The claim is Sheriff Arpaio was illegally "profiling" maggots to obtain information that afforded Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his deputies to properly enforce the laws of the land for Arizona's and our, the rest of the nation's protection.
Sheriff
Joe Arpaio was doing his job! He was doing it all too well evidently.
He garnered the angst of the left, the liberals and the illegals. Now
he's being propped up on the stake and the liberal fools are igniting
the fuels at his feet as an example for all to see.
All because he did his job and did it very well!
How'd Sheriff Joe Arpaio do his job so well? It's simple. He incorporated good, known, proven law enforcement techniques into the job knowing full well that there was a very real possibility the liberal mindset would eventually succeed him in the office he held for so long, County Sheriff.
And it did! True to form the liberals won in Arizona and now they're going to throw a true American peace keeper into the fires of liberalism.
...and they dare call Sheriff Joe a "profiler" in disgust.
After having served in several jurisdictions as a law enforcement officer (from patrol to investigations to chief), after honorably ending my military service in 1975 I'm seeing what some say are glaring "flaws" in the "old" law enforcement system that have been brought to my attention over the years by a number of liberal, moderate and even conservative citizens and non-citizens alike.
I don't agree with their assessments. Especially those relating to "profiling". It's a simple word that's so easy to distort and twist to fit the current needs of whatever interest group(s) wants to distort it to.
Us cops, we tend to "profile" almost everything. Or so I'm told. And you know what, it's a factual statement in a lot of ways. EVERYTHING we do is founded on some sort of "profile" one way or another. Recruiting, hiring, training, education, public contact/outreach, patrol, investigations, administration, corrections, interaction with the public, equipment purchases... even the judicial side of the coin. First offenders, repeat offenders, psychological reports, varied criminal penalties for offenses, etc. EVERYTHING! is profiled in one way or another.
If we realize a particular jurisdiction or an "impacted" area within a jurisdiction is experiencing an increase in (general) criminal activity or particular type of criminal activity (trends) it's not unusual for the affected police agency to increase patrols in that particular area. If there's a noted increase in certain, particular types of crimes it's not unusual for a police agency to adjust their focus to those activities, those "elements" known to be associated with those crimes and to share most, if not all of the information with other jurisdictions, depending on the circumstances of course.
Law enforcement uses statistical data and analysis of that (and other) data DAILY to identify, adjust and adapt to the existing and quite often disturbing criminal activity/elements identified and associated with the data.
From what I've experienced that's PROFILING in most liberal minds.
If law enforcement isn't supposed to "profile" then perhaps we should eliminate background checks altogether. Also, let's remove the "race" (or "nationality), "sex/gender" and "physical characteristics" qualifiers on booking sheets, criminal records, wanted posters, Amber Alerts... the applications for new police candidates, corrections officer and all other government employees associated with law enforcement not to mention those arrested for offenses/crimes and those imprisoned after having been tried and convicted for their crimes.
Let's eliminate all of that! In the liberal mindset that's the nexus for "profiling"!
No more mugshots (they depict race, gender, scars, marks, tatoos, oddities and preferences). Make it a rule that fingerprints can only be retained for comparison to the specific crime that the subject was incarcerated for and only compared to his/her fingerprints. Don't allow the fingerprints to be shared with other agencies, other law enforcement entities. The very sharing of that information would constitute "profiling". Sharing a criminal profile of a suspect with another agency IS profiling!
Absolutely eliminate all DNA testing. It's too defining, too absolute, too exact and ensures profiling in the nth degree. DNA testing is designed to specifically identify a "potential" suspect by their very DNA PROFILE!!!
It's PROFILING!!!
It also saves lives, prevents criminal activity and protects the innocent.
In short, eliminate law enforcement altogether. Let everyone tend to our own needs, individually. Take away all guns from reasonable, responsible, legitimate gun owners and let the criminal element run its course.
Heck, take away ALL weapons. Anything that can be used in an assault. Anything that can be used to damage, injure, maim, kill, destroy. Anything that can be used to intimidate... coerce. Take it all away.
Now that's the preferred liberal approach.
I for one won't play that "game". If those things happen I will become the criminal because I will break those laws.
That given, I know I have and I will continue to keep me and mine safe at all costs. How about you?
IMHO
All because he did his job and did it very well!
How'd Sheriff Joe Arpaio do his job so well? It's simple. He incorporated good, known, proven law enforcement techniques into the job knowing full well that there was a very real possibility the liberal mindset would eventually succeed him in the office he held for so long, County Sheriff.
And it did! True to form the liberals won in Arizona and now they're going to throw a true American peace keeper into the fires of liberalism.
...and they dare call Sheriff Joe a "profiler" in disgust.
After having served in several jurisdictions as a law enforcement officer (from patrol to investigations to chief), after honorably ending my military service in 1975 I'm seeing what some say are glaring "flaws" in the "old" law enforcement system that have been brought to my attention over the years by a number of liberal, moderate and even conservative citizens and non-citizens alike.
I don't agree with their assessments. Especially those relating to "profiling". It's a simple word that's so easy to distort and twist to fit the current needs of whatever interest group(s) wants to distort it to.
Us cops, we tend to "profile" almost everything. Or so I'm told. And you know what, it's a factual statement in a lot of ways. EVERYTHING we do is founded on some sort of "profile" one way or another. Recruiting, hiring, training, education, public contact/outreach, patrol, investigations, administration, corrections, interaction with the public, equipment purchases... even the judicial side of the coin. First offenders, repeat offenders, psychological reports, varied criminal penalties for offenses, etc. EVERYTHING! is profiled in one way or another.
If we realize a particular jurisdiction or an "impacted" area within a jurisdiction is experiencing an increase in (general) criminal activity or particular type of criminal activity (trends) it's not unusual for the affected police agency to increase patrols in that particular area. If there's a noted increase in certain, particular types of crimes it's not unusual for a police agency to adjust their focus to those activities, those "elements" known to be associated with those crimes and to share most, if not all of the information with other jurisdictions, depending on the circumstances of course.
Law enforcement uses statistical data and analysis of that (and other) data DAILY to identify, adjust and adapt to the existing and quite often disturbing criminal activity/elements identified and associated with the data.
From what I've experienced that's PROFILING in most liberal minds.
If law enforcement isn't supposed to "profile" then perhaps we should eliminate background checks altogether. Also, let's remove the "race" (or "nationality), "sex/gender" and "physical characteristics" qualifiers on booking sheets, criminal records, wanted posters, Amber Alerts... the applications for new police candidates, corrections officer and all other government employees associated with law enforcement not to mention those arrested for offenses/crimes and those imprisoned after having been tried and convicted for their crimes.
Let's eliminate all of that! In the liberal mindset that's the nexus for "profiling"!
No more mugshots (they depict race, gender, scars, marks, tatoos, oddities and preferences). Make it a rule that fingerprints can only be retained for comparison to the specific crime that the subject was incarcerated for and only compared to his/her fingerprints. Don't allow the fingerprints to be shared with other agencies, other law enforcement entities. The very sharing of that information would constitute "profiling". Sharing a criminal profile of a suspect with another agency IS profiling!
Absolutely eliminate all DNA testing. It's too defining, too absolute, too exact and ensures profiling in the nth degree. DNA testing is designed to specifically identify a "potential" suspect by their very DNA PROFILE!!!
It's PROFILING!!!
It also saves lives, prevents criminal activity and protects the innocent.
In short, eliminate law enforcement altogether. Let everyone tend to our own needs, individually. Take away all guns from reasonable, responsible, legitimate gun owners and let the criminal element run its course.
Heck, take away ALL weapons. Anything that can be used in an assault. Anything that can be used to damage, injure, maim, kill, destroy. Anything that can be used to intimidate... coerce. Take it all away.
Now that's the preferred liberal approach.
I for one won't play that "game". If those things happen I will become the criminal because I will break those laws.
That given, I know I have and I will continue to keep me and mine safe at all costs. How about you?
IMHO
No comments:
Post a Comment