Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[varwoche]

A sheriff of the US agrees. I'm sure his opinion outweighs yours. Especially since his job is to enforce the law.

Truly hilarious.

Here's a sheriff who's a 911 truther.

And here's a sheriff who was involved in a meth ring.

Do you wish to re-think this authority that you bestow on sheriffs, or perhaps you would like more examples to consider?

 

[Sabrina]

If no one else Stundied that post, I'm going to. *goes to check*

 

[Arus808]

A sheriff of the US agrees.

who was hands off for the entire investigation until they had to use him as face time in press conferences, to legitimize] an illegitimate invetigation.

and everyone knows that he only agreed to do this to try and get focus off of him being investigated for the inadequate service his department provided and continued racial profiling.

I'm sure his opinion outweighs yours.

Actually it doesn't. His opinion is based on the flawed and already long debunked claims that originated out of World Nut daily, who by the way, funded the investigation and had several of their own members as "investigators". A known conpsiracy website, who have written more than several articles about the birther claims, and made their own claims in the past (all of which have been debunked)

Nothing new was presented at BOTH press conferences.

Especially since his job is to enforce the law.

something that he has been shown NOT to be doing. talk to all the child rape victims he ignored.

 

[Arus808]

Birthers are in the same bizarre position as a person who insists that a particular $20 bill is a cheap counterfeit churned out in a basement somewhere, even though the head of the US Mint and the US Treasury Secretary both confirm that it's a genuine twenty dollar bill.

Like the analogy I like to make. They accuse the Hawaii Department of Health of forging the Birth Certificates.

That's like accusing the US Mint of making counterfeit bills.

 

[Steve]

I wasn't trying to distract. It was funny though.

No, it wasn't.

Agreed.

A sheriff of the US agrees. I'm sure his opinion outweighs yours. Especially since his job is to enforce the law.

Now this is funny.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Chuck4842, bless your little heart.

 

[A'isha]

Chuck4842, bless your little heart.

My favorite Southernism!

 

[The Big Dog]

A sheriff of the US agrees. I'm sure his opinion outweighs yours. Especially since his job is to enforce the law.

There is no such thing as a "Sheriff of the US."

Back in England I understand, they used to have Sheriffs.

You sound like a foreigner. Where is your birth certificate?

 

[Robrob]

Chuck4842, bless your little heart.

My favorite Southernism!

Usually said in a voice just dripping with venom...

 

[Hans]

Usually said in a voice just dripping with venom...

I rather like the one that goes when you learn something new you say, ' well dang, slap my head and call me a watermelon'

 

[Mojo]

Back in England I understand, they used to have Sheriffs.

They still do in Scotland.

 

[Straw Man]

They still do in Scotland.

Still have some in England, but they're mostly ceremonial.

There are two in the City of London that attend at the Old Bailey.

 

[JayUtah]

Sheriffs in the English tradition are utterly unlike American sheriffs. American sheriffs are essentially enforcers of the court: serving process, running the county jail, courtroom security, etc. In rural areas they are the primary law enforcement. In urban areas they typically relegate law enforcement to a municipal police department, but I'm made to understand that Maricopa County in Arizona is geographically large and that the sheriff in question has substantial law-enforcement obligations (that he is presently accused of shirking).

In American popular culture, sheriffs are often dismissed as country bumpkins who are invariably lazy or corrupt. In sparsely inhabited counties (such as those where I live), the sheriff is often simply the only citizen who decides he wants the job; he may have little or no actual law-enforcement expertise. In Sheriff Joe's case, the auto-appellation "Toughest Sheriff in America" is somewhat backhanded, because many of this sheriff's charges are jail inmates with essentially no rights or power to resist, and he stands accused of brutalizing them while under his care. It's like a sixth-grader calling himself the toughest kid in school when all he beats up on are the special-needs students.

As I explained several pages ago, the reason America preserves the sheriff office is that a state in the United States is too big a region to administer effectively for things like court matters and local law enforcement, and not everyone lives in city limits where a municipal government would apply. The county is a well-sized administrative unit, and hence every resident of the United States falls under the jurisdiction of a local sheriff who reports to a local district judge or county executive.

 

[Swagomatic]

Sheriffs in the English tradition are utterly unlike American sheriffs. American sheriffs are essentially enforcers of the court: serving process, running the county jail, courtroom security, etc. In rural areas they are the primary law enforcement. In urban areas they typically relegate law enforcement to a municipal police department, but I'm made to understand that Maricopa County in Arizona is geographically large and that the sheriff in question has substantial law-enforcement obligations (that he is presently accused of shirking).

In American popular culture, sheriffs are often dismissed as country bumpkins who are invariably lazy or corrupt. In sparsely inhabited counties (such as those where I live), the sheriff is often simply the only citizen who decides he wants the job; he may have little or no actual law-enforcement expertise. In Sheriff Joe's case, the auto-appellation "Toughest Sheriff in America" is somewhat backhanded, because many of this sheriff's charges are jail inmates with essentially no rights or power to resist, and he stands accused of brutalizing them while under his care. It's like a sixth-grader calling himself the toughest kid in school when all he beats up on are the special-needs students.

As I explained several pages ago, the reason America preserves the sheriff office is that a state in the United States is too big a region to administer effectively for things like court matters and local law enforcement, and not everyone lives in city limits where a municipal government would apply. The county is a well-sized administrative unit, and hence every resident of the United States falls under the jurisdiction of a local sheriff who reports to a local district judge or county executive.

All true - also, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office provides Police services for several smaller incorporated cities that cannot support/afford their own departments.

 

[JayUtah]

All true - also, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office provides Police services for several smaller incorporated cities that cannot support/afford their own departments.

Indeed. The "greater" metropolitan area where I live has a Unified Police Force, which was formed recently from the municipal police departments of our constituent urban sprawl and (practically enough) shares its offices with the county sheriff. They enforce the law for all the municipalities in our area, incorporated or unincorporated. For the many rural counties in Utah, the only law enforcement for the cities they contain is the county sheriff.

The principal criticisms against the sheriff of Maricopa Co. is that he has brutalized and racially discriminated against the prisoners in his charge, and that he has derelicted his duty by failing to investigate hundreds of reports of felony crimes in his jurisdiction. It takes a lot for a cop to be put on trial by other cops, but that's what's happening here. Not the sort of man you want on your side.

 

[KDLarsen]

Indeed. The "greater" metropolitan area where I live has a Unified Police Force, which was formed recently from the municipal police departments of our constituent urban sprawl and (practically enough) shares its offices with the county sheriff. They enforce the law for all the municipalities in our area, incorporated or unincorporated. For the many rural counties in Utah, the only law enforcement for the cities they contain is the county sheriff.

The principal criticisms against the sheriff of Maricopa Co. is that he has brutalized and racially discriminated against the prisoners in his charge, and that he has derelicted his duty by failing to investigate hundreds of reports of felony crimes in his jurisdiction. It takes a lot for a cop to be put on trial by other cops, but that's what's happening here. Not the sort of man you want on your side.

Not to mention some of his right hand men and women, who are facing charges of abusing the power of the Sheriff's office to coerce some of Arpaios opponents into backing off.

Which is what I'm assuming has been his game plan all along: Threaten Obama with a PR nightmare if he doesn't pull the DoJ case against him. And if that doesn't work, given that he's the Teahaddists darling, sell his support to Romney for a promise to make the case go away.

And then of course there's all the other small things, such as violating local rules when sending a deputy on a paid vacation to Hawaii, mixing public funds with third party donations, some IRS troubles for Mike Zullo (although I loved his excuse: "I've given the profits away to charity, so I'm in the clear!"), and what have you.

 

[cwalner]

In urban areas they typically relegate law enforcement to a municipal police department, but I'm made to understand that Maricopa County in Arizona is geographically large and that the sheriff in question has substantial law-enforcement obligations (that he is presently accused of shirking).

I think this may be more common in the Southwest then the US in general. Las Vegas is a reasanobly big city (over 1 million) and does not have a municipal police department. They have what we called Metro, which is the metropolitan division of the Clark County Sheriff's Department. I also seem to recall when I lived in Southern CA that the Sheriff's departments of both Orange and LA counties had significant enforcement duties as it was more economical for many of the smaller municipalities to pool resources for a common law enforcement agency than for each to maintain a separate department.

Seeing a similar arrangement in Maricopa County (which contains Phoenix, a fairly large city as well) does not surprise me in the slightest.

 

[CORed]

Like the analogy I like to make. They accuse the Hawaii Department of Health of forging the Birth Certificates.

That's like accusing the US Mint of making counterfeit bills.

Actually, the US Mint doesn't make paper money. The Bureau of Printing and Engraving does that. [/pedantry].

Actually it wouldn't surprise me if there is a fair bit of overlap between Birthers and the wackos that claim paper money isn't real because it's not gold or silver.

 

[CORed]

Sheriffs in the English tradition are utterly unlike American sheriffs. American sheriffs are essentially enforcers of the court: serving process, running the county jail, courtroom security, etc. In rural areas they are the primary law enforcement. In urban areas they typically relegate law enforcement to a municipal police department, but I'm made to understand that Maricopa County in Arizona is geographically large and that the sheriff in question has substantial law-enforcement obligations (that he is presently accused of shirking).

In American popular culture, sheriffs are often dismissed as country bumpkins who are invariably lazy or corrupt. In sparsely inhabited counties (such as those where I live), the sheriff is often simply the only citizen who decides he wants the job; he may have little or no actual law-enforcement expertise. In Sheriff Joe's case, the auto-appellation "Toughest Sheriff in America" is somewhat backhanded, because many of this sheriff's charges are jail inmates with essentially no rights or power to resist, and he stands accused of brutalizing them while under his care. It's like a sixth-grader calling himself the toughest kid in school when all he beats up on are the special-needs students.

As I explained several pages ago, the reason America preserves the sheriff office is that a state in the United States is too big a region to administer effectively for things like court matters and local law enforcement, and not everyone lives in city limits where a municipal government would apply. The county is a well-sized administrative unit, and hence every resident of the United States falls under the jurisdiction of a local sheriff who reports to a local district judge or county executive.

To expand on what Jay said, Sheriff is most commonly an elected office, and some remarkably unqualified people (Joe Arpaio being a prime example) sometimes manage to get themselves elected. It should also be pointed out that the majority of the county jail inmates that Joe takes great pride in being "tough" on abusing are not there because they were convicted of a crime. Some misdemeanors are punished by time in the county jail, but people guilty of felonies are usually sentenced to the state prison system. Most people in county jails have been charged with a crime, and are being held in the jail until they make bail, or until their trial date if they can't make bail. So as Jay pointed out, what Sheriff Joe is so proud of is punishing people who may well be guilty of some crime, but who have not yet been convicted, and lack the means to post bail prior to being tried for whatever crime they have been charged with. Apparently Sheriff Joe doesn't buy that "innocent until proven guilty" nonsense.

 

[CORed]

I think this may be more common in the Southwest then the US in general. Las Vegas is a reasanobly big city (over 1 million) and does not have a municipal police department. They have what we called Metro, which is the metropolitan division of the Clark County Sheriff's Department. I also seem to recall when I lived in Southern CA that the Sheriff's departments of both Orange and LA counties had significant enforcement duties as it was more economical for many of the smaller municipalities to pool resources for a common law enforcement agency than for each to maintain a separate department.

Seeing a similar arrangement in Maricopa County (which contains Phoenix, a fairly large city as well) does not surprise me in the slightest.

The arrangement varies. I live in Denver, which is actually a combined "City and County". Denver has both a police and a sheriff's department. The "sheriff" of Denver is the Manager of Public safety, a mayoral appointee (who also has authority over the police department). The police department handles general law enforcement; the sheriff's department is in charge of the jails and also handles evictions and serving of summonses and subpoenas for criminal cases.