snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 26 August 2017, 02:40 AM
Darth Credence's Avatar
Darth Credence Darth Credence is offline
 
Join Date: 28 October 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 3,403
Bang Head Trump Pardons Joe Arpaio, Who Became Face of Crackdown on Illegal Immigration

Because of course he did.



Arpaio is the type of person Trump meant when he mentioned "very fine" people.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 26 August 2017, 02:49 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,489
Default

Trump Pardons Joe Arpaio, Who Became Face of Illegal Crackdown on Immigration
There, fixed that headline. You're welcome.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 29 August 2017, 04:07 PM
DawnStorm's Avatar
DawnStorm DawnStorm is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2003
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 16,168
Jaded

I've heard that Sheriff Joe defied a judge's order not once but many times, which begs the question: is it OK to not respect Law & Order (TM) if it does not go your way?
/s/Really sad that there isn't an appeals process that one can use if (s)he's not pleased with a judge's decision./s/
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 29 August 2017, 04:19 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,422
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnStorm View Post
I've heard that Sheriff Joe defied a judge's order not once but many times, which begs the question: is it OK to not respect Law & Order (TM) if it does not go your way?
Arpaio's belief always appeared to be that popularity was the only authority that a sheriff need answer to. Which would explain why he was one of Trump's first supporters.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 29 August 2017, 04:21 PM
DawnStorm's Avatar
DawnStorm DawnStorm is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2003
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 16,168
Blow Your Top

Well surprise surprise! It's not!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 29 August 2017, 04:59 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,422
Default

Sadly, in this case it is obliquely true. Trump pardoned Arpaio not because it was right, but because it would increase his popularity in certain circles. Trump said it himself, it would get good ratings (which doesn't necessarily mean something is popular as many people are watching the Harvey disaster news, but in Trump's mind, any attention is approving attention.)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 29 August 2017, 05:42 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,911
Default

The way he phrased it, it certainly seems as though he wanted the pardon to get a lot of attention (whereas politicians sometimes like to spring unpleasant news late on Friday in the hopes that people will miss it over the weekend; and some speculated that he hoped it would actually be buried under the storm news). Which, to me, would suggest he's sending a message -- whether that's "I take care of people who support me," or "Brutality and abuse of civil rights is perfectly OK as long as it's supposedly targeted at stopping illegal immigration," or "I only care about conservative white voters," or "You're going to call me a racist anyway, so NFBSK it," or some combination of these.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 29 August 2017, 05:51 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is offline
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 15,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnStorm View Post
I've heard that Sheriff Joe defied a judge's order not once but many times, which begs the question: is it OK to not respect Law & Order (TM) if it does not go your way?
Except the way his supporters likely see it, it would be so much easier to maintain "law and order" if those pesky judges would just allow the police to violate people's civil rights.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 29 August 2017, 06:03 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,820
Default

Conservatives are trying to make a point that Arpaio wasn't allowed a jury trial. Supreme court precedents say a jury trial is not a legal right for "trivial" cases where the maximum punishment is 6 months or less in jail.

Plus, Arpaio pleaded guilty so exactly what would a jury trial have accomplished? (Other than giving hem a pulpit.)

EDIT: BTW, using Arpaio's supporters' viewpoint that there should always be the option to a jury trial would mean that undocumented workers would all be entitled to jury trials.

Last edited by jimmy101_again; 29 August 2017 at 06:06 PM. Reason: last paragraph added
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 29 August 2017, 06:12 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,422
Default

Arpaio didn't plead guilty, he was convicted by the judge in a US District Court.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 29 August 2017, 06:59 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,820
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
Arpaio didn't plead guilty, he was convicted by the judge in a US District Court.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Everyone that admits to a crime is still convicted by a judge.

But I was wrong, he hadn't plead guilty (I thought I had seen that.) But still, it was a misdemeanor case.

And given his age the chances of the maximum jail time of 6 months was pretty much zero. And any monetary penalty would have been easily paid by the various funding pleads based on keeping the 85 year-old "patriot" out of jail. The fund raising schemes don't mention it is a misdemeanor conviction with basically zero chance of actual jail time.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 29 August 2017, 07:19 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,316
Default

I didn't claim there was a parallel between this case and the OJ Simpson case. I said that even being acquitted does not necessarily mean you can't lose a civil suit. That is what I meant, and the only thing I meant.

Had I intended to draw a parallel, I would have drawn it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Irish Premier Uses St. Patrick’s Day Ritual to Lecture Trump on Immigration ChasFink Soapbox Derby 0 17 March 2017 12:29 PM
Without evidence, Trump tells lawmakers 3m to 5m illegal ballots cost him pop. vote TallGeekyGirl Soapbox Derby 58 28 January 2017 11:46 PM
Arizona's Sheriff Joe Arpaio to face criminal charges over immigration patrols Psihala Moot Court 5 26 October 2016 07:57 AM
Jeb Bush says illegal immigration often 'an act of love' Horse Chestnut Soapbox Derby 6 07 April 2014 03:25 PM
Urban myths fuel illegal immigration debate snopes Politics 1 03 July 2010 10:41 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.