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."
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.
Or elected to higher office...
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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