Sheriff Joe costs taxpayers 3.25 million in settlement over prisoner death

Dixie said:
I do know how civil suits work, and they are the same as criminal suits with regard to evidentiary procedure and finding. A charge is made, the defendant enters a plea, if it's not guilty, a trial takes place with a jury who hear evidence presented by the plaintiff. The defendant (this is important here) gets a chance to refute the evidence and present his/her defense! The jury then decides if the defendant is guilty based on the evidence presented. The defendant gets to appeal. We don't have any other set of laws for this.

I should think that, if Arpio were found guilty in civil case, he would have to resign as sheriff. I can tell you, if someone killed my mother, I wouldn't settle out of court unless he resigned from his job. No amount of money would come between me and that sentiment, but that's just me. For whatever reason, the plaintiff accepted a settlement, and that's the end of this. Arpio is not guilty, he wasn't found guilty, there was no evidence presented, he still remains Sheriff.

What you are now wanting to do, is take this settlement and prosecute the man as guilty anyway. And that is against everything our justice system stands for. Maybe Arpio was guilty as sin, we don't know, the evidence wasn't presented and a jury didn't hear it and make an impartial decision. If he was indeed guilty, the plaintiff obviously felt the monetary compensation of the settlement was good enough for them, and didn't pursue the case. Again, I can only speak for myself, if Arpio had killed my mother, and I could prove that he did beyond any reasonable doubt, there's no way in hell I would have settled. I would go to my grave trying to remove the man from his job, even if that's all I ever managed to accomplish, but I sure as hell wouldn't have settled for a little money and watched him get away scott free.

I think you need to think about this a little more. What if Arpio was some kind of sympathetic liberal figure who was being unjustly accused, and he settled to avoid a trial? Would you accept the trumped-up allegations made were true and he was guilty? I doubt that, but this is the legal standard you want to apply here. You have to remember that things cut both ways, and next time it might be someone you LIKE on trial, instead of Arpio, who you detest. It's best we agree that our justice system works on the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and the right to a fair trial by a jury.

Stomping your feet like a 10-year-old and insisting you get your way, is not indicative of how justice needs to work in America.
Click to expand...

you'll just have to forgive me as I call bullshit. I do not believe for one second that you would follow through with over 15 years of litigation and appeals, just so that you can say Arpaio was guilty, because he'd already be retired or dead, so you'll receive no justice, only money. going by that standard alone, suing the government is always about money, that or you'd not take a single penny of damages should the government wrong you in some way.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you'll just have to forgive me as I call bullshit. I do not believe for one second that you would follow through with over 15 years of litigation and appeals, just so that you can say Arpaio was guilty, because he'd already be retired or dead, so you'll receive no justice, only money. going by that standard alone, suing the government is always about money, that or you'd not take a single penny of damages should the government wrong you in some way.
Click to expand...

IF someone killed your mother and you could prove that, wouldn't you wait 15 years to get justice? Just a simple yes or no will do, STY.
 
Dixie said:
IF someone killed your mother and you could prove that, wouldn't you wait 15 years to get justice? Just a simple yes or no will do, STY.
Click to expand...
no. because justice for my mothers death would never come at the hands of the courts. i've tried explaining this to you, but you seem to be under the delusion that once a jury found the sheriffs office and county liable for the mothers death, he'd simply resign. I know that would never happen, I see that you don't. so no, my mothers justice would be done somewhere else.
 
suing the government is always about money
Click to expand...

And if THAT is the case, as we have both agreed, then the plaintiff failed to get the money they sought and settled for much less. Nothing there denotes Arpio was guilty of anything. It sort of points the other way, if you ask me. Again, if the plaintiffs had an iron-clad case and were certain of the outcome, they wouldn't have settled. In ANY event, we can't now hear the evidence and proclaim Arpio guilty retroactively, that's not how justice works in America. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court by a jury, with the right to defend yourself. That hasn't happened for Arpio, because the plaintiff settled out of court.
 
Dixie said:
And if THAT is the case, as we have both agreed, then the plaintiff failed to get the money they sought and settled for much less. Nothing there denotes Arpio was guilty of anything. It sort of points the other way, if you ask me. Again, if the plaintiffs had an iron-clad case and were certain of the outcome, they wouldn't have settled. In ANY event, we can't now hear the evidence and proclaim Arpio guilty retroactively, that's not how justice works in America. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court by a jury, with the right to defend yourself. That hasn't happened for Arpio, because the plaintiff settled out of court.
Click to expand...
again, you're delusional. the government has UNLIMITED RESOURCES to defend itself against anyones claims, right or wrong. you've been in the military so I know you're familiar with the word attrition. THAT is what government does, ruby ridge as an example.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
no. because justice for my mothers death would never come at the hands of the courts. i've tried explaining this to you, but you seem to be under the delusion that once a jury found the sheriffs office and county liable for the mothers death, he'd simply resign. I know that would never happen, I see that you don't. so no, my mothers justice would be done somewhere else.
Click to expand...

My thinking is, a civil finding of negligence and libel, would end his career. I think the county officials would see to that. You are free to think otherwise, but I am fairly certain statistics are on my side here, not many convicted sheriffs serving in America that I am aware of.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
again, you're delusional. the government has UNLIMITED RESOURCES to defend itself against anyones claims, right or wrong. you've been in the military so I know you're familiar with the word attrition. THAT is what government does, ruby ridge as an example.
Click to expand...

It simply doesn't matter how much money someone has or doesn't have to defend themselves. There is no provision in our code of justice to find guilt based on ability to finance a defense. Why you now want to jump to Ruby Ridge, I have no idea... we're talking about a case against a county government and sheriff, not anything to do with federal government. The county certainly doesn't have "unlimited" resources to defend a sheriff, especially if he is guilty as charged. You are the delusional one here, you are wanting to now try and conjoin local county government with the ever-so-powerful federal government, and proclaim some sort of moral victory, but you are completely failing. Even if the case were against a federal official being defended with federal dollars, they STILL have the right to a trial and finding based on evidence with a chance to defend themselves, we do not have a different standard. People are STILL innocent until proven guilty, even IF they work for Uncle Sam!
 
Dixie said:
It simply doesn't matter how much money someone has or doesn't have to defend themselves. There is no provision in our code of justice to find guilt based on ability to finance a defense. Why you now want to jump to Ruby Ridge, I have no idea... we're talking about a case against a county government and sheriff, not anything to do with federal government. The county certainly doesn't have "unlimited" resources to defend a sheriff, especially if he is guilty as charged. You are the delusional one here, you are wanting to now try and conjoin local county government with the ever-so-powerful federal government, and proclaim some sort of moral victory, but you are completely failing. Even if the case were against a federal official being defended with federal dollars, they STILL have the right to a trial and finding based on evidence with a chance to defend themselves, we do not have a different standard. People are STILL innocent until proven guilty, even IF they work for Uncle Sam!
Click to expand...
I was right, you have no clue about reality, only theory. good luck.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I was right, you have no clue about reality, only theory. good luck.
Click to expand...

Well there is no theory in what I presented, it is all fact. You seem to be living in a fantasy world, apparently reading things that haven't been posted, or whatever. Reality is, there was a case brought against a sheriff, and the plaintiff settled out of court. You want to proclaim him guilty, but he wasn't found guilty. You want to argue that this is how justice is supposed to work, I guess, but you have not shown me anything to suggest this is what the constitution says or what our laws state. You just want to keep heaping on insinuations and accusations that haven't been heard by a jury or anyone else, for that matter, and claim Arpio 'guilty' in the court of public opinion.... which is YOUR opinion. BUT... Your court doesn't give Mr. Arpio a chance to cross examine or defend himself against the charges, it is strictly left up to YOU to determine the man's guilt or innocence based on whatever YOU think the evidence suggests. Now I am sorry if you think I live in a fantasy land, but that simply isn't how American justice works, and never has been.

Regardless of whether you like Arpio or hate Arpio, our laws and constitution remain consistent. The way we handle legal cases remains the same. Innocent until proven guilty by a court of law and a jury, after a fair trial and ability to defend yourself, is a guaranteed right in America. It is disgraceful and despicable you would even suggest otherwise, and to do so while wrapping yourself in the constitution, is sickening.
 
christiefan915 said:
I've been bitching about this p.o.s. for years but he wouldn't have so much power if the MC voters didn't keep re-electing him. Spread some of that anger around to the morons who let this happen.
Click to expand...

You idiots are pissed; because he does get the job done.
The whiners have tried for years to get his tent city shut down and have FAILED.
It works.
Talk to those who have been there and hear how it made them realize that the path they were on was only self destructive and would probably result in them being re-incarcerated.

When he's re-elected, this year, are you going to hold a "whaaaaaaaaa" party and cry on the shoulders of other losers?
 
Dixie said:
I do know how civil suits work, and they are the same as criminal suits with regard to evidentiary procedure and finding. A charge is made, the defendant enters a plea, if it's not guilty, a trial takes place with a jury who hear evidence presented by the plaintiff. The defendant (this is important here) gets a chance to refute the evidence and present his/her defense! The jury then decides if the defendant is guilty based on the evidence presented. The defendant gets to appeal. We don't have any other set of laws for this.

I should think that, if Arpio were found guilty in civil case, he would have to resign as sheriff. I can tell you, if someone killed my mother, I wouldn't settle out of court unless he resigned from his job. No amount of money would come between me and that sentiment, but that's just me. For whatever reason, the plaintiff accepted a settlement, and that's the end of this. Arpio is not guilty, he wasn't found guilty, there was no evidence presented, he still remains Sheriff.

What you are now wanting to do, is take this settlement and prosecute the man as guilty anyway. And that is against everything our justice system stands for. Maybe Arpio was guilty as sin, we don't know, the evidence wasn't presented and a jury didn't hear it and make an impartial decision. If he was indeed guilty, the plaintiff obviously felt the monetary compensation of the settlement was good enough for them, and didn't pursue the case. Again, I can only speak for myself, if Arpio had killed my mother, and I could prove that he did beyond any reasonable doubt, there's no way in hell I would have settled. I would go to my grave trying to remove the man from his job, even if that's all I ever managed to accomplish, but I sure as hell wouldn't have settled for a little money and watched him get away scott free.

I think you need to think about this a little more. What if Arpio was some kind of sympathetic liberal figure who was being unjustly accused, and he settled to avoid a trial? Would you accept the trumped-up allegations made were true and he was guilty? I doubt that, but this is the legal standard you want to apply here. You have to remember that things cut both ways, and next time it might be someone you LIKE on trial, instead of Arpio, who you detest. It's best we agree that our justice system works on the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and the right to a fair trial by a jury.

Stomping your feet like a 10-year-old and insisting you get your way, is not indicative of how justice needs to work in America.
Click to expand...


It looks like some believe the definition of "the principal of the thing" means CASH.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you'll just have to forgive me as I call bullshit. I do not believe for one second that you would follow through with over 15 years of litigation and appeals, just so that you can say Arpaio was guilty, because he'd already be retired or dead, so you'll receive no justice, only money. going by that standard alone, suing the government is always about money, that or you'd not take a single penny of damages should the government wrong you in some way.
Click to expand...

Then you have no soul; because Dixie's not alone in his assertion.
If a member of my family died, while in the custody of civil authorities, there is no amount of money that would stop me from holding to my "principles" of holding them responsible and being held accountable.

On the other hand, I fully agree with your assessment of Evince being a sociopath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top