Border Patrol, Arizona traffic ticket
Baseball
In March 2003, there was a thread entitled "LEO misconduct?". It concerned a
traffic ticket in Arizona.
Below the dotted line is an edited message seemingly from the victim in the
incident descibed in that thread.
................
In this email, I have a couple of new developments to report along with an
in-depth look at a few topics I've touched on in the past. This email will
address a summons I recently received to appear in the Ajo Justice Court
for mid-July, a meeting summary with a Border Patrol supervisor in late
June, and Arizona cross-certification requirements regarding federal
agents operating within the State.
1.) Roadblock update:
On Wednesday of last week I received a summons in the mail signed on June
25th by Judge John Casey of the Ajo Justice Court. The summons references
case no. J-1003-TR-200301453 and orders me to appear before the court on
July 17, 2003 at 1100 hours. Attached to the summons was a copy of a new
Arizona Traffic Ticket and Complaint stamped on June 20th and signed by
Detective Traviolia of the Tohono O'odham Police Department (TOPD). The
alleged violations listed on the complaint are the same as those generated
on December 20th at the roadblock. In essence, Detective Traviolia
re-filed the charges against me exactly four days after receiving the
notice of claims I served on the TOPD on June 16, 2003. I view this act
by Detective Traviolia, the TOPD, and the Pima County prosecuting attorney
to be malicious and retaliatory in nature.
The TOPD had their opportunity to pursue charges against me back in
January after specifying a date to appear in court. I went to great
lengths to prepare for the court appearance and met my obligations under
the law. Detective Traviolia & the prosecuting attorney on the other hand
showed a disregard for due process by failing to file their paperwork with
the court and failing to appear. They didn't even have the common courtesy
to notify me beforehand that they didn't intend to press charges at that
time. The failure to communicate was so bad, the court clerk didn't even
know I was scheduled to appear until I called asking for an update.
For my troubles, I received notification from the court several days later
that the Judge dismissed the charges without prejudice thereby providing
the TOPD an opportunity to re-file the charges at a later date in spite of
the fact Detective Traviolia violated State law and court rules by failing
to file the traffic complaint with the court prior to the court date. One
might think that after such a sequence of events, an impartial judiciary
would at the very least dismiss the charges with prejudice so as to not
reward the TOPD for their failure to follow basic due process steps. Now
the TOPD is using the system contrary to its intended purpose to pursue a
malicious prosecution six months later in retaliation of steps I've taken
to hold them accountable for their actions on December 20th.
Marc Victor of the law firm 'Victor & Hall' in Mesa, Arizona has agreed to
pick up the case again and represent me. I will plead innocent and will
not accept any plea bargain. I will seek a change of venue to Tucson along
with a jury trial. I will make maximum use of the discovery phase to bring
to light any and all pertinent information related to this issue & I will
continue to make public all aspects of this case as it develops. Updates
have been made to my webpage with additional scanned documentation at:
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~tbressi/roadblock/roadblock.html
More updates will be forthcoming over the next few weeks.
2.) Border Patrol meeting:
On June 24th, I had a meeting with the Border Patrol Special Operations
Supervisor for the Tucson Sector in relation to an incident that occurred
on June 13th. The BP supervisor came to the University campus for an
informal meeting between myself, my department head, and my supervisor. I
must say, the meeting went much better than I expected and the
supervisor's tone was more reasonable than anticipated. With that said -
actions always speak louder than words so I'll reserve judgement on the
utility of the meeting until a later date.
In my last update, I talked briefly about an encounter I had with a Border
Patrol agent while driving route 86 to a remote work site. To make a long
story short, a Border Patrol agent didn't appreciate me documenting him
while he was profiling me. A less than satisfactory conversation ensued
which resulted in a BP supervisor calling my department head at the
Unviersity asking whether or not the University sanctioned my activities
along this route. A meeting to discuss the matter took place the morning
of June 24th.
The meeting lasted a little over an hour and several different topics were
discussed. Highlights appear below:
* The BP supervisor agreed that documenting Border Patrol agents engaging
in public activities on a public highway is perfectly legitimate and
agents shouldn't be adversely reacting to it although forwarning would
be appreciated.
* The Border Patrol is concerned about how such documentation would be
used given the fact that pictures of BP agents have appeared on bounty
posters down in Mexico in the past.
* The BP supervisor agreed there are 'problems' within the agency - especially
given the huge number of new agents that have been hired over the past
few years with little to no experience.
* As such, more people willing to hold BP agents accountable for misdeeds
are needed.
* The BP supervisor does not have a problem with me
continuing to document BP activity on this route and that I am
encouraged to stop and talk with agents when reasonable opportunities
arise - even to ask them to articulate why they have stopped any given
vehicle.
* The BP supervisor stressed that the BP does not engage in racial profiling but
rather 'behavioural profiling'. Some of the things agents look for when
making a decision to stop someone is how rigid they are when they pass a
BP vehicle, whether or not they're willing to make eye contact with an
agent, whether or not their hygiene rises above some arbitrary value
(bad hygiene could indicate time spent traversing the desert by foot),
what kind of vehicle they're driving, etc. He indicated that none of
these things in and of themselves rise to a high enough level to make a
stop legitimate but when taken in combination might....
* He indicated they try to teach agents to be able to clearly articulate
valid reasons for pulling someone over and if they can't it's probably
not a valid stop.
* He indicated that records are only kept for stops in which charges are
actually filed. All other stops are not recorded.
* He indicated that BP agents cannot stop people for speeding or other traffic
violations so anyone who isn't breaking immigration laws has nothing to
fear from the Border Patrol (this indicates BP agents are not
cross-certified by the County Sheriff in which they operate - more on
this later).
* He indicated that the BP is not directly involved with roadblock operations
setup by the TOPD but they can't help it if the TOPD calls them after
stopping illegal immigrants at a roadblock setup for some other purpose.
He said the BP used to refuse to get involved but because they receive
so many calls during these operations, they currently stage vehicles
close by so they can respond in a timely fashion.
* I relayed several stories of random BP stops to the BP supervisor that I was
familiar with. In each case, he agreed the stop sounded unreasonable but
that without more details & an opportunity to talk with the agent
involved, he couldn't make a conclusive evaluation.
Throughout the meeting, I appreciated the BP supervisors candor. In the
end though, most of my concerns were re-affirmed. Individual Border Patrol
agents operate with little oversight in the field. Many are young and
inexperienced and have a hard time articulating why they have stopped
someone. For those who can articulate reasons for a stop, they are more
times than not based upon perfectly legal actions/activities unless one
considers bad hygiene probable cause of wrongdoing (you'd hate to see me
after working multiple 16 hour shifts on the job). The behavioural
profiling engaged in by the BP is no substitute for individualized
probable cause and places everyone who falls within eye-shot of a Border
Patrol agent at risk.
With that said, something has to change. The 'behavioural profiling'
examples given are unacceptable in a free society. The promise of this
country is to be left alone unless the individual acts we engage in rise
to the level of endangering someone's life or property. Driving vehicles
that are statistically more likely to be involved with smuggling or not
combing ones' hair for a few days doesn't meet a first order
reasonableness criteria.
The Border Patrol is named such for exactly that reason - to patrol the
border. They have no business operating on the streets of America unless
individualized probable cause is present. After all, they weren't named
the quasi-Border Patrol. If they haven't observed a person unlawfully
crossing the border or if an affidavit specifically attesting to first
hand knowledge of such an act hasn't been generated than not only are they
not doing their job when operating away from the Border, they're putting
U.S. citizens at risk and undermining our rights in the process. The
roadblock setup by the TOPD with participation by the BP in December of
last year is a perfect example of just how slippery the slope has become.
In the near future, I will be posting additional images of Border Patrol
activities on the website along with links to news articles showing
systemic problems within the agency along with links to government
documents showing the level of 'cooperation' the Border Patrol enjoys with
local law enforcement agencies.
I would like to start collecting accounts by individuals who have been
unreasonably stopped by the Border Patrol or witnessed unreasonable
actions by a BP agent. The BP supervisor indicated a willingness to keep
the dialogue open & to respond to legitimate concerns regarding BP
activities. I'd like to test that by making available to him accounts of
wrongdoing in the field that contain enough information for him to
followup on. I'm always willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt
until their actions prove otherwise - I consider this scenario no
different. If you have a factual account to relate, please consider
documenting it and sending it to me via email. I will forward it on to the
BP supervisor. In any such account, it's important to include as much
independently verifiable information as possible so please include times,
dates, names, vehicle markings, etc if at all possible. Your name and
contact information would also lend credence to the account. I would also
like to post legitimate verifiable accounts to my webpage to start
creating an independent readily accessable public record regarding
questionable Border Patrol activities. Let me know what you think.
3.) Federal officer cross-certification:
Arizona law at A.R.S. 13-3875 defines which federal agencies may exercise
peace officer powers within a given county and under what circumstances.
The wording of the statute appears below:
13-3875. Cross-certification of federal peace officer; policy; powers;
qualifications; liability; records
A. The sheriff of each county shall develop and adopt a policy on
cross-certification of federal peace officers, including whether
cross-certification shall be permitted in that county.
B. A federal peace officer who is employed by the United States drug
enforcement administration, the federal bureau of investigation, the
United States secret service, the United States immigration and
naturalization service, the United States army criminal investigation
division, the United States naval criminal investigation service, the
United States air force office of special investigations, the United
States postal inspector or the United States customs service and who has
completed the basic training curriculum for the officer's agency shall
possess and exercise all law enforcement powers of peace officers in this
state for one year, including, if directed by the officer's employer, the
capability to enforce the criminal laws of this state if the federal
peace officer:
1. Submits to the sheriff a written request for certification as a peace
officer in this state.
2. Submits evidence that the officer has been certified as a federal
peace officer by the United States drug enforcement administration, the
federal bureau of investigation, the United States secret service, the
United States immigration and naturalization service, the United States
army criminal investigation division, the United States naval criminal
investigation service, the United States air force office of special
investigations, the United States postal inspector or the United States
customs service.
C. Each federal peace officer whose cross-certification has lapsed may
resubmit to the sheriff a written request for recertification as a peace
officer in this state pursuant to subsection B.
D. Neither the state nor any political subdivision is liable for any acts
or failure to act by a federal peace officer.
E. The Arizona peace officer standards and training board shall maintain
records of all federal peace officers who are certified as peace officers
in this state.
The statute speaks for itself. Federal agents who do not apply for
cross-certification with the sheriff of the county they intend to operate
in, who don't meet cross-certification qualifications, or who are rejected
for any reason by the sheriff cannot exercise peace officer powers within
that county. Further, each county sheriff is explicity tasked under State
law with adopting a certification policy - even if that policy is to not
allow cross-certification.
After the Border Patrol encounter I had on June 13th, I called the Pima
County sheriff's office to make two inquiries. The first inquiry was to
determine the process for filing a complaint against harrassing and
unlawful Border Patrol activites along a State highway and the second was
to determine whether or not Border Patrol agents are cross-certified
within Pima County. My questions were met with hostility. After talking
with several different individuals (I was transferred around to different
departments for a while), I was told the County Sheriff's department does
not take complaints against Border Patrol agents and that to their
knowledge there is no cross-certification program for Border Patrol agents
within Pima County but that deputies oftentimes call upon the Border
Patrol for assistance during stops and for backup. In other words it would
appear the County Sheriff doesn't hold Border Patrol agents accountable
for their actions while operating in the county, fails to track which
Border Patrol agents are operating in the county through a
cross-certification program, and actively utilizes Border Patrol resources
even though they are not cross-certified.
I'm at a loss. The job of the County Sheriff is to enforce State law in
the county & to protect the inhabitants of the county where he/she has
been elected to serve. This includes protection from anyone or any
organization regardless of their affiliation. The fact that the County
Sheriff's office refuses to take complaints agains the Border Patrol
speaks volumes about the mindset along with the corrupting influence a
federal police presence has at the local levels.
This journey continues to be quite an eye opener for me. From the
beginning my intent has been to see if it is possible to work within the
system to seek justice and accountability for wrongdoing by public
officials. The amount of resistance and hostility I have received at every
step of the way to perfectly straightforward and legitimate questions has
been down right frightening. The fact that the same level of hostility
exists across agency boundaries - local and federal is quite disturbing.
Our system of government was designed in such a fashion as to provide
internal checks and balances - both horizontally (between the branches of
government) and vertically (between Federal, State, and local levels).
Clearly, government agencies at all levels are beginning to speak with one
voice. Unfortunately the unified message being sent increasingly
contradicts their individual mandates.
HermanG
piss off a lot more people.
Like Mayor Daley said during the Chicago riots, "Stay home".
Mimz
"HermanG" <Her...@Luftwaffe.com> wrote in message
news:3F08F6E0...@Luftwaffe.com...
> Keep interferring with protection of our borders and you're going to
> piss off a lot more people.
> Like Mayor Daley said during the Chicago riots, "Stay home".
"Those who keep pushing for a police state may wind up dangling from light
poles."
Baseball
The BP's term "profiling" is a euphemism for guessing. BP personnel have no
evidence that their profiling (for example, noticing alleged low level of
personal hygience) helps them accomplish any lawful goals.
Even if a guess sounds plausible, it's still a guess. In real life, things are
often the opposite of what one would guess.
There are 3 possibilities regarding BP's personal hygiene guess: low hygience
tends to show lawful presence in America, tends to show unlawful presence in
America (BP's guess), and tends to show neither. What properly done research is
there to show that BP's guess (low hygience tends to show unlawful presence in
America) is true? As far as I know, there is none.
BP agents are incompetent and they merely guess. They are reluctant to
antagonize rich people who can easily afford a lawyer. BP agents feel safer
messing with someone who seems down and out (for example, who seems to have poor
personal hygiene).
In theory, BP could sponsor properly done scientific research, with excellent
mathematical analysis of the data, to discover profiles that work well and that
meet all probable cause requirements of the law. However, BP is content with
the guesses it calls profiles. Because of BP guesses, many people unlawfully
enter America and many people lawfully in America have their time wasted by BP
personnel.
BP lacks the integrity to admit that most of its agents are unable to lawfully
do their jobs.
Even when random stops are legal, they are usually a stupidly inefficient way to
use personnel.
Maybe BP is trying to help local law enforcement agencies near the border, and
some of theose agencies don't want smelly strangers in their county.
Eric Lee Green
> I'm at a loss. The job of the County Sheriff is to enforce State law in
> the county & to protect the inhabitants of the county where he/she has
> been elected to serve. This includes protection from anyone or any
> organization regardless of their affiliation.
Utter nonsense. That's what they taught you in Civics class, but any native
Southerner can tell you the job of the County Sheriff -- it's to protect the
yuppie middle class and wealthy people of the county against "those" people,
you know, "those" people, who don't look like us, act like us, talk like us,
wear the same kind of clothes as us, or believe the same things as us, may
even have a different skin color than us?! Upholding the law isn't part of the
job description. Giving the occasional beat-down to "those" people is. Gotta
keep "those" people in their place, after all, so that they don't interfere
with the God-given right of the rest of us to be smug and self-satisfied.
The moment you start rattling on about the law and rights and stuff, you
signify to the Sheriff's department that you're one of "those" people -- the
enemy. Welcome to the United States of America, which was founded as a tax
revolt by wealthy people against the lawful rule of their government in
London, and which has continued ever since to be a government For the Rich, By
the Rich, for the Benefit of the Rich. Heck, for much of this nation's
existence you couldn't even vote unless you were a white male landowner (i.e.,
man of wealth). That in part is why Bill Clinton was so hated by the powers
that be in this nation, he was from a poor trailer-trash background -- he was
one of "those" people, and thus inherently evil, according to the power
structure that has ruled this nation since 1776. Even the Democrats really
didn't like him, they ran him for office mostly as a sacrificial candidate
against Bush I in order to save their "real" candidates for the 1996 election,
and were quite surprised when he actually won.
But of course Rush hasn't mentioned any of this on his show, so it can't be
true.
> This journey continues to be quite an eye opener for me. From the
> beginning my intent has been to see if it is possible to work within the
> system to seek justice and accountability for wrongdoing by public
> officials. The amount of resistance and hostility I have received at every
> step of the way to perfectly straightforward and legitimate questions has
> been down right frightening.
We are at a strange time in the natural cycle of nations -- where working
within the system for change to preserve the rights of the people is no longer
possible, but where it's still too early to hang the bastards and be done with
them. When all three branches of government are controlled by ideologues who
believe in using the power of government to loot the wealth of the nation for
the benefit of a Party elite, trying to use one branch to control the abuses
of another branch no longer works. Instead, you get Soviet-style elections
where the voting machines are pre-loaded with the end-of-day results (hint:
the Party candidate will always win in these centrally-controlled
electronically-voted elections where opposition candidates are not allowed to
examine the code for the software that is supposedly "counting" the votes, and
where exit polls have been discontinued by the Party-controlled press so
there's no independent sanity check), and you get a government that is
inherently hostile to the people as a whole, that is focused primarily on
financing the Party elite's dachas in Palm Springs and the Bahamas.
Party rule has been fact in the United States since the various "reform"
movements of the late 1800's/early 1900's wrote the two branches of the Party
into law via "ballot access" measures that ensure that nobody who does not
pass Party scrutiny gets elected. The differences between the two branches of
the Party have been more one of approach than of eventual goal. One branch of
the Party believes that obtaining maximum wealth for the Party elite requires
building a strong middle class and lifting people in poverty into the middle
class, said middle class will then spend more money on the Party elite's goods
and services. The other branch of the Party believes that obtaining maximum
wealth for the Party elite requires cutting taxes on the Party elite and
allowing the Party elite to cut wages and benefits so that they can sell their
goods for less and thus drive out of business those who are not of the Party
elite. When you start rattling on about the Constitution, rights, etc., you
are interfering with the Party's rule, and spreading cognitive dissonance that
might wake people from their slumber such that they realized that this whole
American "democracy" is a sham, where you are granted the choice of electing
Party candidate A ("Democrat") or Party candidate B ("Republican"), much as in
Mexico for many years you were only granted the choice of voting for
candidates chosen by the Party (though their branch of the Party is labeled
"PRI" rather than "Republican" or "Democrat").
Just call us Mexico North now, especially since one branch of the Party appears
to have taken over all three branches of the government. We'll just call it
the "PRI North" party, which appears to be taking the same approach to growth
as the Mexican government -- eliminate worker health and safety protections,
eliminate pollution requirements, cut taxes drastically (Mexico's taxes are
less than half of the United States' taxes), and voila, Mexico is now a
thriving paradise where everybody wants to live. NOT! But I must admit, that
the current Party preoccupation with turning the United States into Mexico
North is going to solve the immigration problem eventually. When the United
States turns into a fetid pesthole like Mexico, with government corruption
rampant, a decaying infrastructure, shitty schools that educate only a small
percentage of the population, no jobs paying more than $5 a day, a hospital
system in ruins where people are dying on the streets for lack of medical
care, etc., everybody's going to still want to come here... yeah right.
Yeppers, the Party is going to solve our immigration problems!
--
Eric Lee Green mailto:er...@badtux.org
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
HermanG
It depends on who gets there the firstist with the mostest.
HermanG
You don't have a clue of profiling as done on the border.
You are correct about one thing. We don't want smelly strangers in our
country. If you like smelly strangers, move to Mexico.
HermanG
Eric Lee Green wrote:
> Baseball wrote:
>
>>I'm at a loss. The job of the County Sheriff is to enforce State law in
>>the county & to protect the inhabitants of the county where he/she has
>>been elected to serve. This includes protection from anyone or any
>>organization regardless of their affiliation.
>
>
> Utter nonsense. That's what they taught you in Civics class, but any native
> Southerner can tell you the job of the County Sheriff -- it's to protect the
> yuppie middle class and wealthy people of the county against "those" people,
> you know, "those" people, who don't look like us, act like us, talk like us,
> wear the same kind of clothes as us, or believe the same things as us, may
> even have a different skin color than us?! Upholding the law isn't part of the
> job description. Giving the occasional beat-down to "those" people is. Gotta
> keep "those" people in their place, after all, so that they don't interfere
> with the God-given right of the rest of us to be smug and self-satisfied.
>
Your ass. You don't know shit about the south.
> The moment you start rattling on about the law and rights and stuff, you
> signify to the Sheriff's department that you're one of "those" people -- the
> enemy. Welcome to the United States of America, which was founded as a tax
> revolt by wealthy people against the lawful rule of their government in
> London, and which has continued ever since to be a government For the Rich, By
> the Rich, for the Benefit of the Rich. Heck, for much of this nation's
> existence you couldn't even vote unless you were a white male landowner (i.e.,
> man of wealth). That in part is why Bill Clinton was so hated by the powers
> that be in this nation, he was from a poor trailer-trash background -- he was
> one of "those" people, and thus inherently evil, according to the power
> structure that has ruled this nation since 1776. Even the Democrats really
> didn't like him, they ran him for office mostly as a sacrificial candidate
> against Bush I in order to save their "real" candidates for the 1996 election,
> and were quite surprised when he actually won.
>
Bill Clinton is hated because he is a smarmy liar, traitor, and lazy
shitheel.
Eric Lee Green
> Eric Lee Green wrote:
>> Baseball wrote:
>>
>>>I'm at a loss. The job of the County Sheriff is to enforce State law in
>>>the county & to protect the inhabitants of the county where he/she has
>>>been elected to serve. This includes protection from anyone or any
>>>organization regardless of their affiliation.
>>
>>
>> Utter nonsense. That's what they taught you in Civics class, but any native
>> Southerner can tell you the job of the County Sheriff -- it's to protect the
>> yuppie middle class and wealthy people of the county against "those" people,
>> you know, "those" people, who don't look like us, act like us, talk like us,
>> wear the same kind of clothes as us, or believe the same things as us, may
>> even have a different skin color than us?! Upholding the law isn't part of
>> the job description. Giving the occasional beat-down to "those" people is.
>> Gotta keep "those" people in their place, after all, so that they don't
>> interfere with the God-given right of the rest of us to be smug and
>> self-satisfied.
>>
> Your ass. You don't know shit about the south.
I see that, as usual, you provide no facts contradicting any of my facts.
Instead, you engage in a personal slander that indicates that you have a
sub-moron IQ and probably jerk off to Rush Limbaugh in the afternoon. Since
you do not present any facts that contradict any of my facts, all of my facts
must be true.
I was raised in a city by the name of Shreveport, Louisiana. Shreveport was
ruled by a Commissioner of Public Safety named George D'Artois. His
horse-mounted cops had no problems doing beat-downs on "those" people at any
whim. For example, when the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated by
some cracker nutball, one of the black churches was going to hold a memorial
service. Ole' George would have none of it. He told that black preacher man no
way was some commie nigger getting a memorial service in *his* city. When that
black preacher man proceeded to hold one anyhow, George sent his horse-mounted
troopers up the central aisle of the church, beating people over the heads
with their billy clubs, and pistol-whipped that black preacher man right up in
front of the whole church for having the audacity to challenge the smug
self-satisfied moral sanctity of the local community.
Ole' George made one big mistake though. During the so-called "Summer of Love",
he sent his troopers into Betty Virginia Park to do some beat-downs on those
long-haired barefoot hippies that were dancing and playing "hippie music" and
getting stoned. No sirree, that wasn't happening in *his* city, a smug and
morally upright community where "those" people were scum to be kept in their
place (remember, "those" people, the "enemy", is anybody who is "different"
and/or challenges Party rule). Only problem was, some of those kids that got
beat down were the kids of the ruling elite. Whoops! The Party elite wasn't
pleased. It took a while, but eventually George's Mafia connections were
uncovered, his paying for campaign ads with city checks was splashed all over
the city newspapers, and he was on the verge of being arrested for complicity
in murder of a couple of Mafia informants when he mysteriously "died of a
heart attack". Methinks somebody didn't want him spilling the beans, capiche?
As for that black preacher man, he went on to be elected as a member of the
Shreveport City Council, where he was still serving last time I cared to
check. Not that it really matters. For example, trash in the black communities
wasn't getting picked up regularly. He raved and ranted about it in a city
council meeting. The garbage department said "we're not racists, our trucks
got full so they didn't make the full route." Nobody asked why the black
communities were on the end of the routes, rather than at the beginning. Some
things, even in today's "New South", are so obvious that they're not worth
asking about.
Larry Jandro
keyboard and the electrons formed this:
> I see that, as usual, you provide no facts contradicting any of
> my facts.
Your "facts" were nothing but a stereotyping of the "Southern
Sheriff."
Stop playing that copy of "Smokey and the Bandit." Jackie Gleason is
NOT a real sherrif.
--
Larry Jandro - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Eric Lee Green
> On 07 Jul 2003, Eric Lee Green <er...@badtux.org> tapped on a
> keyboard and the electrons formed this:
>
>> I see that, as usual, you provide no facts contradicting any of
>> my facts.
>
> Your "facts" were nothing but a stereotyping of the "Southern
> Sheriff."
I see. So being a native of Louisiana, and my father being a close personal
friend of one of these sheriffs, isn't relevant. Okay.
BTW, there's good and bad to that stereotype. The good is that if the Sheriff
thinks you're "good people", he isn't going to put up with any outsiders
coming in and trying to do sh*t to you, and if you ask him for help with a
situation, he's likely to pull whatever levers are needed to make it happen.
That's how he stays in power, after all -- by making sure that the "good
people" are served.
For example: One of the web sites I run addresses moving scams, where you get a
contract to move your goods for $X, and the driver arrives and says sorry,
he's not going to remove your goods from his truck until you give him $X +
$2,000. Calling the typical big city "professional" cops is likely to get them
to look at the contract, say "It's a civil matter, sue them for stealing your
goods", and leaving, while the trucker laughs at you, smug that he's
successfully extorting money from you that isn't owed (and good luck suing
him, since he has no fixed address!). The trucker then says you better give
him *$3,000* over the contract amount now for wasting his time, or he's going
to drive off and throw your life's possessions out the back of the truck onto
a busy freeway after chopping it to bits with an axe.
But when they try pulling this crap on rural moves, the Sheriff takes one look
at scumbag smelly truck driver trying to fraudulently extort money by holding
someone's life possessions hostage, looks at the fine upstanding people who
are buying "the old Davis Place" and thus are people of at least moderate
means, and that truck driver and assistant get their ass arrested for
extortion and fraud, law be damned (local sheriffs don't have authority under
law to police interstate moves), and if the driver or helper objects, they get
the ole' beat-down treatment for "resisting arrest". The Sheriff presents the
driver in jail with the fine upstanding citizen's cashier's check for $x,
unlocks the truck and helps unload before towing the truck off to impound ($$
charged to the moving company until they make bail!), and justice is served,
even though the letter of the law was shredded. And yeah, the driver was
released 48 hours later when the moving company's lawyer finally moved the
(sluggish) levers of power in the county in order to get a bail hearing, but
justice was still served -- that driver didn't put the hurt on folks in THAT
sheriff's county.
Justice and the law are two different things entirely, my friend. When it works
right, the stereotypical Southern sheriff system dispenses justice. Of course,
when it doesn't work right, if you go out of your way to make it plain that
yo're one of "those" people (you know, "those" people, who "aren't like us"?),
well, that's when you hear of abuses, which are then covered up by the same
system that keeps the stereotypical Southern sheriff in power.
Barry White
"Eric Lee Green" <er...@badtux.org> wrote in message news:3f0a0...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Larry Jandro wrote:
> the stereotypical Southern sheriff
How different/alike is that from our own "Sheriff Joke" Arpaio
Michael R. McAfee
Eric Lee Green wrote:
Growing up in Potter/Randall Counties Texas, I can tell you that the
primary law enforcement job that the Sheriff's Office performs is to
look after the interest of the property owners. As a member of the "good
people" crowd, Dad always told us to look to the Sheriff (and not the
city police) if we had a problem. Nice arrangement if you are a local
property owner.
>
>
>
>
--
*******************
Michael R. McAfee
Mesa, AZ
*******************
Eric Lee Green
> "Eric Lee Green" <er...@badtux.org> wrote in message
> news:3f0a0...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
> How different/alike is that from our own "Sheriff Joke" Arpaio
Heh, yeah, I was thinking about that. The difference is that while Sheriff Joe
dispenses "justice" as he sees it, you get only the beat-down from Sheriff
Joe, not the helping hand. You don't get the kind of personal service that you
get out of the stereotypical Southern sheriff, who's always happy to lend a
helping hand to his loyal campaign contributors and voters. You have to
remember, politics is more personal out in rural Americana. As much as Sheriff
Joe tries to be that stereotypical Southern sheriff, it just ain't possible
for a county as big as Maricopa County -- though Sheriff Joe gives it his best
shot at creating that illusion (his "tent jail" was a masterpiece of PR
illusion-making!).
HermanG
HermanG
So you are saying that your first posting was erroneous, that truth and
justice do win in the south. You ranted and raved about one sheriff who
served under the basis of Neopolanic law, then turn everything around to
show us that what you ranted about was ephemeral and the south really
is good.
HermanG
So what's your complaint? You want Jesse Jackson to run for sheriff, so
you can feel good about yourself?
HermanG
You didn't like tent city, huh? Don't drink and drive.
Barry White
"Eric Lee Green" <er...@badtux.org> wrote in message news:3f0a3...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Barry White wrote:
> > "Eric Lee Green" <er...@badtux.org> wrote in message
> > news:3f0a0...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> >> the stereotypical Southern sheriff
> >
> > How different/alike is that from our own "Sheriff Joke" Arpaio
>
> Heh, yeah, I was thinking about that. The difference is that while Sheriff Joe
> dispenses "justice" as he sees it, you get only the beat-down from Sheriff
> Joe, not the helping hand. You don't get the kind of personal service that you
> get out of the stereotypical Southern sheriff, who's always happy to lend a
> helping hand to his loyal campaign contributors and voters. You have to
> remember, politics is more personal out in rural Americana. As much as Sheriff
> Joe tries to be that stereotypical Southern sheriff, it just ain't possible
> for a county as big as Maricopa County -- though Sheriff Joe gives it his best
> shot at creating that illusion (his "tent jail" was a masterpiece of PR
> illusion-making!).
>
Here's a scary thought: the sheriff is the second most powerful law enforcement (I quiver
at that expression) person in the state (DPS being #1). And Maricopa County has Klaus
Barbie for a sheriff. God what ever happened to Art Agnos?
HermanG
Eric Lee Green wrote:
> Barry White wrote:
>
>>"Eric Lee Green" <er...@badtux.org> wrote in message
>>news:3f0a0...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>>
>>>the stereotypical Southern sheriff
>>
>>How different/alike is that from our own "Sheriff Joke" Arpaio
>
>
> Heh, yeah, I was thinking about that. The difference is that while Sheriff Joe
> dispenses "justice" as he sees it, you get only the beat-down from Sheriff
> Joe, not the helping hand. You don't get the kind of personal service that you
> get out of the stereotypical Southern sheriff, who's always happy to lend a
> helping hand to his loyal campaign contributors and voters. You have to
> remember, politics is more personal out in rural Americana. As much as Sheriff
> Joe tries to be that stereotypical Southern sheriff, it just ain't possible
> for a county as big as Maricopa County -- though Sheriff Joe gives it his best
> shot at creating that illusion (his "tent jail" was a masterpiece of PR
> illusion-making!).
>
Joe is probably the most popular sheriff in the United States. You guys
shouldn't have done
whatever you did to end up in tent city. With Joe's posse out during the
Christmas holidays, it is again safe to park and shop at the big malls.
He has a large volunteer search dog team that wouldn't exist without him.
HermanG
Since property owners pay the taxes in the county it is the only
arrangement that
can last. Would you rather have had a illegal alien or transient for a
sheriff?
Deanie is a wienie
Art Agnos? Gesundheit. Sounds like a sinus infection. The Sheriff is the
most powerful politician
in a county, and that's the ball game. The Sheriff has his men out and
around the county
representing him. If the people are happy with the Sheriff and his merry
men, they will reelect
him everytime. The people who go to tent city or spend time in Maricopa
County jail probably do
not campaign for the sheriff, and peobably do not vote for him.
xxx
xxx
xxx
.
Michael R. McAfee
HermanG wrote:
I'd rather have Madonna.
Barry White
"Michael R. McAfee" <mrmc...@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:3F0A565...@cybertrails.com...
>
>
> I'd rather have Madonna.
>
Andy Taylor
Michael R. McAfee
Barry White wrote:
Each to his own fantasy.
Barry White
>
>
> Barry White wrote:
>
> >"Michael R. McAfee" <mrmc...@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
> >news:3F0A565...@cybertrails.com...
> >
> >
> >>I'd rather have Madonna.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >Andy Taylor
> >
>
> Each to his own fantasy.
No fantasy; he'd be much better than the aberration we have now. BTW have you seen
Madonna? How many face lifts and skin tucks has she had, anyway?
Deanie is a wienie
Yeah, she could boff a different prisoner every night!
Deanie is a wienie
Michael R. McAfee wrote:
>
>
> Barry White wrote:
>
>> "Michael R. McAfee" <mrmc...@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
>> news:3F0A565...@cybertrails.com...
>>
>>
>>> I'd rather have Madonna.
>>>
If the sheriff were Madonna, the prisoners would REALLY be fucked.