Death is too good for this monster

Yurt said:
thank you...the only thing i've heard about him is he makes inmates wear pink...

from your link it appears it was not arpaio that shackled her:



the link also mentions it is their policy to restrain inmates in unsecured facilities (sheriff spokesman) and that the only thing arpaio denied was that he did not deny her access to the baby....

so, it does appear she was shackled, but not by arpaio. if this is their policy, it absolutely needs looking into....becuase it appears it does not take into account this specific type of incident where shackles seem harsh and uncalled for.....

as it stands, arpaio did not shackle her and we have no evidence the sheriff specifically ordered the officer to shackle her, it looks like the officer made a judgement call and followed ordinary procedures

....so the thread claim is false as it stands from your own links
Click to expand...

He did order her shackled. He is responsible for policy.
 
RStringfield said:
He did order her shackled. He is responsible for policy.
Click to expand...

no he didn't....read it again....or do you have something else that specifically states that because the only evidence cited is that the latina officer made the decision

apparently the others have ran from this thread, so i would be curious to see your evidence
 
Yurt said:
no he didn't....read it again....or do you have something else that specifically states that because the only evidence cited is that the latina officer made the decision

apparently the others have ran from this thread, so i would be curious to see your evidence
Click to expand...

Sheriff's Office policy states that jail inmates be restrained for "security reasons in an unsecured facility," said Jack MacIntyre, an MCSO deputy chief. McIntyre said a 12-foot chain link was attached to Chacón's leg.
 
It so often seems that the religion of the right wing of state-worship party is that once someone is convicted of a crime (no matter which crime) they cease to be a human being. Similarly, it also seems to be a shared belief that those in power, especially in law enforcement and the military, are virtually incapable of abusing their power, unless the people in power come from the left-wing portion of the state-worship party.
 
Here's the law. Seems like they have a case and the Joe dude is in the wrong. Make the asshole pay. Nothing worse than overzealous authority

http://www.azcorrections.gov/Jeff_Policies_700_705.aspx
1.3.6 Pregnant inmates shall not be restrained during the delivery stage of childbirth. An officer shall be present at all times. If necessary, a second officer may be assigned in accordance with the security risk, escape risk or custody level. After the birth of the child, prescribed custody level restraints shall be reapplied.
 
RStringfield said:
Sheriff's Office policy states that jail inmates be restrained for "security reasons in an unsecured facility," said Jack MacIntyre, an MCSO deputy chief. McIntyre said a 12-foot chain link was attached to Chacón's leg.
Click to expand...

a policy is not the same thing as a judgment call or an order. further, unless you have their policy concerning pregnant inmates, you have nothing except general policy....you do not have a specific order that watermark claims exists....
 
ironhead said:
It so often seems that the religion of the right wing of state-worship party is that once someone is convicted of a crime (no matter which crime) they cease to be a human being. Similarly, it also seems to be a shared belief that those in power, especially in law enforcement and the military, are virtually incapable of abusing their power, unless the people in power come from the left-wing portion of the state-worship party.
Click to expand...

your post is nothing but dribble, partisan hackery and lacking any truth....but you already know that
 
Yurt said:
your post is nothing but dribble, partisan hackery and lacking any truth....but you already know that
Click to expand...

Yours suggests deliberate avoidance of thoughts that elicit anything remotely feeling like cognitive dissonance, but you already knew that.
 
ironhead said:
Yours suggests deliberate avoidance of thoughts that elicit anything remotely feeling like cognitive dissonance, but you already knew that.
Click to expand...

projection is cute when you don't have anything to back up the OP, when you have a latina officer telling the meds that she will be chained....but nothing directly from the sheriff.....

if you had more, you would present it.....but you have nothing, so we are left with meadowmuffins
 
ironhead said:
It so often seems that the religion of the right wing of state-worship party is that once someone is convicted of a crime (no matter which crime) they cease to be a human being. Similarly, it also seems to be a shared belief that those in power, especially in law enforcement and the military, are virtually incapable of abusing their power, unless the people in power come from the left-wing portion of the state-worship party.
Click to expand...

Obviously you were hoping to make a point! :good4u:
Would you care to try again?? :palm:
 
Yurt said:
a policy is not the same thing as a judgment call or an order. further, unless you have their policy concerning pregnant inmates, you have nothing except general policy....you do not have a specific order that watermark claims exists....
Click to expand...

He is responsible for MCSO policy. Policy is no different than an order. It is just conveyed prior to the fact.

His spokesman said it was their policy. If they had a different policy for pregnant patients don't you think he would have mentioned that?

If Arpaio or the MCSO had said it was an oversight that would be remedied your argument might make some bit of sense. As it is you just appear to be passing the buck to one of his underlings.
 
RStringfield said:
You are confused. Policy is not law. He enforces laws, he does not create them. He is responsible for the policies of the sheriff's office.
Click to expand...

But since the conversation was aboiut Policy, that's what the response was to.
Are you now saying that he can ignore Policy?? :palm:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But since the conversation was aboiut Policy, that's what the response was to.
Are you now saying that he can ignore Policy?? :palm:
Click to expand...

:palm:

No, I am saying he sets the sheriff's office policies. What, do you think everything is spelled out to them by the county's lawmakers?

Take a civics class. Executive branch officials execute the laws, but they make up most of their own policies. There's no law commanding that they restrain patients. This is a policy of the MCSO for which Arpaio is responsible. He has the authority to change the policy.
 
webbway said:
:lmao:

Just For WM


A new Rasmussen poll of Arizona finds that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is known nationally for his hard-line stance against illegal immigration, would be the strongest possible Republican candidate for governor in next year's election.

Democratic state Attorney General Terry Goddard, the likely Dem nominee for governor, was tested against three Republicans. Goddard leads incumbent Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who succeeded to the office after Dem Gov. Janet Napolitano was appointed Secretary of Homeland Security, by 44%-35%. Goddard edges state Treasurer Dean Martin by 40%-38%, within the ±3% margin of error.

Arpaio, however, leads Goddard by a convincing margin of 51%-39%. He is not currently a candidate, but that could change with numbers like these.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...o-is-strongest-goper-for-arizona-governor.php

Can you say Governor Arpaio.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, Ramusessen consistently polled in favor of the Shrub & company and every neocon mind fart AGAINST the average of every other valid American pollster group....no big surprise with this latest BS.

So if you happen to be in good old Joe's jurisdiction, and during your trial one of his deputies starts rifling through your attorneys papers as they sit on his desk, don't sweat it...... a self proclaimed prick like Webway will come along to tell you that your Bill of Rights are just quaint pieces of paper. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top