TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Sheriff Joe & Homeland Security
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sheriff Joe & Homeland Security

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
http://www.yourwestvalley.com/articl...n-release.html


Homeland Security tells Sheriff Joe Arpaio to release illegal immigrants they have detained. They are released and Sheriff Joe has a Press Conference and informs the public that Homeland Secuirty has ordered the release of the detained illegal immigrants.

Homeland Security denies this and blames Sheriff Arpaio's department for the releases.

Until it is revealed that Sheriff Joe had all phone conversations between the Sheriff's office and federal officials taped and the tapes reveal that the Feds are lying through their teeth.

Wow, big surprise,the Feds are lying.

Nobody messes with Sheriff Joe. I love that man.
post #2 of 18
Me, too! I wish there were many more like him.
post #3 of 18
I am a Sheriff Joe fan. He may have a fight on his hands now that Obama is in charge.
post #4 of 18
Isn't it illegal to record phone conversations without informing the other party on the line?
post #5 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Nova View Post
Isn't it illegal to record phone conversations without informing the other party on the line?
Thats a good question. I think that since the patriot act and homeland security they can listen in on all of us illegally. But I think they have made it so it's legal.
post #6 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Nova View Post
Isn't it illegal to record phone conversations without informing the other party on the line?
Only if you want to use it in a Court of Law. They don't, they just wanted to prove who the liar was.
post #7 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post

Nobody messes with Sheriff Joe. I love that man.
I do too! I wish we had someone like him up here! People would be less inclined to commit crimes if they were to be living outside in tents and eating gruel and forced to put in hard labour/boot camp as a penalty! Right now as it stands, prisons have comforts and amenities that many people on the outside don't have, so live on the inside is far better to them.
post #8 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie_ca View Post
I do too! I wish we had someone like him up here! People would be less inclined to commit crimes if they were to be living outside in tents and eating gruel and forced to put in hard labour/boot camp as a penalty! Right now as it stands, prisons have comforts and amenities that many people on the outside don't have, so live on the inside is far better to them.
You're right! I have heard of homeless, disfunctional people who commit crimes just so they have a roof and 3 meals a day. TV is a bonus!
post #9 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
You're right! I have heard of homeless, disfunctional people who commit crimes just so they have a roof and 3 meals a day. TV is a bonus!
Yep! I've looked after patients in the hospital who have had prison guards outside their door. One guy told me that he committed petty crimes in the late fall in order to land up in jail over the winter so that he was off the street and had food and shelter over the cold months.

Others who have been in jail find that when they are outside they no longer have access to free food, free laundry, free gym, big screen TV, DVD player, game room etc because they can't afford to pay for all of that themselves.

My nephew works as a prison guard and he has confirmed what I've been reading and hearing about. Some prisoners actually live in "cottages". Basically small homes on the prison ground. They live one or two per home. Each home has its own kitchen, bathroom and big screen TV, DVD player, stereo, Wii etc. And prisoners can come and go as they please.

I started a thread awhile ago about the prison system here:

http://www.thecatsite.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=130103
.
.
.
post #10 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Nova View Post
Isn't it illegal to record phone conversations without informing the other party on the line?
Actually no. It is illegal to record phone conversations if neither party conducting the conversation is aware of the recording. But one of the direct participants can legally record the conversation.
post #11 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
I am a Sheriff Joe fan. He may have a fight on his hands now that Obama is in charge.

..... this is the infamous sheriff who has prisoners tortured, right? The one where prisoners have died because the use of restrainment chairs and brutal beatings?

The one amnesty internationally strongly criticizes?

I sure hope Obama does something against him. That guy gives Americas prisons a realy bad reputation....

regards,

Christine
post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Actually no. It is illegal to record phone conversations if neither party conducting the conversation is aware of the recording. But one of the direct participants can legally record the conversation.
Actually, this is only true in some states. Although the federal law allows the recording of conversations when at least one person consents, each state has their own law for this very thing. Indiana, for example, is a "one-party" state which allows the recording of a conversation if at least one person who is a party of the conversation is aware. And that person can be the one taping it. California, on the other hand, is an "all party state" (sometimes referred to as "two-party" states) which requires permission from ALL people who are involved in the conversation.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

Please, don't ask me why I know that site...lol

For this topic, Sheriff Joe knew he was recording in Arizona, therefore he is within the law.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/arizona.html
post #13 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjh27 View Post
..... this is the infamous sheriff who has prisoners tortured, right? The one where prisoners have died because the use of restrainment chairs and brutal beatings?

The one amnesty internationally strongly criticizes?

I sure hope Obama does something against him. That guy gives Americas prisons a realy bad reputation....

regards,

Christine
Could you please provide sources for those accusations? I have not heard of that and would like to research further.

He IS the Sheriff that provides the inmates with pink underwear, outside tents to sleep in, road-gang work programs, and lowest-cost meals (that may or may not be nutritional). He has been under scrutiny by human rights' groups, sued by former prisoners, etc.

But I think the reason people tend to agree with him and his tactics: prisoners rarely return to his jail. Whether that means they commit crimes elsewhere or turn a new leaf, I dunno.
post #14 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjh27 View Post
..... this is the infamous sheriff who has prisoners tortured, right? The one where prisoners have died because the use of restrainment chairs and brutal beatings?

The one amnesty internationally strongly criticizes?

I sure hope Obama does something against him. That guy gives Americas prisons a realy bad reputation....

regards,

Christine
Umm no, that is totally false.

Sheriff Joe is the sheriff that makes the prisons sleep in tents, wear pink uniforms and WORK. Is that torture to you?

I guess if you believe prisoners WORKING is torture. No one has died, no beatings and the only restraints are hand cuffs. I think all law enforcement uses hand cuffs.

Obama can't do anything "against him", he is not breaking any laws. The ACLU has tried believe me. Many groups have tried, groups that coddle the law breakers.

People go after Sheriff Joe with frivolous lawsuits exactly like they did to Sarah Palin.
None of the suits have stuck.
post #15 of 18
Brian Crenshaw


Brian Crenshaw was a legally blind and mentally disabled inmate who suffered fatal injuries while being held in Maricopa County Jail for shoplifting. The injuries that led to his death were initially blamed on a fall from his bunk but were later discovered to have been the result of a brutal beating by jail guards on March 7, 2003.[citation needed] A lawsuit filed in the Maricopa County Superior Court of Arizona by the lawyer for Crenshaw's family stated:

An external examination report of the Maricopa County Medical Examiners Office concluded that Brian's death was caused by "complications of blunt force trauma due to a fall." This conclusion was reached largely on the [Maricopa County Sheriffs Office]'s relation of their "history" of Brian's injuries to the Medical Examiner's Office; a history that included the MCSO's implausable story that all of Brian's injuries were caused by a fall from his cell bed. The Maricopa County Medical Examiner conducted no autopsy; nor was the Maricopa County Medical Examiner informed by MCSO or [the Correctional Health Services] about Brian's beating on March 7, 2003 and/or related events. An independent autopsy report later narrowed the cause of Brian's death to peritonitis and sepsis secondary to the duodenal perforation. A fall from Brian's 4-foot, 2 inch bunk could not have simultaneously caused a broken neck, broken toes, and a duodenal perforation.[72]

The lawsuit against Arpaio and his office resulted in an award of $2 million.[73] As in the Scott Norberg case, it was alleged that Arpaio's office destroyed evidence in the case. In the Crenshaw case, the attorney who represented the case before a jury alleged digital video evidence was destroyed.[74]



Richard Post

Richard Post was a paraplegic inmate arrested in 1996 for possession of marijuana and criminal trespass. Post was placed in a restraint chair by guards and his neck was broken in the process. The event, caught on video, shows guards smiling and laughing while Post is being injured. Because of his injuries, Post has lost much of the use of his arms.[75] Post settled his claims against the Sheriff's office for $800,000.[76]

Scott Norberg
One major controversy includes the 1996 death of inmate Scott Norberg, a former Brigham Young University football wide receiver, who died while in custody of the Sheriff's office.[67] Norberg was arrested for assaulting a police officer in Mesa, Arizona, after neighbors in a residential area had reported a delirious man walking in their neighborhood.[68] Arpaio's office repeatedly claimed Norberg was also high on methamphetamine, but a blood toxicology performed post-mortem was inconclusive. According to a toxological report, Norberg did have methamphetamine in his urine, though "there would be no direct effect caused by the methamphetamine on Norberg's behavior at the time of the incident".[69] During his internment, evidence suggests detention officers shocked Norberg several times with a stun-gun. According to an investigation by Amnesty International, Norberg was already handcuffed and face down when officers dragged him from his cell and placed him in a restraint chair with a towel covering his face. After Norberg's corpse was discovered, detention officers accused Norberg of attacking them as they were trying to restrain him. The cause of his death, according to the Maricopa County medical examiner, was due to "positional asphyxia". Sheriff Arpaio investigated and subsequently cleared detention officers of any criminal wrongdoing.[70]

Norberg’s parents filed a lawsuit against Arpaio and his office. The lawsuit was settled for $8.25 million (USD).[71]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arp...s_and_injuries


Forcing inmates to wear pink clothing is one thing- disabeled inmates "falling" from beds and the repeated use of retrain chairs although they have caused the t
post #16 of 18
Sorry, I'm having reall problems posting or editing here at the moment or editing. I'll try again later,

regards,

christine
post #17 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjh27 View Post
Brian Crenshaw


Brian Crenshaw was a legally blind and mentally disabled inmate who suffered fatal injuries while being held in Maricopa County Jail for shoplifting. The injuries that led to his death were initially blamed on a fall from his bunk but were later discovered to have been the result of a brutal beating by jail guards on March 7, 2003.[citation needed] A lawsuit filed in the Maricopa County Superior Court of Arizona by the lawyer for Crenshaw's family stated:

An external examination report of the Maricopa County Medical Examiners Office concluded that Brian's death was caused by "complications of blunt force trauma due to a fall." This conclusion was reached largely on the [Maricopa County Sheriffs Office]'s relation of their "history" of Brian's injuries to the Medical Examiner's Office; a history that included the MCSO's implausable story that all of Brian's injuries were caused by a fall from his cell bed. The Maricopa County Medical Examiner conducted no autopsy; nor was the Maricopa County Medical Examiner informed by MCSO or [the Correctional Health Services] about Brian's beating on March 7, 2003 and/or related events. An independent autopsy report later narrowed the cause of Brian's death to peritonitis and sepsis secondary to the duodenal perforation. A fall from Brian's 4-foot, 2 inch bunk could not have simultaneously caused a broken neck, broken toes, and a duodenal perforation.[72]

The lawsuit against Arpaio and his office resulted in an award of $2 million.[73] As in the Scott Norberg case, it was alleged that Arpaio's office destroyed evidence in the case. In the Crenshaw case, the attorney who represented the case before a jury alleged digital video evidence was destroyed.[74]

Crenshaw was blind, the altercation happened in the lunch line at the jail, it happened because the line was being held up by Crenshaw because he wouldn't show his I.D. as required. The man is blind, what makes you think that law enforcement beat him up. Law officers intervened and there was a altercation and he was restrained.
I might add the man had been in and out of jail for years and was a known drug addict.




Richard Post

Richard Post was a paraplegic inmate arrested in 1996 for possession of marijuana and criminal trespass. Post was placed in a restraint chair by guards and his neck was broken in the process. The event, caught on video, shows guards smiling and laughing while Post is being injured. Because of his injuries, Post has lost much of the use of his arms.[75] Post settled his claims against the Sheriff's office for $800,000.[76]

Restraining chairs are used all over this country, but what happened is terrible.

Scott Norberg
One major controversy includes the 1996 death of inmate Scott Norberg, a former Brigham Young University football wide receiver, who died while in custody of the Sheriff's office.[67] Norberg was arrested for assaulting a police officer in Mesa, Arizona, after neighbors in a residential area had reported a delirious man walking in their neighborhood.[68] Arpaio's office repeatedly claimed Norberg was also high on methamphetamine, but a blood toxicology performed post-mortem was inconclusive. According to a toxological report, Norberg did have methamphetamine in his urine, though "there would be no direct effect caused by the methamphetamine on Norberg's behavior at the time of the incident".[69] During his internment, evidence suggests detention officers shocked Norberg several times with a stun-gun. According to an investigation by Amnesty International, Norberg was already handcuffed and face down when officers dragged him from his cell and placed him in a restraint chair with a towel covering his face. After Norberg's corpse was discovered, detention officers accused Norberg of attacking them as they were trying to restrain him. The cause of his death, according to the Maricopa County medical examiner, was due to "positional asphyxia". Sheriff Arpaio investigated and subsequently cleared detention officers of any criminal wrongdoing.[70]

Norberg’s parents filed a lawsuit against Arpaio and his office. The lawsuit was settled for $8.25 million (USD).[71]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arp...s_and_injuries

From what I have read Scott Norberg has a drug problem that was well documented. I also take issue with the statement that meth would have no effect on a person's behavior. It was also documented he had assaulted a police officer after responding to the call made by neighbors.


Forcing inmates to wear pink clothing is one thing- disabeled inmates "falling" from beds and the repeated use of retrain chairs although they have caused the t
I am not trying to excuse any law enforcement agency by saying the types of things you described above happen all the time in this country. While that is true, it doesn't make it right.

But, why pick on, only, Sheriff Joe?
post #18 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I am not trying to excuse any law enforcement agency by saying the types of things you described above happen all the time in this country. While that is true, it doesn't make it right.

But, why pick on, only, Sheriff Joe?
There aren't any threads about other sheriffs!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Sheriff Joe & Homeland Security