Define "rehabilitation". If it's anything remotely similar to "re-education", I think you can see the problem some might have with it (at least I do). The GP had it right when he used the term "behavior modification" or more accurately, thought reform. That process is unethical to do to somebody without their knowledge or consent (and interestingly enough, isn't even possible if a person knows what's going on... see Singer's first condition). Even if it's for a person's "own good" or even society's own good, it's still a process of stripping away a person's identity, ethics, and ultimately freedom to think and act, even if it's to make the "wrong" choices. Personally I think that removing punishment will only enourage criminals anyway, considering there will be less deterrence. You claim that criminals don't think before they act. Well. Nothing teaches that better than a just punishment.

    132. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by reynolds_john · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the first gulf war we slept and lived in tents without airconditioning in the middle of summer (think Marines). The Air Force, not 2 miles away, had all air conditioned tents.
      I'm glad to hear you're treated better than we were. It was effing miserable.

    133. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      I'll run through this bit by bit:

      It might be that if more jails/prisons were run this way, we might have fewer return trips.

      That depends upon whether you view imprisonment as a form of punishment or rehabilitation. I personally like to keep a cautiously optimistic view on humanity, and opt for the latter. On the logical side of the coin, harsh/humiliating imprisonment is highly likely to breed violent qualities in nonviolent criminals, while retrenching sociopathic tendencies in inmates.

      I wonder what his repeat statistics are in comparison to other places that run taxpayer funded country clubs.

      Spend a weekend in county jail, and I'll bet you won't use that analogy again.

      What is it about the words -Criminal- and -Illegal- alien that is so hard for slashdotters to fathom.

      They're exactly that -- words -- abstract concepts. A "criminal" could be somebody who drove 5mph over the speed limit. The constitution is also extremely explicit about the treatment of so-called "criminals." (In fact, it's arguably more explicit about this subject than anything else in the document.) This not only serves to protect the rights of criminals (particularly minor offenders, or perpetrators of 'political' crimes), but also to protect the wrongfully accused. One only needs to look at the number of prisoners that were set free once DNA testing was introduced to prove that our justice system is not perfect.
      Illegal immigration is a particularly tricky issue, given that the American people and government turned their backs to the large number of immigrants entering the US illegally. Once this practice stopped suiting our own interests, we began imprisoning these people, denying them basic human rights, and threatening to deport them to a country that has no more capacity to support them than the US does. The fact that children are almost always tied up in illegal immigration cases makes the matter even more difficult and troubling.
      It's also worth mentioning that the illegal immigration debate is rife with unfiltered racism and xenophobia.

      I dont think that prisoners should have access to TV or weight lifting equipment or be allowed to form gangs or get drugs while in prison. I suspect those activities are pretty limited under his command.

      Agreed. Inmates shouldn't be allowed to form gangs or get drugs in prison. I'm not aware of any prison that explicitly allows or encourages such behavior in the United States.
      Not sure why weights or TV are bad. Gives them something to pass the time, rather than spending their days breeding hatred and anger. (Wouldn't you be angry at the people who put you in jail?)

      If it is so demeaning to dignity to be in jail, sobeit.

      See my first point.

      It should NOT be a badge of honor like it is treated.

      Outside of street gangs, I can assure you that it's not. It's extraordinarily difficult to secure any sort of employment with a criminal record, and American society has intentionally placed quite a few roadblocks in the way of criminal rehabilitation.

      I am not against immigration or work permits but I am against paying for (via taxes) medical and infrastructure expenses for those who do not contribute and merely send money out of the country. If they pay their fair share and are here legally, good on them and they are welcome.

      (so much for karma in this thread)

      Sounds fine to me!

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    134. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      For many situations like this I would tend to agree, however if everyone who disagrees with his policies moves out, he will never be voted out, since those adversely affected by them don't really have the option to move out. Their options are pretty much take it, riot, or mass suicide.

    135. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by wickerprints · · Score: 1

      The prison system can't even stop prisoners from ordering hits from inside. What does that tell you about their ability to control the interactions among each other?

      The truly sickening thing is that the cost to correctly implement the concept of incarceration greatly exceeds what the public is willing to pay, and perhaps even exceeds the cost to sort them out. But people are fearful, and they want criminals to disappear so they can be safe, so we have a terrible system that costs taxpayers huge amounts of money yet doesn't work. Where does a lot of this money go? Private contractors, of course. Prisons are extremely profitable for companies that manage the food, clothing, and medications for inmates. Morgan Spurlock (of Super Size Me fame), in one of his "30 Days" episodes, spends--you guessed it--30 days in a state prison. It's quite eye-opening. Watch it on Hulu: http://www.hulu.com/watch/56914/30-days-jail#s-p2-so-i0

    136. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by belmolis · · Score: 1

      While he's still got a pretty good margin, it is interesting that the percentage of the vote he has received has been consistently declining.

    137. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Why would you think prison was about rehabilitation?

      Why? Because in many places prisons are still called "penitentiaries". They're places where people are forced to think about the crimes they have committed. The goal is to inspire themselves to rehabilitate themselves.

      Prison terms are specified by the crime committed, not by the estimation of the time required for sufficient behavior modification.

      The theory is that the level of depravity of the crime determines how much time it will take someone to become rehabilitated. When we (as in the US) started building prisons, there weren't many things you could do to end up in one. Theft, murder, piracy, treason and rape were the things that put people in prison. To do any of those things puts you in a catagory of human being who won't be miraculously changed overnight.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    138. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by mayberry42 · · Score: 1

      Summary doesn't make it clear that the Sheriff in question is Joe Arpaio, a sadistic, authoritarian monster that that believes in making prison as demeaning and painful affair as possible no matter what the offense. He's a sick, twisted psychopath that needs to be stopped at all cost.

      Yes, it is him (here), although i had to do a bit of google searching for his name to come up...

    139. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Elrond,+Duke+of+URL · · Score: 1

      This is very much the case.

      I grew up in Tucson, about two hours south of Phoenix and, thankfully, outside the jurisdiction of the madman Arpaio. Lived here for 25 years and it's always been hot in the summers. Very hot.

      Then I lived in Massachusetts for three years and moved back to Tucson. Damn is it hot here! Have I really changed that much? I watch the K-12 school busses go by and wonder how in the hell I ever managed to survive 13 years of riding those metal boxes without AC in them. Each summer day seems to just suck the life right out of me.

      I'm sure I'm still more "used" to it than others might be, but a relatively short time spent in a radically different climate has really changed how this particular one feels.

      Also, I miss the trees.

      --
      Elrond, Duke of URL
      "This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"-Sam&Max
    140. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Vancorps · · Score: 1, Troll

      I'll never understand this argument. Have you ever heard of China town? Or little Italy? Immigrants take a few generations to assimilate to their new country. I live in Arizona and this idea of "illegal" immigration I find offensive to the very core of what America stands for. We are the land of the free, the home of the brave. We accept all walks of life, any creed, anyone willing to work to make a living which is the American dream.

      When did America become so xenophobic? If it wasn't for open immigration almost none of us would be here today, why do we now condemn it? What is gained by not providing a path to citizenship for anyone that is in our country?

      You simply can't enforce the borders or immigration laws without turning the border into a militarized zone and as someone that routinely goes to Mexico for vacation fun I don't support this. I even grew up in VT on the border to Canada driving up to Montreal for some fun nights too. This is good for everyone. We can and should help each other. Helping the world is how the U.S. got to become a super power. We should be good neighbors and not treat people from other countries like criminals. This does no one any good.

    141. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      1) And, for all this talk about 'prison overcrowding', I suspect prison populations would be a lot easier to maintain, even more of them, if we'd simply move the 10% that cause the problems to solitary confinement until they stop causing damn problems.

      We could solve the overcrowing problem today. Stop locking people up for smoking weed. Basically, let anyone out of prison who's serving time for less than one pound of marijuana.

      Suspected prison rapists should do their time segregated from other inmates. Allow them social time in common areas, but they spend their nights in solitary. Problem solved.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    142. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      Besides, I thought prison was supposed to be about rehabilitation anyway, not so much just a punishment.

      Then you thought wrong. The primary purpose of prison throughout history has always been to forcibly remove the criminal from society so he doesn't go around doing the same thing the next day.

      The secondary purpose is as a deterrent.

      The idea of rehabilitation comes and goes. It came into vogue again somewhat with the rise of psychology in the 20th century, but that has never been the primary purpose of prisons -- if that were the case then you'd see prisons that are more like hospitals or clinics than Sing Sing.

    143. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slow down, cowboy. It's not that funny because the quote is wrong.

      "Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter."

    144. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I first heard the "other" definition in junior high. (hooker - and I don't appreciate every aspect of our language gradually becoming sexual innuendo, but there it is.)

    145. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      You're whole argument is circular. Clearly you haven't thought it through. You say yourself that if there were no illegal immigrants then conditions would improve as citizens would have recourse against abusive practices. They can sue their employers and pay taxes. They contribute to society. So what do you gain out of excluding 10 million people from this system? You really think 20% unemployment is caused by Mexicans doing my yardwork for half the price that a white person would charge? I'm sorry, that's competition and his costs are clearly lower than yours. This idea that Americans are entitled to jobs that time and time again they have shown they don't want is ridiculous and needs to go away.

      If you want to make good money, you have to do it better, faster, and cheaper than the other guy. In other words, you have to compete. This is why America became an economic power house and a sense of entitlement isn't going to accomplish anything.

      You say crime is up because of illegal immigrants? You say we should get rid of 10 million people that are already in our borders. I'm sorry but you seem to be completely out of touch with reality. There is simply no way you're going to get rid of even a significant portion of this number. 10 million people could enrich our culture, 10 million people could add to our tax base which is coincidentally suffering right now especially in Arizona. These 10 million are already here, already paying sales tax but they can't contribute because we won't let them. These 10 million people could be living much better lives if we weren't persecuting them so thoroughly. Why are the American people afraid of immigrants? Why do we treat people from other countries like they are criminals? This isn't how we should behave and it only fuels those people that hate us now.

      Of course this happens with every population explosion of one type or another. The Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese people endured a lot of hardship when they migrated here. Same with Irish, the Italians, let's not forget our black population. All of these groups had limited rights initially until people smartened up and realized that the American dream should be realized by anyone willing to work hard to achieve their goals. There are people who won't work hard too, they are Americans and immigrants alike. Do you spend your time turning us into a police state? Or do you embrace the ideals on which this country was founded?

    146. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by mog007 · · Score: 1

      Then explain the prison reforms that were done under Andrew Jackson back in the 19th century. What's the point in having the prisons at all, if your only goal is to remove the criminals from society?

      Just toss 'em on an island somewhere. No need for guards or buildings or anything like that, just stick 'em on an island and every month you pick up the people whose terms are up.

      The primary purpose is to remove them from the population, sure, but the whole concept of deterrence doesn't follow with the data or even the logic of criminal behavior.

      If efforts were made to educate prisoners, to help them out, repeat offenders might become a very rare thing indeed. As it is, once you've committed a felony, it's almost impossible to get a job, and in my home state at least, you lose the ability to vote and possess a firearm. That's got nothing to do with rehabilitation, deterrence, or keeping them away from society. What it does, is it makes them so desperate that they commit crimes again.

    147. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by shnull · · Score: 1

      some criminals are, but then they are more like mental and should be treated as such

      --
      beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
    148. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by m50d · · Score: 1

      drug dealers usually get heavier penalties than child rapists, at least in my area.

      Child rapists have a much lower recidivism rate, so that one makes some sense from a rehabilitation perspective.

      --
      I am trolling
    149. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by shiftless · · Score: 1

      LOL, dumb ass. "Most people" in Afghanistan live in mud brick dwellings. Hint--these buildings insulate a hell of a lot better than tents do.

    150. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then what are parole boards for?

    151. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by pugugly · · Score: 1

      I believe it was Frontline (Or maybe NOW?), that did a story on him, but I'm not finding it at the moment.

      From what I can see/remember, his statistics frankly suck. They have a lousy prosecution rate, they use public monies for personal agenda's, enforce the law strictly on 'furriners' and ignore it on Caucasians, and frankly sound like they have the competence of Boss Hogg and Roscoe P Coltrane.

      Personally, I'm not a sweet enough guy to fire a guy for being a sociopath. This guy has a pretty long record of being an *incompetent* sociopath.

      Sadly, he seems to be competent at getting re-elected - I saw one of his campaign commercials, and he was (almost literally) explaining "Ignore the statistics - I'm Sheriff Joe! Who are you going to listen to, your good white buddy Sheriff Joe, or those liberal elitists at the Newspaper that are looking at the actual records!", and sadly, they ignored the statistics and re-elected him.

      I'm assuming they still have a lot of lead paint there - only thing that makes sense to me.

      Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    152. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by pugugly · · Score: 1

      You would think that intuitively.

      Unfortunately, prison studies don't back up that intuition - damn near anything works better than a 'just punishment' (although the fact that the average for 'just punishment' seems to figure in melanin and income does *not* help).

      And in the BTW - Margaret Singer's 'Cult' studies have been pretty much debunked for decades now. That kind of 'Thought Control' just doesn't work, and thus, not working, cannot really be considered the same as 'Rehabilitation' which has a pretty well proven track record of lowering recidivism.

      Just to stop the inevitable accusation of 'book knowledge' before it gets aired - The 'elite liberal pansy' that taught my 'Criminal Justice' class on this was a large black man that had actually helped run prisons in the Mid-west. Could also kick my ass and yours too - .

      Just sayin' - Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    153. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Or do you embrace the ideals on which this country was founded?

      Yeah, like theft of other peoples land, rape of the natural environment, and military expansion into another country whose inhabitants are now illegally present in land that they used to be owners of.

      American dream eh, the race for the bottom.

    154. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by pugugly · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, I have to start with the fact that Margaret Singers 'Studies' on cults and thought control have been pretty thoroughly debunked. I'm not a rabid non-believer, but Phillip Zimbardo has a lot more empirical research supporting his (much more limited) thesis of how people are influenced, and her work has, at best, not stood the test of time.

      So, the mere fact that there are forms of rehabilitation with good track records does a pretty good job of distinguishing it from Margaret Singer's 'Thought Control' Thesis. Her theories don't play out in the real world.

      Moreover, however intuitively obvious it might be, the track record of 'just punishment' as a method for preventing crime is abysmal. It's hard to separate the lousy record in general from the fact that the average 'just punishment' for a crime averages in melanin and income too - it seems to be 'just' to give high income white people shorter sentences than low income black people, even for identical crimes - if I was being *really* sophist I would say the lower recidivism rate of people with shorter sentences proves that harsh sentencing has a negative effect on recidivism, but I'll be good and say it's a compounding factor that makes it difficult to estimate the effects.

      However you *can* judge the effects in a given area of changes in the law, and there's no correlation with longer sentencing and lower crime rate -or- lower recidivism. There just isn't - end of story.

      Like other right-wing myths like 'welfare queens', 'No one would confess to a crime they didn't commit', and 'torturing terrorists will get good intelligence', just ain't so.

      Just to stop the inevitable accusations of pulling data from 'pansy liberal textbooks' my 'pansy liberal professor' in "Criminal Justice" was a large, muscular black man that has helped run maximum security prisons in the Mid-West. He could kick 'my arse', 'your arse', and 'both our arses, together'.

      Just sayin' - Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    155. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by pugugly · · Score: 1

      Apologies - it told me it rejected that first post, and it never showed up until after I posted again - Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    156. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL Hendershott would probably not be serving his time in tent city.
        Stick the sheriff and his crony in tent city for six months .

    157. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny because I'm sitting in my tent in Afghanistan at this very moment, and it's equipped with an air conditioning unit just like all the other tents. I've been to some of the smallest, shittiest FOBs in this country and haven't yet seen one where the commander is so inhumane as to require his soldiers to sleep in a bare tent in 115+ degree weather. The other day the power went out when it was 100 degrees out and within a matter of minutes the heat inside was un-fucking-bearable.

      Sheriff Joe Arpaio would take air conditioning units from tents hoping that troops would spend more time out of tents fighting enemy,
      what do you think would it work?

    158. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      if it weren't about rehabilitation then why aren't all prison sentences life sentences?

    159. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by pugugly · · Score: 1

      For that matter, if efforts were made to educate *people* and help them out.

      It always makes me laugh - here in the midwest we don't want to 'waste money' on welfare, education, and so on, because we want lower taxes.

      But we're take more from the federal government than we send to D.C. in taxes, while those effete tax and spend liberals on the coasts *typically* (Now's a bad time to defend this, due to the recession) send more in taxes than they get back.

      So all these "independent libertarians" and "John Galt's wannabees" out here are actually the ones living at the expense of others, *because* they refuse to actually invest in society.

      Sigh - Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    160. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      Having lived in cities with huge ethic neighborhoods (Chinatown, Little Odessa, etc), I'll say that legal immigrants tend to balkanize as well; but this seems to depends on culture. Take for example Chicago:

      Chinese, Russians, Korean, Ukrainians, Greeks, Serbs, Persians, and Mexicans heavily balkanize. Italian and Polish only slightly do. Germans, Croatians, Romanian, Irish, Indian and non-Mexican hispanic groups tend to not balkanize.

      As for illegals not assimilating, how do you know that they don't? I know many Russian and Greek citizens who will give you the evil eye if you try to invade their group with your outsider ways. I know many Mexican (and presumably American) people who integrate very well in my mainstream American culture. In fact, they integrate so well, I don't think to ask myself whether they are indeed citizens or just legal resident aliens.

      Maybe you found many illegals who don't assimilate; or maybe you found some that don't along with legals who also don't for one reason or another.

    161. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I don't think this matters. When I think Arpaio, I think of the lone corrupt sheriff who runs a community as his own private fiefdom... and he is very very rich. It takes serious money to own the kind of stuff he has out here. He is the bad guy of the week on every 80's action show to feature an awesome crime-fighting vehicle. Napolitano couldn't do anything to get rid of Arpaio as governor; or even reign him in; I doubt she can do anything more be being in DC. He is a popular figure among people who only see the illegal immigration issue and ignore everything else.

    162. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by left00coaster · · Score: 1

      He is also extremely popular with his constituents, who fully support the way he operates his office. The US Justice Department now has him as a target (since the Obama Administration came to power) due to his enforcement of Immigration laws. In Arizona he polls 11 points higher than Obama so he is popular statewide.

      Bear-baiting and slavery also were 'popular with constituents' in their times . . . that doesn't seem to have been a very good argument for keeping them around.

    163. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by jwdb · · Score: 1

      Prison about rehabilitation? Hahahahahaa!!!! Not hardly. Prison (not to be confused with Jail, which is different) is about keeping the baddies away from the rest of society so we can be safe.

      If it's not about rehabilitation, why let them out at all? If they're that bad that they need to be removed from society, and if the prison does not rehabilitate them in any way, then aren't they just as dangerous when they leave as when they arrived?

      Locking people in order to protect society without trying to fix those locked up is pointless.

    164. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Because punishment no longer deters when you've reached the maximum penalty. If you've done something that would warrant one year at most you aren't just casually going to do something that'll be five years.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    165. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that it's not a prison he runs, it's a county jail, which makes him even worse. It kills me how many people out there equate jail with prison. Jail is where you go while awaiting trial or to serve misdemeanor sentences. Prison is where you go to serve felony sentences. Therefore, to run a jail the way he does violates the civil and constitutional rights of those awaiting trial.

      Please people, read a bit if you don't understand the difference; don't just rely on your TV for guidance.

    166. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently they get classical music and books. Somehow our ancestors managed to not go insane without those things, so it might just be possible, through some miracle, for them to make it.

    167. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      So his solution is the wrong one, but do you agree with his point that prison rape shouldn't be tolerated?

    168. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "hoe and weed" sounds like a fun combination for the evening :)

    169. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are lots of problems with your statement. My brother-in-law was a jail gaurd for three or four years while he waited for three of four years while he waited for an opening on the police force.

      He said that the rules for punishment were completely different for those convicted of a crime and those who weren't. If they were not convicted of a crime, they had to be punished as a group not individually. So if one inmate teepee his cell, then their only recourse was to say to toilet paper for the whole block. They would go down the row offering razors and if one misused a razor, then no shaving for anyone in the block. I forget what they did if one flooded their toilet. He said the inmates least favourite days were those they got a new inmate. After a couple days, they would settle down and start understanding they had to respect authority and obey the rules.

      He also said that while he had no idea what prison was like, the inmates who had been there were always VERY excited to get to go back to prison from the jail. Specifically because there they didn't punish as a group and there most people had been there before and knew the rules and where wise enough to obeye them (in general.

    170. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by bonze · · Score: 1

      I've totaled up at least $20million in settlements the county's had to pay out.

      But... but... according to the laudatory blurb for Sheriff Joe's book Joe's Law: America's Toughest Sheriff Takes on Illegal Immigration, Drugs and Everything Else That Threatens America , the taxpayers are saving money: "By eliminating all comforts for his inmates, he has managed to shave $500,000 annually from the cost of keeping prisoners."

      I mean... I mean... what's a few million a year in net expense due to lawsuits, compared with the vicarious thrill of humiliating them... the lawless tide of miscreants who defy society's mandates by excessive speeding, possessing marijuana, having the poor judgment to get arrested without the withal to make bail, etc., etc. For this small investment, Maricopa County enjoys the best Security Theater in the known world, with 5 publicists to assist the indomitable Sheriff Joe in his crusade against "Everything That Threatens America"!

      And where will sociopaths in Maricopa County find legal, fulfilling employment if they can't get a job with the Sheriff's Department? Did you think about that? Huh?

    171. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      Others react by using the only weapon they have left against the guards: they fling their feces at the guards.

      I had a talk with a man once about that kind of stuff when he'd spent about 10 out of the past 20 years in solitary confinement. He reacted the same way by flinging feces, urine, whatever he could find at the officers working in his block. But he told me that he needed that time in solitary and that he felt it made him a better person for it. He told me that while it was a miserable experience, he needed that time for some self reflection and to work the piss and vinegar out of him.

    172. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to detract from the importance of the story, but what is spit bagging? I had never heard of it before, and a google search returns nothing useful (although it does return this comment at #2)

    173. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 1

      He's flaunting his flouting, perhaps?

      flagrantly so, apprently.

      --
      i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
    174. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when you call someone an Englishman on St Patrick's day, his goons will break your neck.

    175. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Stop making sense!

      But, seriously, the only reason I didn't say that in my post is that certain people would go 'Oh, he's a drug legalizer guy, I will ignore him'.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    176. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but you're apparently in 1882 or something.

      We now have things called 'cameras' that can record the entire prison population, inside cells and outside, at very little cost.

      And we have the ability to look at what they record if any prisoner gives the slightest complaint that they were assaulted.

      See, the problem isn't that people attack other prisoners. That's probably not possible to stop.

      The problem is that they repeatedly attack other prisoners. Over and over. They have large gangs that run around intimidating people.

      We could certainly stop that if we wanted to, by taking people who commit assault and, like I said, removing them from the prison population.

      In fact, we could probably figure out who's likely to be such people in the first place, based on their crime and how they pulled it off. But, generally, we could just wait until people start committing violent actions, and remove them when they do.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    177. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      But if you have to move everyday, it can take a while for the heavy equipment to catch up to you. My son is on his 4th tour in Iraq, the first tour conditions were quite "rustic" more recent tours more more civilized, in the tour before last he had wired in the area with ethernet and set up a satellite transceiver that everyone chipped in for so they'd all have internet, but is still YMMV.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    178. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between being popular with unpopular constituencies on the one hand, and going out of your way to pose for photographs, shaking hands, and taking a detour to meet with a neo-nazi convicted for burglary on the other hand.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    179. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Um, I don't think I advocated locking anyone in solitary confinement up for years, or even weeks.

      Nor would I advocate using the current concept of solitary confinement which, as I've said elsewhere, is an attempt to harm people, not to remove them from the population.

      The actual definition of 'solitary confinement', however, is simply 'prisoners don't get to interact with other prisoners'. It doesn't require them to have no human contact, it doesn't require them to have nothing to do. It simply requires them not speaking to people they've demonstrated they threaten. (Aka, other prisoners. The guard can live with threats.)

      And it should not be used as punishment for general stuff. It should be used simply when a person has demonstrated they cannot interact with other prisoners without threatening them.

      But I love how you're worried abut the psychological impact that solitary confinement might have on people, but don't seem to be worried about the hundreds of other people in prison who currently go through it in fear of their lives from that person, often joining racist gangs and committing violence because of that fear.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    180. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Deanalator · · Score: 1

      I actually believe that there should exist places in the world where fucked up people like this can exist. I just want no part of it because I believe that a system like that will eventually collapse in on itself.

      Of course, I may be wrong, and areas like that might prosper, and if that's the case, then I would expect that ideology to spread.

      One of the key aspects of democracy is being able to look at other democratic systems, and seeing what is and is not working for them. If there was one set of global, homogeneous laws and philosophies, then there would never be progress.

    181. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Well, I have to start with the fact that Margaret Singers 'Studies' on cults and thought control have been pretty thoroughly debunked.

      Source? See. A lot of her studies would be difficult to disprove given they're based on real world cults. Any similar "official" studies would be impermissible experiments. Given that I was in a cult, i'd have to agree with her conclusions. People *can* be changed without their knowledge or consent, and all it requires is a number of criteria which she and others (Lifton, Ofshe, Schien) have outlined. PS: it's "thought reform" not "thought control".

    182. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by thebjorn · · Score: 1

      also in Norway, you can be put in solitary confinement so long that the "Council of Europe: Committee for the Prevention of Torture" complained! (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,COECPT,,NOR,,0.html)

    183. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "Also keep in mind, that "tent city" thing he's got set up doesn't just house convicted criminals, it also houses people who are waiting for their court date to appear, and were unable to make bond."

      I am *by no means* a fan of Sheriff Joe, but I want to point out that you're wrong. Nobody goes to Tent City without a conviction.

      You are probably conflating two of Sheriff Joe's abuses, between Tent City and the Madison Street Jail which is in Downtown Phoenix. I'm not saying either of these places is more pleasant than the other, especially if you're being detained pre-trial.

      I know exactly one person, who is also a longtime slashdotter, who has been an inmate at Tent City (for DUI). It turns out that the stories you read about Tent City are true, and that it's not really as bad as it's been made out to be. If I had to choose between Tent City and a seriously overcrowded brick-and-bars jail, I think I'd go for Tent City, frankly.

      He's up for re-election in 2012. If I'm in Phoenix I won't be voting for him.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    184. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Society may well need prisons, but what it needs to end is disenfranchisement of felons, which is what makes it possible to put one percent of our population into them and shuffle them around as suits financial goals. It also needs to be illegal to operate a prison for profit. Making it efficient to incarcerate people only makes it more tempting. The taxpayer must be strongly discouraged from supporting imprisonment in order to promote alternative solutions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    185. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheriff Arpaio runs the jail system in Maricopa County, not the prison system.

      What many people miss is that a large percentage of the people in Joe's jails have not been convicted of any crime. It's easy to vote for the guy who sticks it to the convicted criminals, but what about the people whose only "crime" is being too poor to post bail?

      Having lived in Maricopa County for thirty years, I'd say that his base is basically the grumpy old white people in the many retirement communities (disclaimer: I am white). These are the same people who consistently vote against property taxes for schools - why should they pay for them? It is very easy to get them to vote for their specific narrow interests - especially if the ill effects apply to brown people.

      I hate to say this, but when the remnants of the "greatest generation" finally move on, we'll be better off - they are the biggest support base for anti-gay marriage, anti-marijuana and lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key crap. Let's not forget the resistance to civil rights they supported. For them, Sheriff Arpaio is one of them, a Neandathral throwback to the good-ol'-days.

    186. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      We already have regions of Texas and California near the border that isn't American anymore. Culturally, that part of the soil has been eroded away to Mexico

      Irony's a bitch. Go read up on the history of Texas and California -- the issue you're discussing is literally hundreds of years old (except Mexico was originally concerned that their territory and culture were eroding away into the US)

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    187. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prison (not to be confused with Jail, which is different) is about keeping the baddies away from the rest of society so we can be safe. Prison about rehabilitation? ... It's about punishment. Rehabilitation is a myth.

      You contradict yourself.

      The penalty is not the goal of a justice system. The idea of prison is not to "get you for being bad." Prisons are about justice, and we use them to protect society from those who do not follow the rules and thereby victimize others. A parole system would naturally follow that line of reasoning. If it did not you could expect the largest portion of your income to go to support the massive super-prisons which would result from a "lock-em-up and punish them" mentality.

      The second problem with Sheriff Arpaio's approach is that it is flawed from the very beginning. Prison is not a deterrent. It never has been, and it never will be. Doing what he does to prisoners to reduce crime is just about as logical as setting a login message on an FTP server telling the blackhats that they will be prosecuted. Someone who is committing a crime is usually doing it because they are not considering the consequences. Very few criminals are career criminals. If deterrents work so well, then why does Texas have one of the highest murder rates per capita in the contry, considering it has an express line to the gas chamber?

      the last problem with these ideals is the harder one to explain to someone like Sheriff Joe Justice, but I'll put it out there anyway. To decide if what he does is right you have to ask yourself one question. "What is the better gauge of the justice and humanity of a society? Is it how it treats it's heros, or how it treats its castaways?" The answer to that question should decide is the Sheriff is right or wrong.

      I am off, and dragging my soapbox home...

    188. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Summary doesn't make it clear that the Sheriff in question is Joe Arpaio, a sadistic, authoritarian monster that that believes in making prison as demeaning and painful affair as possible no matter what the offense. He's a sick, twisted psychopath that needs to be stopped at all cost.

      Joe just does what he is supposed to do.Finally someone who actually does their job and isn't afraid to do so.KEEP IT UP JOE PRISON WASN'T MEANT TO BE FUN.BREAK THE LAW PAY THE PRICE.

    189. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, he's doing a good job of cracking down on criminals, so let's hamstring the department so the crooks can run amok. fuck you!

    190. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do understand that:

      1. Mexico is in America.
      2. There were a lot of people with Mexican heritage and culture inside the US when the borders were drawn.
      3. What with all the checkpoints at the border and 30-50 miles inland, it would be kind of hard for illegal immigrants to live there. I bet that most of them would try get into the soft, pink center of Texas.

      I recently spent some time in some of the border towns, and think that your view on the area is backwards.

    191. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind a couple things here.
      Joe Arpaio's department runs county jails. The 'inhabitants' are people convicted of misdemeanors and people awaiting trial. Get convicted of anything 'serious' in Arizona, like rape, murder, child endangering, felony drunk driving, you get sent to prison not county jail. Misdemeanors are things like shoplifting, too many parking tickets, petty theft, 15-19 mph over the speed limit, that sort of thing. Yeah, total hardened professional criminals here. If the sentence reads 'not less than 3 months or more than 6 months in county jail' and you're in Maricopa County, you will be in Tent City for 6 months. NO early outs for 'good behaviour'. Doesn't happen.

      As for those awaiting trial, they're also in Tent City. These people have yet to be convicted of a crime by a jury of their peers. So why are they being held in Tent City? If I rack up a half dozen parking tickets and blow off paying for them (yeah, real criminal activity there), what happens around here when I get pulled over is, I get Yet Another Ticket and my car gets impounded until I show up in court to face the charges for the parking tickets and pay the fines. It's considered too damned much of a hassle to put me in jail for this, they figure impounding my car until my court date is incentive enough to get me to show up. Not in Maricopa County, though. Sheriff Joe puts you behind the wire unless you can make bail so he can get that Federal cash for having you as a prisoner, even if it's only for a couple hours (he gets paid for a day having you behind the wire even if it's only for a partial day!).

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    192. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Joe Arpaio should be heading up the US Immigration Department. He gets shit done and doesn't play the political game to better his image. He does what's right for the state. Imprisonment isn't supposed to be fun or comforting. It is to make you think long and hard about the choices you have made.

    193. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by tool462 · · Score: 1

      I hope he gets caught philandering his flounder. Then maybe he'd do a little time in one of this Tent Cities.

    194. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      You know, I don't use any illegal drug. At one time, I used to smoke weed but it's been a very long time since I did that. Namely because any good job in this area requires a whiz-quiz and I enjoy working and making money more than I enjoy smoking.

      That said, I'm not ready to go as far as full legalization. I think that marijuana should be decriminalized. The punishment you receive for something shouldn't be more destructive than the act itself. It's been used medicinally and recreationally for two thousand years and the worst side effect is hunger. It's not like something new where we don't know the long term effects.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    195. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think would happen if all jails were like that?

    196. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > By turning a blind eye to illegal immigration you are fostering an evironment which allows employers to continue to have unsafe working conditions and pay below-market wages. If these people were not present in the US, these employers would either have to move to Mexico and employ local people or pay US citizens real wages.

      In other words, because businesses will employ the same people either way, we ought to make an easy path for poor Mexicans to immigrate legally?

    197. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by hawk · · Score: 1

      Nothing worse than a sheriff that plays a flute at every chance . . .

      hawk

    198. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I don't recall having seen the "actual definition" of solitary confinement anywhere. Permutations of it have been used over the last 200 years, but the basic formula is putting someone in a box for 23/7 or 24/7 (maybe an hour for exercise every so often). That's the solitary in solitary. There are some other fringes you can attach, but there's really no other way of doing solitary confinement.

      Actually I think you did advocate locking people up for weeks or months on end when you wrote: "If people are even intimidating other people in prison, said intimidates should have their ability to interact with other prisoners revoked until they've learned their damn lesson.(1)" That could take weeks or months (or never happen). Sadly the US already uses solitary just for the purposes you suggest - keeping the "dangerous" inmates away from the other inmates (with the idea for some being if they start behaving themselves they can go back to the general population). Supposedly anyway. The research on the subject indicates that it's not particularly any better than regular maximum security for safety, though it is certainly more expensive. The idea that locking up a small (or even a large) portion of the inmates in solitary will actually stop inter-inmate predatory crime (and drastically reduce inmate fear) is as a lot like the U.S. idea that "getting tough on crime" will reduce crime on the outside. The U.S. already incarcerates over 2.3 million citizens on any given day and has some of, if not the, highest rates of violence in the developed world.

      I do worry about the psychological issues of inmates. They are still people. Moreover, society ought to be judged by how we treat the least among us. One cannot get more "least" than being a lifetime resident in a human zoo; told when to wake, sleep, eat, exercise, with only some stinky clothes and a bed roll (neither of which you own)... Well, at least no one can pay to visit and watch... Yet...

    199. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you americans get what you deserve

    200. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As some one living in Phoenix, I have to agree, but you forget one thing... most people here think the sun shines out of there asses along with a lot of other things.

    201. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard of China town? Or little Italy?

      Have you ever heard of Ellis Island? The Italian and other European immigrants* all passed through there because they immigrated legally!

      Now, I completely agree that levels of legal immigration are way too restricted these days. But if people want to move here then they need to have respect for our laws. Illegal immigrants lack that respect by definition, and should be deported for it! (Heck, doing so makes more room for the legal immigrants -- it's a win-win situation if you think about it...)

      (*Not so much the Chinese, of course, since they arrived on the west coast... but still legally, unlike many (most?) Mexicans.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    202. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Do you have a pic of Obama posing with Black Panthers?

    203. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What were YOU in for?

    204. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      Wait, doesn't the article site though that this sting operation was to go get info about which judge might be corrupt, and did not want anyone tampering with the evidence, so he decided to change passwords?
      Correct me if I am wrong, but this article is about a sheriff trying to keep his crime scene from being contaminated.
      You have to do what you have to do, and in this case this was the only way he could lock out anyone else, until I guess someone with more IT knowledge could review the info???

      ps - I rather not mod you down for being off topic, I would rather redirect you to the proper path, which is discussing
      what the sheriff was attempting to do with this, and not his past, really.

    205. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Civil-Liberties · · Score: 1

      Summary doesn't make it clear that the Sheriff in question is Joe Arpaio, a sadistic, authoritarian monster that that believes in making prison as demeaning and painful affair as possible no matter what the offense. He's a sick, twisted psychopath that needs to be stopped at all cost.

      My wife and I have been Illegally Extradited to Arizona to Sheriff Joe Arpaio Prison. How can you accept that innocent people are treated and share the same treatment as guilty and convicted. The Inhumane treatment treatment in Arizona does nothing for reabilitation. The U.S stands proud to have 25% of the worlds prisoners behind bars. Here is a link about injustice in the U.S prison system, but I fear U.S Citizens like to put people in jail. http://extradition.org.uk/

    206. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Funny, I don't recall having seen the "actual definition" of solitary confinement anywhere.

      Perhaps you should look at the actual words then. Prisoners are already confined. Solitary confinement confines them alone.

      Any confinement where they are not confined with other people is solitary. That's it. That's what the words mean. It doesn't require the 'box' that you seem to think it does, it doesn't require no interaction with the outside world, it doesn't requires no books or mattress or whatever the hell you think it requires.

      It simply requires that they are not confined with other people. That they are confined solitarily. Solitary. Confinement.

      The research on the subject indicates that it's not particularly any better than regular maximum security for safety, though it is certainly more expensive.

      So you're asserting that prisoners somehow harm others while in solitary confinement? Or that other prisoners make up the slack? What exactly are you trying to say here?

      If you're trying to say that at least some violent prisoners will never learn to stop assaulting others, no matter how much we put them in solitary, that is certainly a plausible claim.

      However, I have this to say to them: Fuck you. Stay in solitary, then.

      People who are causing the violence in prisons come in second priority, psychologically, to those who are being attacked. Who are living in an environment where they fear for their live, despite being under government control.

      If prisoners can't learn not to attack others, then they should, indeed, end up in their own cell (which will of course be smaller, being individual), and not actually be able to interact with any other prisoners they could attack.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    207. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Civil-Liberties · · Score: 1

      My wife and I have been Illegally Extradited to Arizona to Sheriff Joe Arpaio Prison. How can you accept that innocent people are treated and share the same treatment as guilty and convicted. The Inhumane treatment treatment in Arizona does nothing for reabilitation. The U.S stands proud to have 25% of the worlds prisoners behind bars. Here is a link about injustice in the U.S prison system, but I fear U.S Citizens like to put people in jail. http://extradition.org.uk/

    208. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has more deaths in custody than almost any other first-world country but Britain is damn close because of the number of heroin-related deaths there.

      Well, at least Britain's solution is obvious: they need to stop giving their prisoners heroin. Christ, you think that would be obvious.

    209. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Sheriff Joe's deputies that are held to watch over and transport all the ballots.

    210. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Darundal · · Score: 1

      Can you elaborate on your cult experiances (assuming this isn't average internet bullshitting).

    211. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe just got that whole rape-and-pillage-on-gargantuan-scales thing over with a thousand years earlier. We're still what you'd call a frontier mentality over here.

    212. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a Liberal ? Based on what Ive looked up on the net people like him because he is hard on offenders. I live in CA and we could use people like him in our system. He actually gives them a reason not to commit anymore crimes that would put them back in prison.

    213. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This probably has something to do with the fact that he actually has his people enforcing the law, and doesn't waste money coddling criminals. Given the amount of ridiculous benefits we see in most prisons in the US that make prison a "no-brainer" for large numbers of people (see here: people actually trying to get themselves thrown in jail [startribune.com]), I'd say I like the idea of making prison as unpalatable a concept as possible.

      #1. There is a big difference between Jail and Prison. Jail is for holding suspects and short-term offenders, usually who are in to serve time for a misdemeanor, sleep off a public intoxication, etc.

      #2. The purpose of prison is to punish someone by depriving them of their liberty. It is not a place to torture or physically abuse the inmates. We do not have public floggings, and in general corporal punishment is not acceptable.

      I'm not saying we should turn prison into a 5-star luxury resort, but the basic needs of the inmates must be met, and they should be able to live in such facilities without the fear of assault, rape, neglect, lack of health care, etc.

    214. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is it about the words -Criminal- and -Illegal- alien that is so hard for slashdotters to fathom.

      Ever jaywalked? Driven 1 mph over the speed limit? Failed to come to a complete stop?

      I'm sure the answer is yes, even if you won't admit it yourself. Does this justify forcing you to eat food handled unsafely, being physically abused, raped and otherwise tortured?

      We have this little concept of justice, that the punishment should fit the crime. You however, seem to advocate medieval methods of punishment which have long been shown to do nothing more than turn "soft" criminals into "hard" criminals... and which ultimately simply spreads violence from within the prisons to the outside world.

      (so much for karma in this thread)

      Or in your life in general, if you believe in such a thing.

    215. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a load of crap. They are getting paid to be there.

    216. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      We already have regions of Texas and California near the border that isn't American anymore. Culturally, that part of the soil has been eroded away to Mexico

      Shit, in some cases it sounds like we're damn close to geographically ceding the soil -- e.g. police immigration checkpoints on the northern side of Laredo, TX.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    217. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

      You can get thrown into one of his 'jails' by ... defaulting on your child support payments.

      And rightly so. Deadbeat parents deserve electroshock therapy, and I don't mean to the brain.

      That was a bad example to use to show him as a bad guy. However, I suspect he's probably as bad as is made out here. But ,I'll not make any judgments, without all the facts.

      Note to self, change route to visit brother in So Cal.

    218. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      Why would you think prison was about rehabilitation? Prison terms are specified by the crime committed, not by the estimation of the time required for sufficient behavior modification.

      And parole is determined based on rehabilitation, not crime.

      Parole only relates to early release, not release at the end of the sentenced term. They'll release someone at the end of the term regardless whether they've been determined to be rehabilitated.

    219. Re:Summary doesn't make it clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to hear your relatives are visiting the sheriff. 8)

  4. Correct link for article discussing contempt claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The correct article is here.

    Amazing this is happening in the United States

  5. Arpaio by belmolis · · Score: 4, Informative

    This raid looks pretty outrageous. The court is probably the least politicized and most appropriate agency to take control until the situation can be resolved. The silver lining to this is that it is so outrageous that it may finally get that madman Arpaio removed from office.

    1. Re:Arpaio by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This raid looks pretty outrageous. The court is probably the least politicized and most appropriate agency to take control until the situation can be resolved. The silver lining to this is that it is so outrageous that it may finally get that madman Arpaio removed from office.

      Don't count on that. Ol' Joe's survived many attempts to remove him from office.

      What I'm wondering is, will Hendershott be sentenced to one of Joe's tent cities, or will they give him one of the many vacant air conditioned cells in the 'real' Maricopa County jail, the one that Joe refuses to use? Personally, I'd vote for tent city...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    2. Re:Arpaio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Where is the Attorney General of Arizona in all this? Presumably he, not a county sheriff is the chief law enforcement official in Arizona.

    3. Re:Arpaio by ring-eldest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here in Memphis the feds (under that notorious civil liberties champion John Ashcroft) took control of our jails after reported civil rights violations. The federal government is the appropriate agency to step in by means of the USDOJ, and should likewise step in on behalf of the people incarcerated under that maniac's supervision. It would disgust me if we treated prisoners of war the way that "law man" has been treating his charges.

      Dostoyevsky said that any society can be judged by the way it treats its prisoners. I sure as hell don't want this man standing as a representative of our civilization.

    4. Re:Arpaio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would disgust me if we treated prisoners of war the way that "law man" has been treating his charges.

      So what? You've got to understand, there's a fundamental difference: There's some level of parity between nations at war, which leads to both ethical (they were just following orders, same as our boys, not acting in defiance to all laws) and practical (we can reasonably bargain with the other nation to treat our boys the same) arguments for gentler policies.

      While I don't support everything I've heard about Joe's methods, the notion that we'd treat criminals, who are being punished as a deterrent, more harshly than POWs, who are merely being contained for the duration of hostilities, is quite obvious.

    5. Re:Arpaio by Burdell · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here in Alabama, the county coroner is an elected position. It requires no legal or medical experience, but it does have one important feature for cases like this: the coroner is the only county official that can legally arrest the sheriff.

    6. Re:Arpaio by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Then what happens if the coroner is arrested? Does he have a vice-coroner who takes over? If not, what's to prevent the sheriff from arresting the coroner if he fears the coroner is about to arrest him?

  6. Re:Correct link for article discussing contempt cl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Amazing that you think it's amazing this is happening in the United States.

  7. bad move by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The actions of the sheriff's office demonstrate quite clearly that they are not willing to abide by the law and therefore seem to have decided the case already against themselves.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  8. You've seen maricopa before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/04/1515239

    1. Re:You've seen maricopa before by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Informative

      In more convenient linked form: Phoenix Police Seize PCs of a Blogger Critical of the Department

      What the hell is going on there? Do people actually support this BS?

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    2. Re:You've seen maricopa before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Different group of cops. Phoenix PD is not Maricopa County Sheriffs Department. MCSD can and doesn't go everywhere in the county while Phoenix PD only goes within the city limits of Phoenix. If you didn't know, most of what people think of as Phoenix is really about a dozen or so different cities that just run right up onto each other.

  9. Do they really need the password? by 7Ghent · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Don't they have an IT guy who can root those? Sounds like they have physical access, should be pretty easy.

    1. Re:Do they really need the password? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes they do have an IT guy. Appears he built the system. No I don't believe he does need the password. But he is reported to have told the judge it would be "convenient" to have it but that he didn't really need it.

      Hendershott Could End Up in Jail Next Week in Showdown Over Password

    2. Re:Do they really need the password? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Force control back of the machines and bring suit for the time required.

      This is an abuse of contempt.

    3. Re:Do they really need the password? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      because the IT guy knows Federal law for tampering with computers and knows not to break it! Somebody is using the Law properly and knows they didn't do anything wrong. The point is exactly, that the sherriff probably asked for the admin password and the IT staff, at gun point gave it too him. That usually doesn't cover all the IT employee accounts and the "secret" admin account we all keep when we forget our admin AND our personal passwords.

      IT guys have enough to throw these guys in jail, they don't need to screw it up!

    4. Re:Do they really need the password? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rooting the machine is not the point.

      the point is maintaining the legal system by following all legal procedures. if/when the guy is thrown in jail for contempt of court THEN the machine can be rooted.

    5. Re:Do they really need the password? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      My guess too, is that the sherrif's probably didn't get all the backup tapes. I actually work in a county IT department (and truthfully I doubt I'd let the sherrif's personel have any access - they're under a separate management from us - county operations is separate from the sherrif's department and the courts), but like just about any large organization we keep many, many backups of all our of data. On the systems I personally manage we have nightly backups going back 2 weeks, with the previous night's backup being rotated off-site. Weeklies, monthlies, and yearlies are also all stored off-site.

      In general changing the passwords would just do VERY little to prevent anyone with any semblance of computer skill from getting the data back when they have physical access. My guess is that this is all part of the process that the court wants to play through. Hold him in contempt if he will not give up the password, even if they don't need it.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    6. Re:Do they really need the password? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had RTFA, you would know that when the Sheriff's men, with guns drawn, took over the facility, and changed the door locks (in addition to changing the passwords on the servers.)

      So, no, the judge doesn't have physical access.

  10. Physical Security by destuxor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Rule #3 of the 10 Immutable Laws of Security: if a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your computer, it's not your computer anymore.

    Story should serve as a good reminder to everyone out there that in the end, no amount of encryption, biometrics, or obscurity will protect your network when a hacker brings a gun. Physical security trumps all.

    1. Re:Physical Security by ExploHD · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Rule 6 is better:

      Law #6: A computer is only as secure as the administrator is trustworthy

    2. Re:Physical Security by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Card access systems are nice but nothing beats good solid doors and hardware locks. That's how I designed the Sec of State's IT infrastructure. Oh and it's own alarm system. To enter the room you need a key, an alarm code, and you need to know the door keypad code.

      Brick walls all around and double re-inforced interior walls with firebreaks.

    3. Re:Physical Security by davidshewitt · · Score: 1

      when a hacker brings a gun

      or a $5 wrench http://xkcd.com/538/

    4. Re:Physical Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the contrary, 14000 bit encryption can protect your data even when the hacker has physical access. Unfortunately, it depends how much you don't want to reveal the password. 14000 bit encryption certainly isn't going to protect you from the hacker's bullets (or $5 wrench).

      BTW Rule #2 is rather ironic, given where it's hosted.

    5. Re:Physical Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Story should serve as a good reminder to everyone out there that in the end, no amount of encryption, biometrics, or obscurity will protect your network when a hacker brings a gun. Physical security trumps all.

      Except in this case, the hacker was a cop. Joe Arpaio's bully-boys walked into a courtroom and stole all the computers at gunpoint.

      So you need to rephrase that: No amount of encryption, biometrics, obscurity or physical security will protect your network when a hacker brings a gun and has the full power of the "law" on his side. Power trumps all.

  11. And on that note... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... am I the only one thinking "block the doors, trip the halon"?

    1. Re:And on that note... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't accomplish anything. They might feel a little lightheaded after 20 or 30 minutes of breathing Halon or equivalent, that's all. It's a myth that it is dangerous or somehow prevents you from breathing.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:And on that note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is halon even used anymore? I thought it was decided to be unfriendly to the ozone and banned?

    3. Re:And on that note... by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that even if the sheriff and his deputies are completely corrupt, killing cops rarely goes over well.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    4. Re:And on that note... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't accomplish anything. They might feel a little lightheaded after 20 or 30 minutes of breathing Halon or equivalent, that's all. It's a myth that it is dangerous or somehow prevents you from breathing.

      DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME kids!!!

      While dumping a Halon (or whatever eco friendly system they're using now, actual Halon is a no-no) in a big room might not be dangerous, if the room isn't vented fast enough or if you spend enough time in it you could pretty easily pass out and maybe die from oxygen starvation. It WOULD be a fun thing to do and about the first thing I would think of...

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:And on that note... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Doesn't everyone use FM200 these days?

    6. Re:And on that note... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      FM200 on the other hand. That shit will mess you up for life.

    7. Re:And on that note... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Halon systems are dangerous, but not immediately dangerous to human life (unless there is a real fire). On the other hand CO2 fire suppression systems are immediately dangerous to human life. So maybe he meant block the doors and trip the CO2?

      Humans can generally survive commonly used Halon 1301 concentrations of 10% lower for hours, vision may be obscured, and dizziness is likely after some 10 minutes of exposure, possibly preventing a safe escape.

      Halon is mildly toxic. After some time (approx 8 - 16 hours of exposure), dizziness, central nervous system suppression, loss of consciousness, and suffocation can occur.

      However, when Halon contacts actual fire or extreme heat (such as if Halon is released into a room that is not on fire but contains an active furnace or some massive source of heat), some toxic byproducts are released into the air: HBr, HCl, Hf, which can result in death. (However, inhalation of smoke from an active fire can cause death too)

      When Halon 1301 concentrations 20% or higher, are used, people breathing the gas may lose consciosness, or suffocate, due to loss of oxygen.

      In addition, direct exposure to discharging Halon can cause burns due to frostbite.

      High concentrations are rarely used for fire suppression. Most halon suppression systems don't use 20% or 30% concentrations. These high concentration systems could be very dangerous to humans blocked in the room.

    8. Re:And on that note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which is why there are steps 3, 4 and 5 not mentioned in parents post
      3) kill the lights
      4) when the thumping and screaming have stopped, replace the raised floor tiles
      5) slip Mad Ron the Sparky a few quid for installing that surplus third rail under the floor under the guise of being a power distribution bus bar

    9. Re:And on that note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but only when you get that asshole sheriff and his lackeys into the computer room.
      THEN you lock the doors and trip the Halon(R) but adjust the flow rate so that it takes a
      while, so you can watch the infamous sheriff turn red, white and then blue... slowly and cruelly...

    10. Re:And on that note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't work in Terminator 2...

    11. Re:And on that note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and get shot by officers ? really ?

    12. Re:And on that note... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      There are about 15 different formulations referred to as "Halon". Some of them are nasty to the ozone (Such as the most common Halon 1301 (bromotrifluoromethane)) and are banned under the Montreal protocol, newer formulations (like trifluoroiodomethane) aren't.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    13. Re:And on that note... by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      So maybe he meant block the doors and trip the CO2?

      Nah ... block the doors and start flooding the room with nitrogen. You don't notice it at first, and when you finally start getting a bit dizzy, you're enjoying the experience too much to do anything about it and you die with a smile on your face.

      See this clip from the documentary How to Kill a Human Being . Start at 2 minutes.

      And if you can replace the oxygen in the room with nitrogen, nothing will be able to burn.

    14. Re:And on that note... by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, though, the modern systems which replaced the Halon systems are (sometimes? always?) dangerous. In particular, the point of a CO2 dump is to physically force all oxygen out of the room very rapidly. I also read that a CO2 dump makes a loud disorienting shriek, which doesn't help if you're trying to figure out what's going on and get out of the machine room. I've never been in that situation, or even been trained for it.

    15. Re:And on that note... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      My expectation is that if you're in a CO2 dump capable room, they have masks available. Either that or you always keep the exit door in view :)

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    16. Re:And on that note... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      You could pass out, but you wouldn't die of oxygen starvation unless there's actually a fire... in which case the CO would kill you regardless of the halon if you stuck around.

      Halon or equivalent only needs about 7% concentration in the air to work... that leaves 18% oxygen in the air vs 21% normally... even with no venting.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    17. Re:And on that note... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      No. No system ever has a design goal of forcing all the oxygen out of the air. They all leave enough oxygen in the air so that they are not an imediate hazard to personnel.

      Inergen is mostly nitrogen with enough CO2 to make you breathe harder and want to leave. You can easily survive in a room that just had an Inergen dump with plenty of time to get out.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  12. Re:Correct link for article discussing contempt cl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Amazing that you think it's amazing that he thinks it's amazing this is happening in the United States.

  13. That's why the US isn't a democracy by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is a Constitutional Federal Republic. This means that there are various check on the majority. 50.0001% of people can't vote to oppress the other 49.9999%. Things like constitutional law can only be changed by a very lengthy process (66% of both congressional bodies, 75% of all states have to approve it).

    So while the majority may agree with what he's doing, or at least the parts of what he's doing they are aware of, that doesn't make it right, or legal. He has, on many occasions, been sued successfully for various rights violations.

    It is something that needs to be fought, not something that people should just say "Well the majority elected him. Doesn't matter that they did, he is still accountable to the law. That's how the system is setup.

    1. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your words are true, but in your attempt to find the precise point where the majority is big enough to push a minority around, you have missed my point. He was elected, and he's been there a while. Thus, while it may be possible to get rid of him in particular, or file numerous lawsuits, in all likelihood someone else will be voted in who is similar or worse, because the populace WANTS that.

      If you want to change the country, the simplest way to do so is to change what the populace wants.

      --
      Qxe4
    2. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by Moryath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every sheriff's office and police department in the US has, at one point or another, been successfully sued for "rights violations" at some point. Making a blanket statement like that means nothing.

      Arpaio is also very clear on making prison as UN-palatable an option as possible to criminals. If you subscribe to the theory that some portion of the population considers the possible consequences of their actions (in other words, is a rational actor), then this should result in reduced initial crime rates from that portion of the population. If you don't subscribe to rational choice theory, then your opinion may be different.

      Of course, there is a portion of the population that are (temporarily or permanently) mentally incapable of either (A) recognizing the possible outcomes of their actions or (B) believing they will be caught. This strains their calculation to the point where they commit crimes anyways. Society has decided that these people are to be punished and "rehabilitated" (hopefully, taught NOT to break the law in the future). Depending on where you live and what judge you get, the harshness of this varies. Where I live, we have a hell of a lot of revolving-door "petty" criminals who commit "nonviolent" thefts from government/school buildings, always surrender when the cops show up, and then spend 3-4 months as a "trustee" in minimum-security each time before coming right out the revolving door and offending all over again. They don't see the system as a punishment at all. If you're to believe they are "rational actors" (and I have no reason to believe otherwise, based on televised interviews), then the lack of perceived punishment indicates that the system is broken, and I have to suspect that at least some of them would be more receptive to changing their lifestyles if "prison" meant something other than 3 hot meals a day, air conditioning, free cable TV, free library, free access to gym equipment, zero rent, and more.

      The people of Maricopa County, by and large, have said they want their Sheriff to be harsh on inmates. Double-digit reelection seems to be an indicator of this, at least. The fact that he, following the indications of his reelection that his methods are supported, butts heads with people who believe otherwise is no surprise at all.

    3. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by belmolis · · Score: 1

      Penal philosophy is irrelevant to the treatment of the many prisoners who are awaiting trial, held as material witnesses, or otherwise not convicted of anything. In any case, what beyond small details, the purpose and nature of jail are determined by the state and federal constitutions in the first instance and the state legislature in the second instance, not by Joe Arpaio or even the voters of Maricopa County.

    4. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by Moryath · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, according to the Constitution (10th Amendment):

      "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
      nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
      States respectively, or to the people.
      "

      Since the US Constitution says nothing about prisons save for prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishment", as long as Arpaio does not cross the line into "cruel", harshness is definitely allowed. Arizona's constitution says nothing about prisons. Arizona's law (a href="http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=31">Title 31) deals with prisons and the duties of Sheriffs, but within those provisions, counties have quite a wide latitude on how lenient/harsh they wish to be.

      I hope you have learned something today.

    5. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by belmolis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not from you. Nothing you've said is inconsistent with what I said. The prohibition of "cruel and unusual" punishment in the US Constitution plays a larger role than its three words might suggest. And by the way, the clause doesn't have to mention the word "prison" to be relevant. Due process rights, for example, play an important role in determining what prison officials can and cannot do. And the people who have those rights reserved to the people include prisoners.

    6. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by belmolis · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, you might want to read the Arizona constitution. It certainly does deal with prison. It contains a prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment just like the federal constitution does. Just because it doesn't contain the magic word "prison" doesn't mean that it is irrelevant.

    7. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by Delwin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I for one would consider being forced to live in a tent in 115 degree heat as 'cruel'.

    8. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by bumburumbi · · Score: 5, Informative

      To some this IS cruel and unusual punishment. In 1997 a couple wanted by the authorities in Arizona successfully avoided extradition.

      "They demonstrated [to the district court] that the conditions in that [Maricopa County] prison were inhumane and degrading, and that an Icelandic decision to grant the extradition request would therefore conflict with their rights under Article 68 paragraph 1 of the [Icelandic] Constitution, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; Article 3 of the European Human Rights Convention, and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Supreme Court sustained the view that the legal requirements for extradition were not fulfilled[.]"

      (Interim report of the Icelandic Government to the European Committee Against Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), 1999) http://eng.domsmalaraduneyti.is/reports/nr/126

    9. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by Daimanta · · Score: 1

      "It is a Constitutional Federal Republic. This means that there are various check on the majority."

      I personally can't stand this american misinformation. I'll explain exactly what a Constitutional Federal Republic is.

      Constitutional: A country having a national constitution or basic law. Or as wp says it: "A constitution is set of rules for government -- often codified as a written document -- that establishes principles of an autonomous political entity. In the case of countries, this term refers specifically to a national constitution defining the fundamental political principles, and establishing the structure, procedures, powers and duties, of a government."

      Federal: A country is a federation when it has multiple autonomous regions but where the regions are not independent like a confederation.

      Republic: Doesn't have a monarch. Simple as that. The US is a republic, so is Sudan and so is North Korea.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    10. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by sjames · · Score: 1

      If only he would wait until they're actually found guilty to treat them like sub humans.

    11. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      50.0001% of people can't vote to oppress the other 49.9999%.

      Except it did happen in California with the passage of Proposition 8. (The actual percentages were 52.3% to 47.7%, granted; but it would still have passed even if the percentages were closer.) California is fairly screwed-up politically: you can limit the freedoms of people by a simple voter majority, but you can't pass a budget unless you have a two-thirds majority of the legislature!

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    12. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 2, Informative

      Republic: Doesn't have a monarch. Simple as that. The US is a republic, so is Sudan and so is North Korea.
      I see what you did there, only problem is you stopped short. The wise and mighty wiki says, "A republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government emphasis mine. So please try again.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    13. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 0, Troll

      I guess you Euros aren't as well informed as you think; your definition is quite archaic, and perhaps appropriate if you were living in the 17th century.

      But you are not, and this is the 21st century,

      From Brittanica:

      Form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives elected by its populace. The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.

      The Columbia Encyclopedia:

      republic [Lat. res publica,=public affair], today understood to be a sovereign state ruled by representatives of a widely inclusive electorate. The term republic formerly denoted a form of government that was both free from hereditary or monarchical rule and had popular control of the state and a conception of public welfare. It is in this sense that we speak of the ancient Roman republic. Today, in addition to the above characteristics, a republic is a state in which all segments of society are enfranchised and in which the state's power is constitutionally limited. Traditionally a republic is distinguished from a true democracy in that the republic operates through a representative assembly chosen by the citizenry, while in a democracy the populace participates directly in governmental affairs. In actual practice, however, most modern representative governments are closer to a republic than a democracy. The United States is an example of a federal republic, in which the powers of the central government are limited and the component parts of the nation, the states, exercise some measure of home rule. France is an example of a centralized republic, in which the component parts have more limited powers. The USSR, though in theory a grouping of federated republics and autonomous regions, was in fact a centralized republic until its breakup in 1991.

      So before you spout off about ignorant America you should first be aware of your own limitations.

    14. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      All suspects are guilty. Period. Or they wouldn't be suspects now would they?

      ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bocmVZXXY8w

      Funny and scary. That was actually shot on the CA/AZ border. RotJ was also shot in Arizona. Many parts of Arizona look exactly like the desert scenes in ANH, although they were shot in Tunisia I think???

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    15. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Of course the US is a democracy. Democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive terms. What the US is not is a *direct* democracy, which is why there are so many barriers to changing fundamental laws like the Constitution.

      Republic refers to the composition of the government (no monarchy), democracy refers to the fact that all citizens have rights and liberties and can influence the government, usually through voting. Compare Iran or Russia, which are also Democratic Republics, but have controls on how much power the people can wield directly by voting.

    16. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Then there's things like the extradition of Brian and Kerry Howes from Scotland for supplying the chemicals to make 635kg of crystal meth. There are many fishy things about this case, first, where is the 635kg of crystal meth in Maricopa County? So first we have emotive utter bullshit from this sherrif. Next, Brian Howes was told that if he confessed his wife would go free - how in any way at all is that law enforcement? That is effectively "nice wife you've got there, shame if something happened to her if you don't confess" you'd expect in a corrupt third world dictatorship. His wife could go free if he stood up and submitted to a show trial. This is just about putting on a spectacle to hurt people to give the public a show.

    17. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The "Inmate Deaths and Injuries" section of his wikipedia article is worth a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio#Inmate_deaths_and_injuries

      The list includes a blind man who was beaten to death by his cops during the arrest, a 9-month pregnant woman who was brutalized by cops until she miscarried in the police station, a middle-aged diagnosed diabetic woman who was denied insulin until she died of diabetic shock, and paraplegic whose neck was broken by cops (turning him into a quadriplegic), among countless others. His prisons (particularly Tent City, which houses both convicts and people who are awaiting trial) are deliberately set up for prisoners to kill each other - leaving rebar tent-stakes available even after several riots in which prisoners killed each other with them.

      Arpaio either needs to be shot or incarcerated in the same facilities he runs.

    18. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Arpaio is also very clear on making prison as UN-palatable an option as possible to criminals.

      The problem with his philosophy is that not all of those in his charge are criminals, there are criminal defendants who can't afford bail. Not all of those defendants are guilty.

      If you subscribe to the theory that some portion of the population considers the possible consequences of their actions (in other words, is a rational actor), then this should result in reduced initial crime rates from that portion of the population. If you don't subscribe to rational choice theory, then your opinion may be different.

      I imagine positional asphyxiation is a good deterrant to crime.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    19. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

      If you want to change the country, the simplest way to do so is to change what the populace wants.

      yeah, for example that's how we ended Jim Crow. We didn't send in federal troops to enforce civil rights... instead we educated white southerners and ended their feelings of racism.

      Oh wait...

      --
      This space available.
    20. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was talking to a coworker, while on break, about 15 years ago, and he indicated when he was released from one of the tent camps, were they picked okra, in 130 degree heat, he left the state, because there was no way he was ever going back...

      I think this is a sign of success

    21. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not true, as Insightful mentioned, it doesnt matter what the majority wants the rights of the minority are dictated by the constitution, its not about changing the what the populace wants, it's about the government keeping its ravid dogs on a leash, and make making sure that even when the majority screams out that the earth is flat, the sheriff can't go out and hang the people that say it's square. People have forgotten that the American governemet is a Constitutional Federal Republic, the indivudal has the constitutional rights over the majority, and the government.

    22. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arpaio is also very clear on making prison as UN-palatable an option as possible to criminals. If you subscribe to the theory that some portion of the population considers the possible consequences of their actions (in other words, is a rational actor), then this should result in reduced initial crime rates from that portion of the population.

      A rational actor in the sense of economic theory is not just someone who considers consequences, but a 100% egotistical person who knows 100% about the future. The first part seems to fit the serial non-violent offenders you describe but I believe you only meant them to have some basic foresight which includes making a good experience-based estimate what jail is like in case of getting caught.

      I believe making a good estimate on the likeliness of fucking up during the crime or getting caught is much harder.

      And that weakens the argument that harder punishment leads to less crime. Suppose criminals fuck up during a robbery and accidentally kill somebody with weapons they only planned to use for intimidation. If they believe they get the death penalty if caught and they are 100% egotistical, they will now kill anybody necessary to avoid getting caught.

      Not that I know what the most efficient penalty dosage is.

    23. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by Moryath · · Score: 1

      If they believe they get the death penalty if caught and they are 100% egotistical, they will now kill anybody necessary to avoid getting caught.

      If they are incurably psychotic and have no compunction about killing people, yes. In the same vein, though, we cannot consider someone like that a rational actor.

      A "rational actor", for purposes of discussion of crime/punishment deterrence, is a person who (a) is mentally capable of correctly weighing the risk of punishment vs the reward of getting caught. The calculation, while perhaps not as easy to pin down to numbers, is very similar to the idea of your mathematical expectation for playing the lottery.

      Now obviously, not everyone is deterred from committing crimes (and we'll leave off the "petty, stupid shit crimes that shouldn't even be on the books") all the time. People determine all the time (probably quite rationally) that the expectation of arrest/fine/accident for exceeding the speed limit by X miles per hour or running a stop sign/red light, versus the "reward" of getting where they are going that much faster, is worth it. Some people are simply psychotic. Some are just plain stupid. Some have a mental defect (due to genetic/hormonal anomalies, illness, physical injury, etc) that prevents their brain from correctly associating cause and predicting likely effect.

      In your example, you are assuming a very odd possibility, however. You have assumed:

      1 - the person is a rational actor (inasmuch as they see the "risk" of getting caught for committing a robbery with a loaded gun as inconsequential compared to the reward of the money).
      2 - the person is relatively sane and moral enough not to wish physical harm or death upon another human being, thus your claim that the guns were brought "just to scare people" (rather than, say, to shoot any uppity guards, or cops, or someone else who got in the way).
      3 - that as a "rational actor", the person will then decide that the presence of the death penalty means that they should go on a killing spree, despite the fact that just moments ago they wished harm upon no other human.

      I see a major contradiction here. I don't doubt that it could happen, but I do say that your suggested case is inapplicable to rational actor theory and thus inapplicable to a discussion of whether or not increased severity of punishment would increase the deterrence factor for rational actors.

    24. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      No, 'democracy' and 'republic' are two separate systems, though both involve an electorate.

      America tries to be a bastard hybrid of the two, but as soon as you elect a representative who then votes on various bills, rather than voting on them yourself, you're no longer a democracy.

      Democracy is, after all, two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Or, to be a bit more vulgar, a football team and a cheerleader deciding what the evening's entertainment will be....

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    25. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      I think that if I wanted to run for Sheriff, Maricopa would be the LAST place in the country that I'd try to do it. Why is Maricopa county a household name here on the opposite side of the country? Because their sheriff is dazzlingly violent and aggressive, probably corrupt and provably guilty of many crimes.

      Can you imagine the shitstorm you'd have to endure if you ran against this man and his cronies? I don't exaggerate when I say that I'd be worried about my safety and my property, my private records, my kids' school records, anything that they could use against me.

      There is more to democracy than just voting...

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    26. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What you are referencing is a perfect example of the majority in the country using force to enforce their will on a minority. It is a very ironic example, in fact.

      --
      Qxe4
    27. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      No, 'democracy' and 'republic' are two separate systems, though both involve an electorate.

      Republic nowadays doesn't necessarily involve an electorate. It just means that the position of head honcho isn't inherited. Whether it is decided by an election, a fist fight or by drawing lots isn't relevant.

      America tries to be a bastard hybrid of the two, but as soon as you elect a representative who then votes on various bills, rather than voting on them yourself, you're no longer a democracy.

      You're in a democracy if you get to vote on stuff (and your vote actually matters). You're in an indirect democracy if you vote for representatives, or in a direct democracy if you get to vote on bills.

    28. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Republic: Doesn't have a monarch. Simple as that. The US is a republic, so is Sudan and so is North Korea.
      I see what you did there, only problem is you stopped short. The wise and mighty wiki says, "A republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government

      Doesn't have to be a very big part of the people, though. Only the heads of large families, for example. Or only members of The Party. Or only the cronies of the party leader, even.

      Merely not having a monarch does in no way guarantee any sort of respect or freedom for the people in general. There's a lot of rotten, undemocratic republics out there.

    29. Re:That's why the US isn't a democracy by mcvos · · Score: 1

      US predisents can be elected on even less than 50% of the popular vote, so in a way it's even possible for a minority to ignore the wishes of a majority.

  14. OS password or DB passwords? by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    If its the admin/root OS password why not just mount the drive and copy over the DB and reinstall onto a different server?

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  15. How did they get control of the servers? by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But it also is a server and e-mail platform for several county agencies, including the Sheriff's and County Attorney's offices and the Superior Court.

    That explains why the sheriffs department wanted them, they didn't want incriminating evidence coming out. But if we walk away from our servers, they're not going to be able to get into them. If they demanded admin passwords, I would have demanded a warrant. Arrest or not, that's a fight you can have later. If they arrested you for doing your job, then sue them later. Oddly, in this case you'd have the backing of the rest of the county board and the Superior Court. Seizing our computers wouldn't get them anything. I feel good about that but what happened in this case?

    If they're Windows servers it shouldn't be too hard to crack them, right? I haven't used Windows servers since Server 2003, you could crack those. Is it much harder now? Especially when you have access to the hardware.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:How did they get control of the servers? by vux984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is it much harder now? Especially when you have access to the hardware.

      Actually both 2003 and 2008 have the ability to be exceedingly hard. 2008 moreso than 2003. But in my experience the vast majority servers are very very rarely configured to make it hard.

      With a vanilla set up, they are relatively easy **with physical access**.

    2. Re:How did they get control of the servers? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      It is a bit harder to crack a Windows 2008 machine with rainbow tables compared to a Windows 2003 machine as passwords between 8 and 14 characters long are no longer split in two before hashing, but changing the password to one you know is pretty easy. That only doesn't work if you have an encrypted filesystem, and that is generally a security measure you consider for laptops rather than servers. Mounting the drive on another machine is as easy as it has always been.

    3. Re:How did they get control of the servers? by Minwee · · Score: 4, Informative

      If they demanded admin passwords, I would have demanded a warrant. Arrest or not, that's a fight you can have later.

      Huh. It's safest just to let Sheriff Joe arrest you and fight it in court. Juan Mendoza Farias thought that too.

    4. Re:How did they get control of the servers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After reading about the abuses in his jails, I can be pretty sure I would try my hardest never to get stuck in one.

    5. Re:How did they get control of the servers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they arrested you for doing your job, then sue them later.

      Unless you die in custody before you even get to trial, as has happened several times this year apparently.

    6. Re:How did they get control of the servers? by k8to · · Score: 1

      Really? Boot from linux cd/thumb drive, mount the filesystems, game over.

      Or are we discussing people who actually do encryption? Do you know of real production examples of people doing that?

      --
      -josh
    7. Re:How did they get control of the servers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that Sherrif Joe has a nasty habit of killing people that have pissed him off, once he gets them in his jail. It's one thing to get arrested, but how do you intend to sue for false imprisonment if you'r dead? Worse, how do you keep Joe from harrassing your family for the next 5 years - like he's already done with others - just because they have the audacity to share their filthy polluted blood with you?

    8. Re:How did they get control of the servers? by AC5398 · · Score: 1

      Seizing servers means *nothing* if proper backups are made, with tapes archived offsite. Offsite, archived tapes means the servers can be recreated at will.

      Which means there probably aren't any tapes. And if there are, relocate them out of the State, make backups of them, then relocate the backups.

    9. Re:How did they get control of the servers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they're Windows servers it shouldn't be too hard to crack them, right? I haven't used Windows servers since Server 2003, you could crack those. Is it much harder now? Especially when you have access to the hardware.

      The Microsoft Diagnostic and Recovery Toolkit (DaRT - http://www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/mdop/dart.aspx) contains an easy way to get into the registry for desktop systems and also has a automatic password changer tool for both Windows XP and Vista, I'd take a guess that these would also work with server versions. It's worth a shot at least and would only take about 10 minutes.

    10. Re:How did they get control of the servers? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Really?

      It sounds like you are trying to disagree with me.

      Boot from linux cd/thumb drive, mount the filesystems, game over.
      Or are we discussing people who actually do encryption? Do you know of real production examples of people doing that?

      But then you continue by confirming everything I said, and include examples.

      Um... thanks?

      For what its worth its not a windows specfic situation either. It applies to Linux and OSX too.

  16. Re:Good afternoon, Arizonians, by oldhack · · Score: 0, Troll

    Just when you thought we here in CA hit the bottom, Arizona shows there are deeper holes than ours.

    Lay off McCane, man. He's a Wonko the sane that somehow managed to get elected in Arizona.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  17. I've lived in Maricopa County for over 20 years, by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...and the Sheriff's Office has been a joke for almost all of them. Sheriff Joe's predecessor utterly botched an investigation into a high-profile mass murder at a local Buddhist Temple, so voters here were looking for change at any price.

    I'm pro-law and order, but law and order means, well, law AND order, not Sheriff Joe's thuggery. He's cost the county millions in unnecessary lawsuits for brutality in his jails, his law enforcement tactics exist solely to grab headlines and intimidate his opponents and he's ruined inter-agency cooperation in Central Arizona for at least the near future.

    The sooner we elect someone else, the better off we'll be.

    --
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
  18. Re:Correct link for article discussing contempt cl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    (Amazing that you think it's )^2 amazing that he thinks it's amazing this is happening in the United States.

  19. Re:Yo Nigger by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

    Hey look, three AC trolls replying with the same content within minutes of each other. Joe, don't you have other things to do than browse Slashdot?

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  20. Phoenix should be nuked from Orbit by linzeal · · Score: 0, Troll

    Thank god, people in Arizona usually don't venture further than Southern California or Vegas. If they ever reached Oregon in mass we might have to pull an Oregon Trail on them and head to Canada. The new racist south extends from the I-10 in Phoenix through the whole Southern US now.

    Arpaio should be raped by dogs and then fed to them.

    1. Re:Phoenix should be nuked from Orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      The new racist south extends from the I-10 in Phoenix through the whole Southern US now.

      Ahhh. So you don't like him enforcing immigration laws, then. I see. Explains a lot.

    2. Re:Phoenix should be nuked from Orbit by Delwin · · Score: 1

      Hey! We've got sane people too! They just aren't in charge.

    3. Re:Phoenix should be nuked from Orbit by Delwin · · Score: 1

      His version of enforcing immigration laws goes way beyond the actual laws. You should have heard his press conference when he lambasted DHS because they told him to let some people go that he'd arrested quite against current law or immigration policy.

    4. Re:Phoenix should be nuked from Orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arpaio should be raped by dogs and then fed to them.

      Dude. Over the line!

      I'm a cat person, not a dog person, but seriously, dude, whaddya got against dogs?

    5. Re:Phoenix should be nuked from Orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you go and fuck you... I'm tired of retards buying there way in to office and destroying everything that is good and humble so they can line there own pockets while at the same time they ass rape to very ones who make them the money... So as someone living ia AZ, Go and fuck yourself!!!

  21. CJIS - Criminal Justice Information System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Disclaimer - I work as the IT manager for a major university police department.

    Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) Security Policy - the governing policy from the Department of Justice for managing criminal justice systems. The policy is law enforcement sensitive and not public.

    The Sheriffs office is arguing that that the law requires this server, which has NCIC (National Crime Information Center) access, to only be managed by a criminal justice agency. There are entire previsions in CJIS that allow for delegation of CJIS management to noncriminal justice agencies including municipal governments and contractors. The only provision states that responsibility for management of security and network control remains with the criminal justice agency - meaning the blame for not following the CJIS security policy lies with the law enforcement agency.

    Unless Arizona has different laws regarding NCIC access this looks like a power grab to me...

  22. Bosco! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Judge (Seinfeld): Oh, come on, just tell me your code already. What is it?

    Sheriff (George): I am not giving you my code.

    Prosecutor (Kramer): I'll bet I can guess it.

    Sheriff: Pssh. Yeah. Right.

    Prosecutor: Oh, alright. Yeah. Uh, let's see. Um, well, we can throw out
    birthdays immediately. That's too obvious. And no numbers for you, you're a
    word man. Alright, let's go deeper. Uh, what kind of man are you? Well,
    you're weak, spineless, a man of temptations, but what tempts you?

    Sheriff: Huh?

    Prosecutor: You're a portly fellow, a bit long in the waistband. So what's your
    pleasure? Is it the salty snacks you crave? No no no no no, yours is a sweet
    tooth.

    Sheriff: Get out of here.

    Prosecutor: Oh, you may stray, but you'll always return to your dark master, the
    cocoa bean.

    Sheriff: I'm leaving.

    Prosecutor (building up steam as George bolts for the door): No, and only the
    purest syrup nectar can satisfy you!

    Sheriff: I gotta go.

    Prosecutor: If you could you'd guzzle it by the gallon! Ovaltine! Hershey's!

    Sheriff: Shut up!

    Prosecutor: Nestle's Quik!

    Sheriff: Shut up!

  23. wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I think i'm going to be physically ill.
    I've never been so ashamed of my country, hell even my race as a whole.
    I wish i wasn't agnostic, so i could rest assured these men had a VERY long and hot vacation waiting for them after death.

  24. Coverup by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This just screams coverup.

    Sherrif Joe is afraid of the information on those servers ... why? It would be nice to know, wouldn't it? Streisand Effect, anyone?

    The county should turn it all over to the FBI for forensic investigation after this. I don't care who you are, unauthorized access to a computer system is a felony in most states and a federal offense, too.

    1. Re:Coverup by mog007 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Given Joe's history, I'm very interested in what's on those servers. This is a guy who thinks ANY press is good press. Even when he had to pay 30-something percent of an 800k judgement due to abuse out of his own pocket. The guy's got corruption all over the place, and he's still in office.

    2. Re:Coverup by simple+english+major · · Score: 1

      The sheriff is investigating the Superior Court, and the servers may have emails on them that he hasn't been able to get access to legally through the appellate courts. So it's not a CYA, it's a fishing expedition.

    3. Re:Coverup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      felony in most states and a federal offense

      From the department of redundancy department.

    4. Re:Coverup by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      ...The guy's got corruption all over the place, so he's still in office.

      FTFY

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    5. Re:Coverup by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      The sheriff is investigating the Superior Court, and the servers may have emails on them that he hasn't been able to get access to legally through the appellate courts. So it's not a CYA, it's a fishing expedition.

      Sheriff Joe shouldn't be investigating any courts. That's the job of the State Attorney General, or the Federal Attorney General. He's exceeding his authority (not that he recognises any limits on his authority). County AG is investigating him, so this is more like a CYA run than a fishing expedition.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  25. Mods, please be responsible. by Moryath · · Score: 4, Funny

    How the hell does a post whose entire content is "fuck you, [name]" get modded "insightful"?

    1. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because the modded post is insightful to most of people here?

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    2. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by cml4524 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's really all that needs to be said of Arpaio, and since it's the first instance of the statement, it's the most insightful post in the story.

    3. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by BollocksToThis · · Score: 4, Funny

      After checking the definition of 'insight', I decided you were off your rocker.

      After considering the full meaning of "most of [the] people here", I changed my mind again. When dealing with the majority of Slashdot, useful definitions for words have pretty much no place in the proceedings :)

      --
      This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
    4. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by Delwin · · Score: 1

      You don't live in Arizona do you?

    5. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by solraith · · Score: 1

      If you lived in his area of jurisdiction, you'd understand.

    6. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because Joe Arpaio is a power-tripping constitution-ignoring murderously negligent nutjob ?

      The man is batshit insane, not unlike what you would get if the Bush family pursued ferocious inbreeding for the next ten generations. Then you take that mentally stunted child, give him a government job and a gun, and let him loose upon the world.

      This is a man who gets his goons to physically threaten press reporters, when they get too close to his dirty secrets, and when he's done intimidating these law-abiding journalists, he saddles their offices with "punitive" over-reaching FOIA requests. He's perfectly happy to do the same thing to judges and state officials he dislikes. He's like a gangster with federal employee ID.

    7. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you lived in his area of jurisdiction, you'd understand.

      Then how does he keep getting re-elected? I have heard many accusations against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, but I don't recall anyone suggesting that he has committed election fraud. That means that the majority of people who live in his jurisdiction who are both eligible to vote and care enough to vote support Joe Arpaio.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    8. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by Estragib · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It could be said in a way that would help people who don't know that already understand. Like it is, the comment is redundant for everyone who knows, because they already know, and meaningless for everyone who doesn't know, because it's pure vitriol.

    9. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How the hell does a post whose entire content is "fuck you, [name]" get modded "insightful"?

      You don't live in AZ, do you? Joe is Joe Arpaio, the elected sheriff around here. He's really popular because he does showboat tactics come election time (hint: not many sheriff own a TANK). The second I saw this, I knew he was behind it. It's a political move.

      With any luck, he'll be held in criminal contempt of court and made unable to hold elected office, but I'm not holding my breath. The guy is a total douchebag who does all kinds of heavy-handed law enforcement tricks to make himself look good in the papers, some of which have caused him legal problems.

      Remember the guy who sued some independent paper around here and tried to figure out who all read an allegedly libelous story about him? Yeah. That was ol' Joe. Frankly, I hope he ends up in tent city someday.

    10. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1.) The [name] is the sheriff referred to in the story.
      2.) [name] is guilty of human rights abuses in his treatment of prisoners, including treatment that directly resulted in the death of people accused (but not yet convicted) of crimes. For example, denying a diabetic their insulin.
      3.) [name] gets re-elected by his constituents year after year despite public knowledge of these events, because he's "tough on crime" and particularly spends time finding and arresting illegal immigrants to the neglect of more serious crimes. That's a big hit in a heavily republican border county.
      4.) Seriously, fuck [name].

      Seriously, the use of an explicative isn't particularly "nice" but it's the best word for the situation. Hence: insightful.

      AC because I don't know any of this first hand, just from other comments on this article and wikipedia. Oh, which is another point - I wouldn't know about this guy or his involvement in the story if not for this comment. That makes it informative too...

    11. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by LandDolphin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a large elder and republican base in Arizona that make up the majority of the voters. This demographic does not like law breakers, drug users, and illegal immigrants. Sheriff Joe Arpaio runs some of the "toughest" jails in the US and he is "hard on crime". The voters like that and could care less about what other people are complaining about.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    12. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, that's pretty much the sad truth of it. He has a rabid fanbase who absolutely love him because he mistreats his prisoners. Note, of course, that he runs a jail, not a prison. The distinction being that many of the people he's mistreating have not yet been convicted of any crime. Some, in fact, may not have even been charged with anything yet.

    13. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by commodoresloat · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It probably doesn't hurt that he's disenfranchised a significant portion of the population likely to have been directly wronged by his policies as well.

    14. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by StormyMonday · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Election fraud? No. Severe intimidation of possible opponents? Yes. Intimidation of critical journalists? Yes.

      The people he brutalizes in his jail are Hispanic. This plays very well with his electoral base -- and costs the county a fortune in civil rights judgments.

      --
      Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
    15. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Has anyone noticed how often meth is involved in medical reports about the deaths of his prisoners. It seems like a strange statistical anomaly to me.

    16. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by belmolis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How does Arpaio saddle journalists with FAIO requests? Such requests are made to the government. Journalists are not the government.

    17. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      > except you don't vote for sheriffs. or any other police officers.
      > should this change? probably.

      huh? in the US you do. the county sheriff is an elected position.

    18. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by Xenographic · · Score: 4, Informative

      A) They're FOIA requests (not FAIO).

      B) He sends them against elected Phoenix officials, like the mayor, whose email he requests for political reasons. He does NOT send FOIA requests to journalists as is incorrectly claimed by GP.

      C) That said, Joe does appear to lean on journalists, but he does that with search warrants and deputies. Slashdot has covered this in the past and there is much information to be found on Wikipedia concerning the incidents of note.

      Basically, he's an incompetent Sheriff who hasn't been voted out because too many people are too enamored with his "tough on crime" stance to notice that he's completely incompetent and not making the people of Arizona any safer. They'll try to defend him by claiming that the opposition is in favor of illegal immigration or some other utterly political nonsense, while ignoring the fact that his incompetence has cost Arizona taxpayers something like $100 million.

      (That's a very rough estimate using the sources on Wikipedia, but it's about the right order of magnitude, especially when you count what we pay for legal liability insurance and Arizona's insanely high deductibles).

    19. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell does a post whose entire content is "fuck you, [name]" get modded "insightful"?

      There exists at least one Slashdotter with mod points and who lives in Phoenix?

    20. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by amRadioHed · · Score: 0

      FOIA requests go to the goverment. I have no idea what FAIO requests are or who they go to.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    21. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Then how does he keep getting re-elected?"

      49% hates the guy?

    22. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The label that came to my mind was "SA" and I'm not talking about internet forums.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    23. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      One anonymous coward told a fantastic tale of this sheriff burning down a house killing a dog and whoops causing $4,000 worth of damage to an innocent neighbors car. No link thou

      I found this http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2004-08-05/news/dog-day-afternoon/full

      It sounds as fanciful as the Dukes of Hazzard but it appears not to be fiction but to be quite real or is it surreal.

      No wonder the criminals hate him he's bat shit insane, even as a law abiding member of the public you'd be keeping your head down any time the Sheriff and his merry men are in the area.

      He makes Jack Thompson seem quite reasonable and the RIAA a benevolent society for destitute music fans.

    24. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by cml4524 · · Score: 1

      He doesn't sound insane to me at all. Arapaio sounds like a violent thug whose behavior has been legitimized by a badge, an officially issued gun, and a bunch of ignorant, hick voters who think his treacherous outlaw image is a "cool" Hollywood-style way of dealing with "criminals". He seems a violent bully hopped on power, totally lacking any empathy or decency. I don't think he's marauding against crime, I think he's just marauding in general, and he's going to keep marauding until someone stops him. Either he's going to be murdered by one of the numerous enemies he's made in his violent crusade against justice, or he's going to finally kick down the wrong door, trigger a shootout between him and a law-abiding citizen (or, as is more his M.O., an otherwise non-violent offender that he sends a veritable army after), and either get killed in the process or kill the innocent victim, and finally get what's coming to him from the courts.

      Joe Arpaio typifies the unqualified thug lawman who thinks his job is to brutalize the public rather than protect it, and I can't wait for the day that his disgusting behavior finally catches up with him.

    25. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by Maxmin · · Score: 1

      Then how does he keep getting re-elected? I have heard many accusations against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, but I don't recall anyone suggesting that he has committed election fraud.

      All the Sheriff's Men: The SCA Campaign-Finance Scandal is Linked to Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Chief Deputy David Hendershott

      The article reviews allegations of illegal money funneling from Arpaio's senior deputies to the Republican-financed SCA. It also covers the over-the-top video campaign run by SCA that accuse Arpaio's opponent Dan Saban of rape (unfounded), letting child molesters go free (no evidence at all), and included portions of a video deposition from a civil suit where Arpaio's attorneys questioned Saban about his sexual practices including masturbation (plain old dirty politics.)

      Now, while the campaign finance case remains open, nothing's proven - however, the video campaign itself was run again and again, analysed on TV news programs, and generally helped to swing the race in a big way, IMO.

      So, the allegations are there, think what you will, but IMO one day soon the law will catch up with Sheriff Arpaio. If he doesn't croak first (he's old!)

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
    26. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by pfleming · · Score: 1

      It probably doesn't hurt that he's disenfranchised a significant portion of the population likely to have been directly wronged by his policies as well.

      Um, you mean illegal immigrants who do not have the right to vote? No. Does he seem to concentrate his "crime sweeps" on illegal immigration, absolutely. And he's pissed at Napolitano for changing the guidelines. Now you have to have done something else wrong first before violation of human smuggling laws against the "smugglee" can be enforced. And Joe doesn't like that one bit.

    27. Re:Mods, please be responsible. by pfleming · · Score: 1

      Election fraud? No. Severe intimidation of possible opponents? Yes. Intimidation of critical journalists?

      These parts should not be marked flamebait as they are 100% true. Severe smear campaigns, leaked "investigations" against his opponents, attempting to circumvent the First Amendment and intimidate independent newspapers critical of the Sheriff. He is the type of guy who would subpoena /. for every negative post just as he tried to subpoena the publishers of Live(? the small independent paper critical of him and his actions) for the names, phone numbers and home addresses of its reporters as well as all sources.

  26. Re:Good afternoon, Arizonians, by masshuu · · Score: 5, Funny

    +----------+
    |  PLEASE  |
    |  DO NOT  |
    | FEED THE |
    |  TROLLS  |
    +----------+
        |  |
        |  |
      .\|.||/..

    the sign is there for a reason.
    Feeding trolls and flamebaits can lead to excessive burns and karma loss

    --
    O.o
  27. but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sheriff Joe is an old man, can't they just check the post it note under the keyboard? Boom, Problem Solved.

  28. bizare turn of events by talcite · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does it seem strange to anyone else that the Sheriff's office is conducting a raid on the Government offices and is disregarding orders from the justice department?

    I always thought that law enforcement was supposed to be the arm of the government. It seems more like the arm is acting of its own accord in this case.

    1. Re:bizare turn of events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure I've heard jokes about Arizona and strange love before...

    2. Re:bizare turn of events by Reluctant+Wizard · · Score: 2, Insightful
      RE: the justice department:

      Don't be so sure about the feds' ability to do anything about the sheriff. The structure of our governmental system puts the sheriff in a pretty good position. From a column I found with a brief search:

      "...the sheriff is the highest governmental authority in his county. Within that jurisdiction - inside his county - the sheriff has more power than the governor of his state. Indeed, the sheriff has more power in his county than the President of the United States. In his county, he can overrule the President and kick his people out. Remember, the President has few and limited powers."

      Personally, if a real conservative were to be elected President, I'd like to see Sheriff Joe heading up Homeland Security.

    3. Re:bizare turn of events by belmolis · · Score: 1

      Since it is certainly false that the Sheriff can kick federal officers out of his county, I would take the rest of the content of that article with a large grain of salt.

    4. Re:bizare turn of events by belmolis · · Score: 3, Informative

      Okay, tracked it down. The column you quote is by the late Alan Stang. He was a right-wing extremist, not a lawyer, not an expert on law or government. He's not a reliable source.

    5. Re:bizare turn of events by Reluctant+Wizard · · Score: 1
      "certainly false"? Please cite a source. Case law I've found says different.

      See:

      http://harmonyhealth.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/your-sheriff-is-the-law-of-the-land/

      From the referenced case (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J), U.S. District Court decision:

      "If a sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional right and power to keep them out, or ask them to leave, or retain them in custody."

      and

      ...the sheriff "has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official,"

      Given, this is a Wyoming district court, but it's likely that AZ courts would see things the same way.

    6. Re:bizare turn of events by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The Justice Department has no more authority to give orders to the members of the Maricopa Sheriff's Office than it does to any other person in the U.S.. As far as the Sheriff's office raiding Government offices, law enforcement often does this when criminal behavior is suspected of other Government officers.
      This is a case where there is a conflict between the powers assigned to different parts of the government. There is a reason that there is no clear, easy way to resolve this conflict. This was, at least partially, intentional on the part of those who set this up.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    7. Re:bizare turn of events by Homburg · · Score: 1

      You're citing a blog which appears to be a reposting an article, but doesn't say where it's from. References to this case, as far as I can see, only show up on right-wing blogs and forums; I can't find any newspaper coverage in Lexis-Nexis, and I can't find any reference to a decision for the case with that number.

      If you can provide a link to the actual decision in that case, or a discussion of it in a mainstream or scholarly source, I'd be very interested to look at it. Prima facie, though, it sounds very unlikely that county sherrifs in fact have powers exceeding officers of the federal government; I don't see how you could square that with the Supremacy clause.

    8. Re:bizare turn of events by KiahZero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You'd like to see a sadistic murderer sociopath who has no respect for the Constitution or our nation to be the Secretary of Homeland Security? Really?

      Then again, you also seem to hate the Constitution pretty strongly, since you have ignored the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Section 2), which states:

      This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

      Sure, the WordPress site you link says differently. It's nonetheless wrong - perhaps you should learn not to take your legal advice from blogs created by people who hate law? As the judge in the case you are referring to, Castaneda v. U.S., states:

      We have learned that it has been reported, erroneously, that the court made a legal
      ruling in the Castaneda case regarding the authority of federal law enforcement officials
      to conduct operations in the County. There was no such ruling or decision. Instead, the
      court simply granted a motion, submitted jointly by all the parties, to dismiss the case
      because the parties had settled.

      This Court has never issued an order which would serve to limit the lawful activities and
      duties of federal law enforcement officers and other federal employees in the District of
      Wyoming.

      Furthermore, this Court has never made the comments attributed to it which purports to
      advise state officers they can prohibit federal law enforcement officers or agents from
      entering a Wyoming County. Those alleged quotations are utterly false.

      Any person who interferes with federal officers in performance of their duties subjects
      themselves to the risk of criminal prosecution.

      In short, your post is bad and you should feel bad.

      --
      I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
    9. Re:bizare turn of events by KiahZero · · Score: 1

      You can't square it with the Supremacy Clause, he's just an idiot.

      The Chief Judge of the United States District Court, District of Wyoming, discusses the case here: http://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/pdfforms/96cv99.pdf

      --
      I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
  29. Let me fix that for you by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Thus I would suspect that a large portion of his constituency are woefully ignorant of his policies.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    1. Re:Let me fix that for you by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thus I would suspect that a large portion of his constituency are woefully ignorant of his policies.

      No.

      Sad to say, but my experience has taught me that many people are fully capable of supporting human rights violations so long as they're happening to "the other", and not them. Whether that other is criminals / suspects, immigrants (legal or not), or simply another race doesn't matter; it means that they are on a slightly higher footing in society due to Sheriff Joe's actions. And that makes them feel good.

      And in a county where a sheriff is elected, it results in laws and the enforcement thereof skewed toward that irrational majority.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
  30. Re:Correct link for article discussing contempt cl by Nathrael · · Score: 1

    C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!

    --
    A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
  31. Re:Correct link for article discussing contempt cl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not amazed that you think it's amazing that he thinks it's amazing this is happening in the United States.

  32. Article about Sheriff Arpaio in The New Yorker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In July, The New Yorker magazine ran an article about Sheriff Arpaio. It's an interesting read for anyone interested in the man.

    Here's the abstract (registration is required to get the whole thing)

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/07/20/090720fa_fact_finnegan

  33. Thats interesting... by tengeta · · Score: 1

    If its related to data involved in the Sheriff's office, the Feds will be peeking in on this one. Finally, now come down to Pima County and get rid of Dupnik next.

    --
    "They confiscated everything, even the stuff we didn't steal!"
  34. FWIW by tyler_larson · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Sheriff Joe has been in an ever-escalating power-war with the rest of the government in the various cities, counties, and state of Arizona. In the past few weeks, the plot has slightly thickened as there has recently been some evidence of, and outcry regarding, misconduct on the part of the Sheriff's office in regards to personal use of state funds. I won't bore you with the details, but the reaction of the Sheriff's office hasn't been one that, shall we say, increases public safety.

    I can't even imagine why the Sheriff's office would want to seize the records relating to law enforcement within the state, but I'm sure he has a Very Good Reason.

    --
    "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
    RFC 1925
    1. Re:FWIW by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Isn't this exactly what the 2nd amendment is for? To overthrow an oppressive regime?

    2. Re:FWIW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sheriff Joe uses his deputies as his own personal army. One of the last guys to run against him was charged with raping his mom (some 30 yrs earlier when he was a teen) by the sheriffs dept. It happened before the election and was eventually dropped after the election.

      The Police chief of Mesa, AZ publicly complained about Sheriff Joes immigration raids, The Sheriff ended up raiding Mesa City Hall! If I remember right it was about 30 armed masked deputies to arrest two or three suspected illegals working the overnight janitorial shift.

      Hendershott, the guy who the judge is threatening to throw in jail, retired at full pay from the Sheriffs Dept and was rehired immediately by Sheriff joe. Now he gets double paid.

      I could go on and on. The guy is a cancer.

      I live in AZ and have been in his jails. I'm a convicted felon for possession of 1/2 oz of marijuana. Welcome to AZ.  It's a travesty.

    3. Re:FWIW by m1xram · · Score: 2, Informative

      It appears that enforcing the law is becoming more and more unpopular as the propaganda of the original article indicates. The other side of the story was completely left out, which is a form of lying by way of omission. See Arpaio wants feds to investigate county. It turns out that the security for the computers is the responsibility of the Sheriff's department and they were denied access. Oops, looks the it was the County trying a power grab, not the Sheriff's department.

      You have to wonder why people think they can get away with this type of propaganda when just about everybody has a search engine at their finger tips.

    4. Re:FWIW by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      that's why there are people trying to do away with it.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    5. Re:FWIW by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      what ever he did or didn't do hopefully the IT people in charge will just walk away from it, especially if they ran an honest system before this guy showed up. There are plenty of ways to see exactly what changed, but for their sakes it's better if they don't ever set foot in the server room again even if the Feds step in and clear the IT staff of any wrong doing. Basically they all got put in another Terry Childs position and did the "right" thing with a gun to their heads.

    6. Re:FWIW by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      so the IT people have bosses, and the police department should have LAWYERS working for them to get this stuff legally. There's plenty of legal means to get access and filing the right papers will get the IT staff to "step away from the keyboard" in a hot minute.

      What this guy did to the IT staff was WRONG, wrong as a citizen, wrong as a city employee, and wrong as a Law Enforcement official. Obviously, he signed away his responsibilities over the system and just like in the Childs case wanted to make the problem the "IT guy's" fault, not the managers that told them how to run the shop.

    7. Re:FWIW by m1xram · · Score: 1

      The Sheriff's department was responsible for the security of the computers. The Sheriff's department enforces the law. They enforced the law. As far as I can tell, you can't tell the police that they can't access their own computers that they have responsibility for. LOL

      The lawyers get involved when the prosecution for County people starts. I say let the investigation begin and the Sheriff has called for a federal one already.

    8. Re:FWIW by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      the sheriff's office obviously PUT the computers into the county IT department without force several years ago... correct? The Board or the IT people did not TAKE his computer, it was put under their control, which other posters have said can be legal with the proper government clearances. Obviously the IT department had those when this SAME sheriff gave these computers to them!! He's using a budget crisis and laid off IT staff to make a grab at the server room.

      This is about a co-located system that sits in a room with several other departments the sheriff would like to investigate and has suits in process explicitly not to get emails and such from the County until the court rules. They forced all of the IT people out, under threat of arrest, and demanded passwords to what systems exactly? With all the admin passwords what data in other departments are they accessing? If it was a Federal problem with the criminal database the Feds themselves would have sent the county a strongly worded letter and made things happen... i.e. a new locked server room for that computer... but that's not what's going on.

    9. Re:FWIW by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      The real reason this is on slashdot is that these IT people were put in a Terry Childs like position by these goons. And more situations like this will be coming.

      The county consolidated systems to build a big, safe data center, but has lots of infighting. They put IT under control of a separate IT department and made sure everybody was cleared for everything needed to be admins. Now the police come in at gun point because a) they claim to want their computer "back". and b) they're investigating another department and the IT staff is following the law waiting for proper court judgments. So the police go, put a gun to the IT staff's heads to get what they want, it was even said the sheriff knows of no improper use of the police data by IT and that IT was properly authorized...

      As county IT departments are more strapped for cash, nice big racks of Sans and blades are the rage for maximum IT staff utilization... we'll see lots more consolidation... and these police just declared war on the "keepers" of those systems... i.e. on other people who do our jobs too!

    10. Re:FWIW by m1xram · · Score: 1

      The first paragraph is all assumptions. The second paragraph isn't much better. If the Sheriff's department is in charge of the security for the computers, they have the law on their side.

      The only facts we know in this case are 1) the security for the computers is the responsibility of the Sheriff's department, 2) the Sheriff's department exercised their authority in the matter, 3) the Sheriff himself has called for federal investigation, and 4) you made a bunch of assumptions to support your argument.

      You're going to have to let this play out to find out all of the facts. It is possible that some of your assumptions may be proven valid in the future. If that happens send me a message with the appropriate links and I'll send you a note of congratulations.

    11. Re:FWIW by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      I was over at the news site boards and various people stated that the IT office was set up by the county several years ago with "letters of understanding" between agencies (fact). i.e. the county didn't hijack his box and the IT folks in charge had the proper authorizations for the crime database. This sheriff has been in charge forever and HIS name would have signed off, so it should have been legal. Why would he suddenly change his mind?

      yes, the sheriff filed an investigation (fact) as he does whenever anybody tries to investigate him? He was told by the courts he couldn't have the information until the court decides (fact).

      The IT department is being downsized and the sheriff is concerned unqualified IT staff MIGHT access the data, although at this point in time there are no unauthorized access by IT staff and no knowledge that any IT staff MIGHT be doing something they shouldn't be. (fact)

      In spite of all that, they decided to rush the law abiding, properly background checked IT staff, with guns, in their office of a public building to "secure" this one computer system. (facts as claimed by the sheriff) The room also contains the computer systems of the other county departments (fact) The deputies demanded (how many?) passwords from the IT staff for (which?) systems, at "gunpoint" under fear of going to gulag. (fact that the jail is degrading and dangerous and honest people die there)

      Fact is that this guy declared war on honest, hardworking IT staff just to get at their bosses, and even admitted there was no known wrongdoing (subject to change now that police have drawn gun on them and they'll be filing suit of course!). Drew weapons on them to illegally obtain access to data pending judgment he was told he couldn't have.

      FACT is if you work for public IT and handle law enforcement data get out now! No matter what clearances you have, your still a "civi" and are expendable as not "one of the blue".

      This guy seem to be revered by "law enforcement" so expect background checked, law abiding IT workers to be subject to this treatment more and more and you have herr Bush to thank for it.

    12. Re:FWIW by m1xram · · Score: 1

      I was over at the news site boards and various people stated that the IT office was set up by the county several years ago with "letters of understanding" between agencies (fact). i.e. the county didn't hijack his box and the IT folks in charge had the proper authorizations for the crime database. This sheriff has been in charge forever and HIS name would have signed off, so it should have been legal. Why would he suddenly change his mind?

      I did not dispute who was running the computers and you do concede that the Sheriff's department was in charge of the computers, excellent.

      Why did change his mind? I'm not sure I can read the Sheriff's mind, or anyone's, for you. Hopefully this information will become available.

      yes, the sheriff filed an investigation (fact) as he does whenever anybody tries to investigate him? He was told by the courts he couldn't have the information until the court decides (fact).

      This is very interesting. The court rules that the Sheriff's department can not do its duty. Is that a valid legal position? It sounds similar to me saying, "You can't drive your car to work until I decide it is OK." You would tell me where to go, right? Don't like that analogy? How about.. You loan me your car and when you want it back, I say no. Even that isn't quiet right because, unlike both of us, the police have the authority to go get their car.

      The IT department is being downsized and the sheriff is concerned unqualified IT staff MIGHT access the data, although at this point in time there are no unauthorized access by IT staff and no knowledge that any IT staff MIGHT be doing something they shouldn't be. (fact)

      The logical outcome from such a fact is to verify what is happening with the servers. There's no other way to accomplish it without physical access.

      In spite of all that, they decided to rush the law abiding, properly background checked IT staff, with guns, in their office of a public building to "secure" this one computer system. (facts as claimed by the sheriff) The room also contains the computer systems of the other county departments (fact) The deputies demanded (how many?) passwords from the IT staff for (which?) systems, at "gunpoint" under fear of going to gulag. (fact that the jail is degrading and dangerous and honest people die there)

      You don't like the standard way police enter a building to secure an area, I get that. Maybe you've never seen an episode of Cops but that's how it's done. They do not rush in with pillows and comfy chairs, this isn't a Monty Python skit. They treat everyone as a threat until the area is secure. Contact any police department you want to confirm what I'm saying.

      I'll be waiting to see how many " "honest" people die [in jail]", that is a serious accusation to make. Please send your evidence to the FBI immediately.

      Substitute "My opinion is" for "Fact is" in the following two paragraphs and you're good to go.

      Fact is that this guy declared war on honest, hardworking IT staff just to get at their bosses, and even admitted there was no known wrongdoing (subject to change now that police have drawn gun on them and they'll be filing suit of course!). Drew weapons on them to illegally obtain access to data pending judg[e]ment he was told he couldn't have.

      FACT is if you work for public IT and handle law enforcement data get out now! No matter what clearances you have, your still a "civi" and are expendable as not "one of the blue".

      All employees are replaceable. I've been replaced by others in my IT career, even when I had intimate knowledge and experience of the working systems. They called it "cost reduction enhancements". In this economy we are lucky to get jobs and even luckier to keep them. Hopefully, Congress and our administration will stop "fixing" the economy so we can recover.

      This guy seem[s] to be revered by "law e

  35. Re:California isn't any better. by symbolic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I heard a very interesting story Friday about how the Correctional Officers Union (or whatever it's called), a while ago, lobbied for things like "three strikes" laws. As result of their passage, the prison population has skyrocketed, many of them for non-violent offenses. A skyrocketing prison population heralded a huge increase in the number of correctional officers required to keep things in order. 10% of these officers make more than $100K per year (70% of the state's correctional budget of $10 billion goes toward salaries).

    The union now boasts more than 45,000 members, and wields significant influence in the political arena. The sad part is that only 5% of the budget is available for rehabilitation, and consequentially, the recidivism rate has also skyrocketed. The California prison system has become a self-sustaining money pit, with much of funds going into the pockets of union members. Under the current system, there's no way out.

  36. Missing Information by m1xram · · Score: 1

    Where's the rest of the story? Why did the Sheriff's office attempt this action? Why was the information left out? If you answer those questions, then you'll have a decent story.

    1. Re:Missing Information by m1xram · · Score: 1

      Found out part of the information, see Arpaio wants feds to investigate county. Apparently the Sheriff's department is responsible for security of the computer systems but was denied access to them. So this was a power grab that the Sheriff's department corrected. That's a rather HUGE omission in the facts of the article and similar articles are all over the web. It's almost like propaganda.

  37. On behalf of everyone else... by Estragib · · Score: 4, Interesting

    [The system] also is a server and e-mail platform for several county agencies, including the Sheriff's and County Attorney's offices and the Superior Court.

    Just as the Sheriff's Office is concerned about civilians' access to records, county management is concerned the Sheriff's Office now has access to information from other county agencies it is investigating, such as the Superior Court. State appellate courts have rebuffed Arpaio's attempts to obtain privileged court e-mails, which would be accessible through the system.

    I'm wondering. What if there's incriminating evidence in those e-mail exchanges the Sheriff needs and wants to protect from tampering? It sounds a little like a Hollywood movie, but how do we know. Maybe he knew someone was going to remove that data and he needs it to expose corruption higher up.

    I don't know anything about this Joe Arpaio, never heard of him, so it may be obvious this is not the case. But just exclaiming "Fuck you" didn't help me find out either.

    1. Re:On behalf of everyone else... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering. What if there's incriminating evidence in those e-mail exchanges the Sheriff needs and wants to protect from tampering?

      Then some people in the county government are going to regret thinking encryption is too difficult!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    2. Re:On behalf of everyone else... by belmolis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The proper course of action is to obtain a warrant from a court. The article indicates that the state courts have refused him access. Either the state court system itself is corrupt, which is possible but not that likely, or he's wrong. In any case, corruption in the justice system usually involves federal offenses as well as state ones (since, e.g., they are violating somebody's civil rights), so if the state courts don't work, he could try a federal court.

    3. Re:On behalf of everyone else... by Estragib · · Score: 1

      The proper course of action is to obtain a warrant from a court.

      If thirty years of TV and cinema have taught me one thing, it's that you can pretty much maim, rape and kill everyone in the goddamn county, if only you have that little piece of evidence to show afterwards, and an attractive blonde to kiss to the swelling music. ;)

      Either the state court system itself is corrupt, which is possible but not that likely, or he's wrong.

      Seriously, that's what I meant. It might be someone in the Superior Court making it impossible for him to take that proper course. Add the Eastwood vigilante desert charm, and you might get the current situation. Maybe he does want to call in the Feds, but can't until he makes sure the evidence won't be gone by then. Anyway, I'm really just playing devil's advocate here because I found the FU comment meritless.

    4. Re:On behalf of everyone else... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Then you call somebody impartial like the FBI and present your case and THEY secure the equipment from the Civil service and from YOU.

    5. Re:On behalf of everyone else... by rainmaestro · · Score: 1

      But in that case, wouldn't they theoretically have backups?

      Unless the IT staff maintaining these machines are also corrupt, they should have sealed and validated backups stored offsite that the judges wouldn't be able to access without leaving a trail of evidence.

      This just sounds like more of the usual "I'm the fucking pope now!" Sheriff Arpaio BS (pardon the Robin Williams reference).

    6. Re:On behalf of everyone else... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      What if there's incriminating evidence in those e-mail exchanges the Sheriff needs and wants to protect from tampering?

      Well, he apparently didn't have a warrant, so I guess he's fucked either way.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    7. Re:On behalf of everyone else... by YokoZar · · Score: 1

      [The system] also is a server and e-mail platform for several county agencies, including the Sheriff's and County Attorney's offices and the Superior Court.

      Just as the Sheriff's Office is concerned about civilians' access to records, county management is concerned the Sheriff's Office now has access to information from other county agencies it is investigating, such as the Superior Court. State appellate courts have rebuffed Arpaio's attempts to obtain privileged court e-mails, which would be accessible through the system.

      I'm wondering. What if there's incriminating evidence in those e-mail exchanges the Sheriff needs and wants to protect from tampering? It sounds a little like a Hollywood movie, but how do we know. Maybe he knew someone was going to remove that data and he needs it to expose corruption higher up.

      I don't know anything about this Joe Arpaio, never heard of him, so it may be obvious this is not the case. But just exclaiming "Fuck you" didn't help me find out either.

      The incriminating evidence the sheriff wants to secure is almost certainly against him.

    8. Re:On behalf of everyone else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google "arpaio". He's a thug pure and simple. He's directly responsible for the deaths of numerous people who have not been found guilty of any crime. If there was any justice, the guy would accidentally lock himself in the back of his car at Arizona Mills and that would be that.

    9. Re:On behalf of everyone else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if there's incriminating evidence in those e-mail exchanges the Sheriff needs and wants to protect from tampering? It sounds a little like a Hollywood movie, but how do we know.

      How do we know? Well let's see. How about: this is the real world and movies are idealised fiction?

      In the real world people doing theses kinds of stunts are the ones trying to get rid of evidence. They have everything to lose if evidence against them comes up. On the other hand people trying to expose criminals have everything to lose by doing these kinds of stunts.

      By the way, just because it was also done in a computer game, doesn't make it true either.

  38. Re:California isn't any better. by Reziac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Great example of conflict of interest... add in that somewhere around half our prisons are now run by for-profit corporations that get paid about $25k per warm body BY THE STATE (out of YOUR TAX DOLLARS) and it's clear that it's in their best interests if as many people are criminals and prison-bound as possible. To maximize profits, lobby for laws that everyone will break!!

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  39. HOW TO HANDLE THIS IN THE FUTURE by dotmax · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If this happens to YOU in the future, pull the fire alarm or dump the UPS or whatever magic button your data center has to shut down the works. My computer center has a (five actually) Big Red Button to crash the whole system. Might have been a reasonable and prudent action in this instance.

    1. Re:HOW TO HANDLE THIS IN THE FUTURE by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      I you don't mind going to jail for destroying evidence or interfering with an investigation yes that would work.

    2. Re:HOW TO HANDLE THIS IN THE FUTURE by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      Even water damaged hard drives can have the data recovered from them.

      You'd need a Boot and Nuke CDR or Floppy disk that boots and then writes zeroes all over the hard drives to be sure to destroy evidence. You could also remove the hard drives and smash them with hammers so the drive platters are shattered.

      But that is worthless if you had backups, if they are magnetic just use a bulk eraser, a giant magnet to delete and scramble them. With is what one of my former employers used as a law firm, when the FBI raided them in 1998 they bulk erased the backup tapes, and every offending email was removed, except for the partner they blamed for the whole violation. The law firm had a policy to delete old emails, and kept getting on our cases to shred memos and delete emails and remove data from shared network drives on various cases. They call it record retention. We were told if anyone told the newspaper or other media, we'd be fired about it. They eventually fired me anyway for getting sick on the job from all of the stress they put on me. They were afraid I'd blow the whistle on them because I didn't like what they forced us to do to delete emails and other data that way. But now, nobody would believe me anyway. I didn't delete the emails or data, someone else did that, I refused to do it and someone else did it instead of me.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    3. Re:HOW TO HANDLE THIS IN THE FUTURE by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What evidence? I didn't see anything about a warrant. In the future, without a warrant, lock the session you're in and step away from the computer. Or hit the EPO button, I don't care.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    4. Re:HOW TO HANDLE THIS IN THE FUTURE by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      The sheriff is mixing is cases. The criminal database is one server in a 5 department shared data center. They used police jurisdiction of that ONE computer (that the sheriff agreed to co-locate by the way) to justify throwing the IT staff for ALL the computers out and demanded passwords be turned over. The sheriff is investigating people in the other departments, has sued for access to emails and such, but was denied by court pending judgment. They now have the the whole county IT data center with no witnesses... get it!

    5. Re:HOW TO HANDLE THIS IN THE FUTURE by dotmax · · Score: 1

      The idea i offered wasn't meant to destroy any data, since it won't, just to incapacitate the system long enough for someone to get the adults in the loop. Restart the system? "Oh, sorry, [insert excuse here]".

  40. he hasn't decreased crime by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's wishful thinking. The East Valley Tribune won a pulitzer for an expose of Sheriff Joe's tactics that concluded, among other things, that his focus on illegal immigration has actually stolen the focus away from violent crimes.

  41. "The" Password? by StormyMonday · · Score: 1

    [snicker]

    How many passwords do you think a system like this has?

    If it'd been me, I'd have given them the root password to the network admin box. Let them have fun getting into anything else ....

    --
    Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
  42. Black Panthers? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    Uhh, 1968 called. They want their cheap political stereotypes back.

    1. Re:Black Panthers? by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 1

      Uhh, 1968 called. They want their cheap political stereotypes back.

      they guy provided evidence in a link... perhaps you should read it. but since you're too busy slinging your wit around i'll help you out this time.

      As it happens, the young man posing for him is none other than Thomas Coletto, aka "Vito Lombardi" -- who, as Stephen Lemons reports, is not only the local leader of a neo-Nazi outfit, but was also busted for burglary in a supposed "Columbine"-type plot two years ago.

      --
      i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
    2. Re:Black Panthers? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      You're saying this guy is a Black Panther too? And he supported Obama?? Where's the link in the post I was replying to anyway?

    3. Re:Black Panthers? by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 1

      hahah oops i didnt see you were replying to the troll, i had my threshold set too high, thought you were replying to the GP's remark about the Sheriff posing with Neo-Nazis

      --
      i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
  43. In a perfect world... by Jaysyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... he'd get to spend 60 days in his own jail.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  44. "Rehabilitation is a myth." by Ichijo · · Score: 1

    Rehabilitation is a myth.

    And it will continue to be that way as long as it isn't required of prisoners. Want to be free? Just wait out your term.

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  45. you're right but by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    this is probably just what that maniac wants. A showdown between a law-and-order sheriff and his former nemesis who now works for a liberal black president. Just the thing to catapult him to the national stage where he can gloat about how making prisoners wear pink underwear deters crime. If he had any charisma at all (fortunately he really doesn't), a Palin/Arpaio 2012 ticket may be just the shot in the arm US Republicans need....

    1. Re:you're right but by mcvos · · Score: 1

      ta Palin/Arpaio 2012 ticket may be just the shot in the arm US Republicans need....

      ITYM "shot in the head".

  46. the password is... by dabbaking · · Score: 0

    What if the password was "nofreakingwayimgivingyoumypassword1"

  47. Who polices the police? by macraig · · Score: 1

    I realize that I'm risking a sermon to the choir here, but who polices the police? This is precisely the sort of circumstance that justifies a codified right of citizens to bear arms... and perhaps any damned "arms" they see fit, large or small, automatic or not. When the police stop acting in the interest of the Common Good and act in their own unenlightened self-interest instead, and use force to do it, then it's up to an organized posse of citizens with guns and ethics on their minds to police the police. No guy in a robe in an air-conditioned building with wood-paneled walls is gonna accomplish anything in the short term.

    1. Re:Who polices the police? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      In most civilized countries a higher level of police police the police. When you get to the top dog police, if there's suspicion there they get investigated by a group appointed by the elected governing body, whose investigation becomes public. So effectively the people are in charge, without the need for armed standoffs.

      Now, admittedly, if you let the entire system slowly rot out from under you, it might not work so well.

    2. Re:Who polices the police? by macraig · · Score: 1

      "When you get to the top dog police, if there's suspicion there they get investigated by a group appointed by the elected governing body, whose investigation becomes public. So effectively the people are in charge, without the need for armed standoffs."

      You mean like the impeachment proceedings that should be happening (in the United States) but aren't?

      "Now, admittedly, if you let the entire system slowly rot out from under you, it might not work so well."

      You mean like people in the United States have started to allow?

    3. Re:Who polices the police? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yes, and yes. I'm sorry. I really hope you guys manage to pull up before it's too late.

      From the descriptions, I'm having trouble figuring out why the FBI hasn't stepped in to arrest this guy yet.

    4. Re:Who polices the police? by macraig · · Score: 1

      Yeah, seriously....

  48. I am curious by WindBourne · · Score: 0

    exactly WHY are you so opposed to him? He make jail BE jail and he absolutely PURSUES and sends back illegal aliens (thank god that somebody does) AND he is now chasing down corrupt judges. How is this bad???? Or is there some other issues that you have with him?

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:I am curious by timothyf · · Score: 1

      Good intentions do not exempt one from consequences for acting outside the rule of law.

    2. Re:I am curious by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      exactly WHY are you so opposed to him? He make jail BE jail and he absolutely PURSUES and sends back illegal aliens (thank god that somebody does) AND he is now chasing down corrupt judges. How is this bad???? Or is there some other issues that you have with him?

      Chasing down illegal aliens is the job of INS, not a county sheriff. And why is it that those 'corrupt judges' he's chasing down just happen to be signing warrants for state investigations into the Maricopa County sheriff department? County sheriffs don't investigate 'corrupt judges', either. That's the state Attorney General's job, or the Feds' job if the judge is a state judge rather than county. Joe wants to do everybody else's job rather than that of a county sheriff: serve warrants, secure the peace, investigate street crime in unincorporated areas. He'd rather have his thugs do the flashy arrests where nobody is shooting back at him, like that prostitution sting he ran that got him 80 arrests of people guaranteed NOT to shoot at his deputies.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    3. Re:I am curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Good grief. Joe Arpaio really is an amazing individual. He has some sort of superpower that makes idiots believe his side of the story no matter what, even though a little diligence and research makes it obvious how corrupt he is. Like his bragging about how little he spends on feeding his prisoners, giving them spoiled food with inadequate nutrition. Authoritarian morons drool at this, because they love to see "bad guys" mistreated (and are too stupid to take note of the fact that these people mostly have not been convicted and are awaiting trial and, in some cases, may not have even been charged with anything yet). Meanwhile, those in his jail can actually get additional food by buying it in the commisary. From what I've read, the profits from the commissary are not actually accounted for anywhere.

    4. Re:I am curious by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      One of the problems with Arpaio is that he tends to declare everyone who criticizes him publicly corrupt, and then uses his powers as Sheriff to harass them. In Maricopa County, the Sheriff seems to have strong authority of city police. I've never seen elsewhere in the US. He routinely harasses Mesa Police, the mayor of Phoenix, the Phoenix New Times newspaper, and the local residents of Guadalupe, Chandler, and Apache Junction. He makes many arrests; many of which are bad, and have resulted in big lawsuits against the state -- all of which have cost a lot of money. He likes to make regular television appearances. He's really big on being a star. He even has his own TV show akin to "Cops". He employs a posse - non-professional law enforcement, which he uses. He has business ties to foreign law enforcement endeavors with counties like Honduras and China. His police have conducted illegal sting operations. Recently, a man died in his custody. He was in solitary confinement, and yet somehow beat himself to death. There are mysterious deaths associated with Arpaio's people.

      Just because he is against illegal immigration, it doesn't make him a honorable man and a fair, honest, or even productive sheriff.

  49. If you don't mind going to jail... by zenyu · · Score: 1

    I you don't mind going to jail for destroying evidence or interfering with an investigation yes that would work.

    Sheriff Joe has in the past faked subpoenas, if he weren't an elected official he'd have been fired years ago for gross negligence. Your best bet is to let him arrest you then sue the county, that way you get the taxpayers of Maricopa to buy you a nice mansion on a lake far far away.

    1. Re:If you don't mind going to jail... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unfortunately some people have died under suspicious circumstances in Sheriff Joe's jail cells.

  50. I should have known by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    That it was asshat Arpaio's troops who did this.

    Interesting a friend of mine worked for the local police department. I worked for the state AG's offfice. That police department (As well as Dept. of Children, Youth and Families) had access to both the RI Criminal History system and the Interstate Identification Index on that system.

    There are Memo's of Understanding between all agencies. It'd be like me sending the State Police after my buddy because the local PD is the biggest in the state and they have data that we didn't.

  51. Hmmm by WindBourne · · Score: 0, Troll

    Joe is investigating a number of CORRUPT SUPERIOR FEDERAL JUDGES. And you want to turn over the EVIDENCE to the feds? I say go Joe. Ideally, if he really wants to do this, he should copy those disks and then release the servers. Of course, I would like to believe that is exactly what is going on. The other possibility is that the federal judges have goods on Joe. Of course, so far, many have tried hard to go after joe and over and over he shows that he is law abiding (though tough).

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Hmmm by belmolis · · Score: 1

      I hate to tell you this, but federal district judges do not work with or control the FBI. If you suspect corruption on the part of a federal district judge, it is quite reasonable to go to the FBI.

    2. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Joe is investigating a number of ALLEGEDLY CORRUPT SUPERIOR FEDERAL JUDGES.

      There, fixed that for you.

      The allegations against MC Superior Court judges reads pretty much as follows: Liberal judges are corrupt; Conservative judges are good.

      When there's actual evidence to back up the claims, I'll read. Until then, it's been a totally partisan witch hunt. Typical for AZ, MC in particular.

  52. When I lived in Tucson, AZ, we used to say... by elgol · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...that Phoenix was just like LA, but with none of the advantages!

  53. Re:I've lived in Maricopa County for over 20 years by ThousandStars · · Score: 1
    and the Sheriff's Office has been a joke for almost all of them.

    He would be more of a joke if it weren't for his habit of abusing his powers, as this New Yorker article indicates. It's behind a pay-wall at the moment, but the upshot is that, at least in the greater Phoenix area, there is liberty and justice for the wealthy, and Sheriff Joe for everyone else.

  54. Arizona Fascism by GarretSidzaka · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Joe arpaio has gang of sherrifs who go down into the barrio and round up any "mexican-looking" persons, detain them, and try to deport them. this is done simply by checking the color of their skin.

    i have spent a nite in arpaio's jail (wrongfully arrested) and eating the substandard "ladmo" bags with green bologna.

    i have seen lives crushed and destroyed. i have heard journalists who were kidnapped from their homes at 4 am by men driving a car with sonora license plates. This was because they uncovered joe's illegal real estate investments

    arpaio is a murderer, a torturer, rascist, and a fascist. he should be in PRISON

    1. Re:Arizona Fascism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      arpaio is a murderer, a torturer, rascist, and a fascist. he should be in PRISON

      So, here's the question. The US being what it is, and since it's very easy to get guns in Arizona, why hasn't someone popped a cap in his ass?

    2. Re:Arizona Fascism by ring-eldest · · Score: 1

      I would assume he's pretty anal about his personal security; political wingnuts usually are.

      That's part of what makes this man so dangerous. He's such a fringe character with such extremist views, he doesn't have anywhere else to go politically. He probably doesn't even want to advance that way. He is in a position where he can surround himself with extremely loyal yes-men and function with little oversight.

      It's typical small-town-sheriff garbage, except for this guy has amassed a lot more power than the typical southern headcase. If he ever does retire he'll probably write some kind of self-serving fluff piece, blaming his sadism on Mexicans and pot heads and justifying it in any under-handed manner his ghost writer can dream up. Oh, wait! He already did. http://www.amazon.com/Joes-Law-Immigration-Everything-Threatens/dp/0814401996/

  55. I got the password.. by JRHelgeson · · Score: 2, Funny

    The password is $h3riff!

    --
    Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
  56. Everybody is wrong; its about separation by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Those who can't play by the majority's rules can not be part of the game. It is NOT about punishment nor is it about rehabilitation! It is a practical reality: removal from society due to their inability to live by society's rules. Fundamentally this is the function; all the other stuff, that is just an additional layer of extraneous thought.

    Many kinds of anti-social behavior are a result of mental sickness; therefore, rehabilitation is the logical conclusion-- treating a mental problem as a disease and trying to cure it. In these cases, its about mental health and not punishment which makes time periods ridiculous. A pedophile is sick in the head and until they are "cured" they should never be let out or with proper monitoring not let near children-- just like mentally handicapped can still be beneficial a part of society (just don't let one be president again.) Hans Reiser killed his wife - but he should be allowed to continue to work; never allowed to be married or date again if not simply isolated / monitored so he can't flip out and kill again; but turning a functional member of society into a burden to society is a waste.

    The sick mentality in the USA for punishment and irrational assumption of guilt makes the public complacent to flaws in the prison system and legal system. We put the mentally ill in general circulation mixed with aggressive anti-social types and promote talk about prison rape and murder hoping to deter people... BTW, how many people commit a crime KNOWING they are going to get caught? (especially the young ones who make up a majority of 1st time offenders.)

    Some people simply do not follow the rules of their society; they are the ones which must be forced to live my those rules even if it means they have to be separated from society. Possibly it can be solved with RELOCATION instead of incarceration. Punishment isn't likely to be that effective with them and it is not. Used to be in the USA that messing with the race laws was going against society and those who wouldn't comply either were in jail or they became refugees (or worse: they were actually punished for being evil criminals simply because they disagreed with popular racism.) Sure, there are people thinking you can beat the children into submission and it works on some... but it doesn't work that well and it will never lead to a Utopia. BTW, a you-topia is not that great of a goal; its pursuit caused more harm than good every time.

    Humans do random shit; and the legal system tries to be too literal minded-- there are plenty of people with minor and major errors that got them into our sick system of punishment. Vengence drives a lot of the irrationality in all the legal systems of the world.

  57. sheriff is the criminal by TRRosen · · Score: 1

    this is clearly an unlawful seizure. Wether or not the search was valid all the sheriff needs for an investigation are images of the drives. Changing the passwords is like searching a house for drugs changing the locks and preventing the owners from using there own property. This is basically a hostage situation.

  58. Re:Correct link for article discussing contempt cl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus fucking Christ this site has gone downhill.

  59. 98 years? So where is the 635kg of crystal meth? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I'm curious as to where the 635kg of crystal meth they were supposed to have supplied the chemicals for is. I also suggest that US law enforcement consider enforcing the law instead of engaging in entrapment schemes to build cases out of UTTER BULLSHIT as some sort of political stunt to get publicity. It's a plan to extradite people based on a crime that didn't happen (there is no 635kg of crystal meth but it COULD have happened) but unfortunately the prison is not a fantasy. The 2003 Extradition Act looks like a very raw deal that exposes people to the worst that US Justice systems can offer instead of the best it can offer - expediency has it's price and it's likely that these two will suffer.
    Now given the bizzare laws in some places I wonder if I've ever done anything that could get me extradited to Utah on some sort of morality crime.

  60. Let me fix your fix by Savior_on_a_Stick · · Score: 1

    Thus I would suspect that a large portion of his constituency are woefully ignorant.

  61. Re:Good afternoon, Arizonians, by anagama · · Score: 2, Funny
    I live in WA, though I'm a native Californian from Humboldt county (lived in a VW bus and then other campers till we settled in WA when I was 2). Anyway, here's a great WA-CA joke, which I feel OK saying cause I'm a Californian.

    ----

    Three guys are out camping, one from Kentucky, one from California, and one from Washington. They're sitting around the campfire shooting the breeze, when the guy from Kentucky pulls out a bottle of Bourbon, takes a gulp, puts the cap back on, tosses it into the air, pulls out a pistol, and shoots it before it hits the ground.

    The guys from WA and CA look at him incredulously ... he just smiles and says "Hey -- where I'm from we got lots of good whiskey."

    Hearing this, the guy from CA pulls out a bottle of wine, takes a big draught, corks it, tosses it into the air, pulls out a pistol, and shoots it before it hits the ground. He looks at the other two with a smile and says "Lot's of good wine in California you know."

    The guy from Washington nods, pulls out a bottle of Red Hook, drinks it all, puts the cap back on the bottle and both back in his pack, pulls out a pistol, and shoots the Californian dead.

    Looking at the shocked guy from Kentucky, he says "Don't worry man, where I'm from we've got lots of Californians but I really gotta recycle the bottle."

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  62. Egregious mode abuse by Savior_on_a_Stick · · Score: 1

    Obviously, someone is modding from multiple accounts.

  63. Re:Egregious mode abuse - shitty typo by Savior_on_a_Stick · · Score: 1

    figure it out

  64. WTF are the mods smoking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean seriously what the fuck?

    This was one of the most insightful comments seen in a long time and far better than the dumb "fuck joe" it was a response to that somehow got modded "+5 insightful" by a bunch of racist dicks.

    1. Re:WTF are the mods smoking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was one of the most insightful comments seen in a long time

      sup Moryath

  65. Re:Good afternoon, Arizonians, by NouberNou · · Score: 1

    Damn Californians.

  66. Wrong-O by maz2331 · · Score: 1

    Sheriffs themselves can be arrested by any other cop, state or federal. Please don't buy into that old myth.

  67. Worst . Post. Ever. All with mis-leading facts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that is better how? I'd much prefer that, if I was the victim of a drive-by, the attackers only had easy access to rocks.
    Also, if a rock are so lethal, maybe you should suggest to the army that you can help them out with cheap new weapons in Afghanistan.

    You've apparently been institutionalized by the Default educational system, and still believe that civilization extends beyond your doorstep. You are the reason there are cameras on every street-corner. You are willing to accept the law "Thou shalt not kill," but you relentlessly try to remove the full force of that law by legislating procedures that have been scandalously used against the victor who suceeded a fight to retain his life and mental accuity.

    Face it, a gun is purely designed to maim or kill. It is not a tool and is not designed for any other purpose. The US currently has a worse homicide rate than Albania, Ethiopia, the Ivory Coast and Palestine [wikipedia.org] - and far worse than any other industrialised nation. Please get some reality.

    The general rule out in the States is if it doesn't effect a neighbor than it's no concern to foreigners. Trusting the statistics of a foreign office (and I include anything corporate U.S. to be just as foreign as Pakistan) is your insanity expecting more than physical isolation from everyone else just because you trust blindly what alleged information waring countries spoof to one another. In this lifetime, all that matters is your health; just do what you can for yourself, because there is no end of forced association that would compound what pretended haven to allow a coerced civil climate of your liking; that's why there is common law, and contract law is nothing more than Roman deception to conceive the same Nobilities that you and I most certainly agree are more luxurious, lascivious, licentious, and incompetent in a concious people that have overcome societal decay by kindness and decent respect.

    You can pry my Solder, Silicone, and Drill guns from my cold, dead hands.

  68. Re:California isn't any better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The California prison system has become a self-sustaining money pit, with much of funds going into the pockets of union members

    Meanwhile, the Correctional Facilities Corporations direct all their windfall profits to charity, out of the goodness of their hearts.

  69. No competitors allowed in a free country/state? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a large elder and republican base in Arizona that make up the majority of the voters. This demographic does not like law breakers, drug users, and illegal immigrants.

    So, knowing that all so-called "elders" are on drugs (FDA defines: "any substance advertised to cure a disease"), did Joe just default the inverse that everyone outside the walls is Jailbait while everyone inside the walls is in free country?

    I'ld look more into who is competing with the subscriptions of those non-licensed street-corner pharmacysts, whether they're CIA or luchadores. I know it's been U.S. Congressmen and Senior George Bush that have been caught in the past making Loose Change on Heroine and Cocaine runs using drugs they steal from the manufacturing personel, and I know this because Colonel Bo Gritz declared this publicly and nothing has been done about it. Some have come forward, like Marc Stevens (Book: Adventures In Legal Land) with testimony that seizing houses that peaceful patrons of such declared "unlawful" substances is more profitable than selling that material, topping USD $17 trillion every year and increasing. You don't even need to bring the material in your house itself, just a friend walk in the door and you haven't noticed he's more than just "under the weather."

    Try to have a nice day.

  70. Jail and Prison is all about the Filing Cabinette by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all an intelligence collection scheme, because Jail and Prison has always been used to prevent people from repaying or restoring what they took from whomever they committed against. When I was locked-up in jail over a mere non-violent alleged "tresspassing" thing that happened at my little brother's school, I got 1 week in jail and 5 court dates stretched out over 6 months. While in jail, I was insulted daily by the panzy guards, stuck in the psyche ward nude and insulted because of the color of my skin and hair, deprived of sleep and constantly "tested" in solitary just because I wanted to wait for court rather than be induced into any responses from a "psychiatrist" when I'm unlawfuly deprived of assistance of counsel (that doesn't include attornies).

    Neighboring inmates were always mumbling among themselves asking why I was put there. Because I didn't "plea out", I was thrown into a psyche ward in another city where psychiatrists tried to trump up all kinds of assumptions derived of questions I wouldn't answer because they were unrelated. 3-days into psyche ward, they take a vile of blood asserting it's involuntary but compelling me to volunteer for that service of determining if I have any contagens in my blood; all trying to tamper with witnessing by contract.

    This is forced civilization, at the hands of tyrants: your neighbors, with duh-plomas and PH'duhs in hand and at a job that they demand your respect like they died for your freedom in a War against unsightliness; looking to fatigue their SUBJECT into compliance. To this day, I have a stack of paperwork 6inches tall and am asking for my blood samples back and all records expunged as the case was dismissed, yet they are in "computer records abroad and are evidence to be referenced by you when necessary." These people are no different than a Franchise and forcing me to commit sensitive information to their hold, that I can't afford them to maintane. They aren't my friend in any shape of the word, and behave worse than The Depository and Trust Company. If this isn't terrorism, then I don't know what is.

  71. fuck Arpaio by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

    hes a fascist.

    I mean the guy runs internment camps in 35*c heat. He goes out of his way to fuck with brown people becuase he doesnt like them. Hes one of those people who should be strung up.

    I would encourage you to read the new yorker article on him although i guess it is no longer available online? must be new... http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/07/william-finnegan-on-sheriff-joe-arpaio.html

    The article actually has alot of background on the politics between this county and the sheriffs office. I believe he has some problem with the mayors wife? but i may be thinking of one of the many other people that this nazi has problems with.

    --
    -
  72. "because the populace WANTS that" - wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    @"because the populace WANTS that"

    You are missing multiple ways to game a Democracy. For a start, people who are corrupt usually don't broadcast they are corrupt when they are trying to be elected. Therefore voters are presented with a false representation of who they think they are voting in.

    Secondly, a Democracy is only truly a Democracy when the choice of candidates is truly totally free from bias. But in most election battles candidates are not a balanced representation of society, even though they try very hard to portray themselves as being as different as possible from their opponents.

    But even more importantly in both these points, we have candidates ACTING differently to win over the electorate. Some people are too trusting of who they are voting in, so its no wonder they fail to see through these acts.

    Also seeking some kind of political power over other people, means the power seeker wishes to dictate their views to others they have power over. It also means the person seeking power is seeking the personal gain they get from having such power over others. Most people in society (thankfully) don't seek such power over others, as they have other interests in life. Therefore the few people who do seek power are not a balanced representation of society, they are driven to seek power over others.

    The problem is all candidates cover their goals with a detailed ACT of what they WANT the electorate to believe about them. So ultimately when we vote in a candidate its as much a HOPE as it is a judgment to hope we have chosen the best candidate.

    So its totally false to argue its what "the populace WANTS". Without extensive verifiable information to show a candidate is truly corrupt, people cannot see the truth and worst still a corrupt candidate is very likely to resort to LIES against their opponents to imply others are corrupt. So its no wonder corrupt candidates get into power. Their lying cheating underhanded corrupt ways actually gives them a competitive advantage in fighting for power over other people.

  73. Icelanders in Arizona equals Human Combustion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's right, Icelanders would erupt into flames in Arizona, they just can't take the heat.

  74. how is he treat criminals as if they are sub-human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    source material? what do you define as subhuman?

    I haven't been in his jail/prison, and all I can find is rabid raving 11th party paraphrasings from people who genuinely hate him. So he's got haters. I've seen him on History Channel show about prison... so it is hot in tent city, chaingangs are voluntary, that is subhuman?

  75. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, after the last presidential election, Joe, Guantanamo and the TSA are famous all over the world for forming a public image of the US of A. :)

  76. The sheriff is RIGHT by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    If this computer system has access to the NCIC system, INTERPOL, or NLETS, then the sheriff SHOULD be the one in charge of it, not the CIVILIAN board of supervisors. Trust me, if NCIC does an audit and your T's aren't crossed and the I's not dotted, they can and will YANK your access. ANY law enforcement database should be managed by law enforcement agencies, NOT civilians.

    1. Re:The sheriff is RIGHT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ANY law enforcement database should be managed by law enforcement agencies, NOT civilians.

      So you think that only Military Police/Shore patrol should have access? Law enforcement are CIVILIANS. They are not subject to the UCMJ. Those police who want to paint themselves into a different class of people than the rest of us "civilians" should lose their jobs. Those non police that assist in this differentiation of police from regular "civilians" are useful idiots. The police/sheriffs are public servants; when they start to forget who their boss is they become corrupt.

  77. Re:Good afternoon, Arizonians, by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

    I live in WA, though I'm a native Californian from Humboldt county

    Oh--I was wondering why traffic was backed up for 10 miles on Friday. Thanks for clearing that up. ;)

    --
    There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
  78. Re:Good afternoon, Arizonians, by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    I have 10 years of Karma to burn. After all it's good to be bad.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  79. We need to be more like him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love that guy. Make prison efficient and cheap for the rest of us.

  80. oh really? by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
    You might want to check some of these links, then:

    http://delicious.com/clintjcl/JoeArpaio

    Hopefully they're not dead. Stories that paint police in a bad light tend to disappear after a few months.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  81. God Bless Joe Arpaio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Joe fights for truth and justice, and to hold government's feet to the fire. Illegal aliens are bankrupting this country, no amount of political correctness can cover up that fact. I wish we could clone him and elect them to congress.

  82. Why is illegal immigration a problem? by jhylkema · · Score: 1

    Hint: It isn't because "them libs" are for lax border enforcement.

    It's because the business lobby (i.e., huge corporations) wants a class of what amounts to slave labour. So the next time you hear some Republican bellyaching on Fox News about illegal immigration, it would be best to suggest that he take a good, hard look in the mirror.

    America could solve its illegal immigration problem tomorrow. How? Fine the hell out of the businesses that hire illegals. I believe the maximum fine is something like $10,000 per worker per day. If a few companies got slapped with those fines, I guarantee you all businesses would very quickly get religion about asking for "tarjeta azul." 'Course, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the other usual suspects would say that's "excessive governmental interference in free enterprise."

    Oh, and Arpaio is a petty, vindictive asshole. When he was a DEA agent, he was known as "Nickel Bag Joe" for all of his small-time, chickenshit busts.

    Yes, it is true that sheriffs get sued all the time, but Arpaio gets sued a lot more than most. I remember reading that Maricopa County has the highest municipal insurance premiums in the country. That alone should tell you that something is seriously out of whack. Still, that won't stop the mouthbreathing rednecks from voting for his stupid ass because Rush told them to do so.

  83. It's a Tool by waldoj · · Score: 1

    Face it, a gun is purely designed to maim or kill. It is not a tool and is not designed for any other purpose.

    Wrong. A gun is a thing that's designed to a put a hole in that thing over there. Just last week I was using my Mossberg to put holes in targets and, to spectacular effect, a full can of shaving cream. In a decade of ownership, I've never once used that particular gun to maim or kill.

  84. Times have changed by iceperson · · Score: 1

    I served in the Corps from 91-99 and never saw a tent with AC.

  85. Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio Corruption by Civil-Liberties · · Score: 1

    My wife and I have been Illegally Extradited to Arizona to Sheriff Joe Arpaio Prison. How can you accept that innocent people are treated and share the same treatment as guilty and convicted. The Inhumane treatment treatment in Arizona does nothing for reabilitation. The U.S stands proud to have 25% of the worlds prisoners behind bars. Here is a link about injustice in the U.S prison system, but I fear U.S Citizens like to put people in jail. http://extradition.org.uk/

  86. Sheriff Joe Arpaio has Destroyed my family by Civil-Liberties · · Score: 1

    Innocent of any crime but Arpaio has destroyed my family for selling Legal chemicals in the UK to the U.S. Guns are sold to the UK and are Illegal but we do not Extradite U.S Citizens when no law in the U.S is broken, Sheriff Joe Arpaio makes me sick to my stomach. http://taking-liberties.net/Extradition-Video-Home-Page.html http://extradition.org.uk/

  87. I thought the summary was pretty clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Summary doesn't make it clear that the Sheriff in question is Joe Arpaio, a sadistic, authoritarian monster

    I guess that's a question of one's point of view. I don't live in Arizona, but I do live in the United States, and as soon as I saw "Maricopa County Sheriff's Office" I knew the crazy Arpaio was involved. The man's infamy precedes him.

    I bet for years after Arpaio is gone, the words "Maricopa County Sheriff" will still be a synonym for psycho bullshit, known all over the country.

    But I guess you're right at least to some extent, since Slashdot is an international site. There might be people who haven't heard of Arpaio yet.

  88. Sheriff Joe Arpaio's 20 Years: Human Rights Abuses by Civil-Liberties · · Score: 1

    Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been breaching Human Rights in Arizona prisons for many years. Here is the Final wake order from the court that shows he has been in breach for his whole Sheriffs term. He raid oposition to keep being realected, he raid the local papers and now he is under investigation by Obama and others. It might be worth mentioning that Sheriff Joe Arpaio has still not fixed the Human Rights breaches ordered by the court and he will not let the ACLU in to even check. http://taking-liberties.net/Final-Wake-Order-October-2008.pdf http://extradition.org.uk/

  89. This is how it probably will start by e-scetic · · Score: 1

    The paramilitaries (police) defy the courts, take control of critical infrastructure as part of their "investigation" into vaguely-hinted-at obscure misdeeds, exclude civilian oversight, claiming civilians are part of it. Repeat across the country. Voila, police forces answerable to nobody, able to do whatever they want. Sounds familiar...don't these militaristic types do this all the time?

  90. Yeah it sucks, mostly because of the same people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do. I have to say it sucks, especially since they give no priority to people with skills or education. The last thing this country needs is $5/hr labor. There are tons of 'handymen' and 'maids' just begging for jobs in this country that are here legally or were born here. Heck, most of them even speak English and went to high school.

  91. Correlation =/= Causality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all know one is a fantasy while the prions are the reality...

  92. Good old pigs by xmvince · · Score: 1

    See, I knew police were above the law! Imagine if a group of highschool kids did this? LOL