"[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck," Stovall said. "If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID."
Stovall said while some people may be offended by the actions of his department, they should not be.
"We're going to do it to everybody," he said.
IP: Logged
05:47 PM
PFF
System Bot
Gokart Mozart Member
Posts: 12143 From: Metro Detroit Registered: Mar 2003
Just have the citizens call and request permission to go outside their house, and file plans of where they will be going, and for what reasons, with an appointment time of when they will arrive back at the house. Then shoot anyone that deviates from their filed plans. It's necessary to keep crime down.
quote
"I'm hoping we don't run across [any] of that," Stovall said. "Will there be people who buck us? There may be. But we have a right to be doing what we're doing. We have a zero-tolerance. We are prepared to throw your hind-end in jail, OK? We're not going to take a lot of flack."
Too bad citizens don't have a right to walk down the street without presenting their papers.
Jeez...attorneys are probably lining up at the border as we speak.
Normally i wouldn't support a 'lets sue' mentality, but when a law enforcement official like this is flat out planning to violate citizens rights, that is our only recourse.
Just have the citizens call and request permission to go outside their house, and file plans of where they will be going, and for what reasons, with an appointment time of when they will arrive back at the house. Then shoot anyone that deviates from their filed plans. It's necessary to keep crime down.
Brad
Or even better, the 'state' can tell the subjects when they can leave their homes, where they are going, and what public transport to take.
IP: Logged
07:14 PM
spark1 Member
Posts: 11159 From: Benton County, OR Registered: Dec 2002
You only have rights if the government allows you to have them. We learned that in New Orleans after Katrina. Even though the lawsuits that followed proved the Chief of Police's actions were illegal and unconstitutional, that didn't matter as the damage had already been done.
If you're innocent of any crime, you should be able to prove it - right?
You only have rights if the government allows you to have them. We learned that in New Orleans after Katrina. Even though the lawsuits that followed proved the Chief of Police's actions were illegal and unconstitutional, that didn't matter as the damage had already been done.
If you're innocent of any crime, you should be able to prove it - right?
They may have violated them, but they are still your rights.
IP: Logged
07:40 PM
PFF
System Bot
Dec 19th, 2012
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
I'm kinda' confused. Why is this bad when a nut-job mayor and/or police chief in Arkansas does it, but OK when nut-job sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona does it? It seems to me equally wrong in both instances.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 12-19-2012).]
Sounds like the start of a minature civil war to me. How long are people are going to put up with being harassed by over-armed cops before it turns itno a riot or people start picking off the cops?
IP: Logged
09:49 AM
Rickady88GT Member
Posts: 10657 From: Central CA Registered: Dec 2002
I'm kinda' confused. Why is this bad when a nut-job mayor and/or police chief in Arkansas does it, but OK when nut-job sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona does it? It seems to me equally wrong in both instances.
Joe Arpaio is a GREAT man and has done NOTHING wrong, why would you call him a "nut-job"? You and everybody else should thank God for people that have the guts to stand up to crime.
Paragould does have a crime problem. It's crime index is 3 where 100 is considered safest. (Detroit has a crime index of 1) The town is actually has a lower violent crime index (3.29) than the national median (4.0).
But property crime is much worse. The national median is 29.4 while in Paragould it's 67.17. The chance of being a property crime victim there is 1:14 while the Arkansas average is 1:28.
Because he believes in the Rule of Joe Arpaio far more than he believes in the Rule of Law.
Proof, please? Where did he brake the law? Why is he still employed if he is such a loose cannon? Just because he does not see the law the way you do, does not make him wrong or a nut-job. Just simply means he sees the law differently than you do. BTW I take his professional interpretation of the law over yours any day. He has better credentials. He is helping the law abiding people sleep at night, what are you doing to fight crime?
IP: Logged
05:10 PM
Fats Member
Posts: 5577 From: Wheaton, Mo. Registered: Jan 2012
I just sit back and wait for them to speak about someone they don't like, if they start out by making blanket accusations with nothing to back them up, and then call the person a name...Chances are the accuser is a nutjob.
All opinion, but I've rarely been wrong on this.
Brad
IP: Logged
05:26 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 25669 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Wow, this is absolutely crazy... if Arkansas was closer to me, or if I lived there, I would purposely start walking around, and then the first second I get arrested, I would sue the absolute living **** out of the state government. I am DYING to find out the litigation that results from this. I hope to God this guy loses his job really, really quickly.
quote
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis:
I'm kinda' confused. Why is this bad when a nut-job mayor and/or police chief in Arkansas does it, but OK when nut-job sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona does it? It seems to me equally wrong in both instances.
Granted, I'm not full versed on what this police officer does, the liberal media seems to pay more attention to him than anyone else does; however, my understanding is that he's simply abiding by the law that was passed. For one, a police officer is not allowed to ask for identification to someone on the side-walk unless they have probable cause... IE: someone comitted a crime. In the case of Joe Arapio, the law says that they can ask for identification if and only when they are involved in a routine traffic stop, or some other crime.
One is clearly a violation of civil rights, while the other is merely a re-enforcement of what you would do anyway when getting pulled over. Your drivers license relinquishes a lot of your rights when you drive on the road... consent to a breathalizer, consent to questioning, etc. Of course, they can't search your car without probable cause. But if you're getting pulled over for a busted tail-lamp... yeah, it might be a totally lame excuse, but they are well within their right to do it. A police officer, under the law, cannot simply interrogate or arrest a bunch of people that "look" Mexican that are walking down the street. Whether they are legal U.S. persons, or illegal aliens, they are protected by law, free from interrogation, to walk down the street unless they've comitted a crime, or there is already factually existing proof that they are illegal immigrants (probably cause because they'd been arrested before for a crime and match a description).
But anyway... I hope this is just a joke... or an exaggeration on the part of the police officer. The crazy-man can say whatever he wants, but the second he actually abuses his responsibilities by violating the assured rights of a citizen, then **** needs to fly.
Proof, please? Where did he brake the law? Why is he still employed if he is such a loose cannon? Just because he does not see the law the way you do, does not make him wrong or a nut-job. Just simply means he sees the law differently than you do. BTW I take his professional interpretation of the law over yours any day. He has better credentials. He is helping the law abiding people sleep at night, what are you doing to fight crime?
I think Joe and his deputies have been accused and brought into court by the liberals for all kinds of things. I am pretty sure nothing has stuck to his department yet. Oh ya, the Sheriff of the year award thing did
[This message has been edited by Red88FF (edited 12-19-2012).]
IP: Logged
06:29 PM
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
Why is he still employed if he is such a loose cannon?
Because he was re-elected. That proves nothing other than his popularity with the Maricopa County electorate.
quote
Originally posted by Red88FF:
I am pretty sure nothing has stuck to his department yet.
See the Arizona Republic link.
My question remains:
quote
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis:
Why is this [policy] bad when a nut-job mayor and/or police chief in Arkansas does it, but OK when nut-job sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona does it? It seems to me equally wrong in both instances.
Of course, use of the term "nut-job" is just me expressing my carefully-considered opinion.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 12-19-2012).]
IP: Logged
06:58 PM
spark1 Member
Posts: 11159 From: Benton County, OR Registered: Dec 2002
No matter where its at, its wrong. "then there was no one to speak up for me....."
Law enforcement agencies create these temporary "Special Enforcement Operations" often. This police chief just wasn't very articulate in describing it.
IP: Logged
07:53 PM
Rickady88GT Member
Posts: 10657 From: Central CA Registered: Dec 2002
Of course, use of the term "nut-job" is just me expressing my carefully-considered opinion.
Well with no proof that he is a "nut-job" that only means one thing....disagreeing with him makes you the carefully expressed nut-job? You have attacked a good man for a job well done but have yet to describe what you would do to make a better Sheriff? Thou some how I think your explanation will be as vague as your criticism?
IP: Logged
09:42 PM
Dec 20th, 2012
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
You have attacked a good man for a job well done ...
I have "attacked" neither Arpaio nor you, just expressed an opinion. Beyond that, we disagree on both points.
quote
... [you] have yet to describe what you would do to make a better Sheriff?
I have no plans to run for sheriff, so it's a moot point. But if I were, compliance with the law myself and by my department would be high on my list of priorities. There are thousands of honorable and highly professional sheriffs and police chiefs in this country who manage to do their jobs faithfully and effectively without violating the law themselves or violating the civil rights of others; I'm privileged to have known and worked with some of them. On the other hand, over the years I've encountered a few nut-job thugs with badges who consider themselves above the law, and I have little tolerance for them.
But, of course, you're changing the subject again. For the third time I will ask, and since you've taken such a passionate interest in the subject this time I'm asking you directly:
quote
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis:
Why is this [policy] bad when a nut-job mayor and/or police chief in Arkansas does it, but OK when nut-job sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona does it? It seems to me equally wrong in both instances.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 12-20-2012).]
IP: Logged
12:33 AM
Rickady88GT Member
Posts: 10657 From: Central CA Registered: Dec 2002
lets move on then.
