Joe Arpaio hired a convicted child-sex criminal for armed school “posse”

reply to post by solomons path


I disagree with the practice in general. Law enforcement should be used to protect citizens in public institutions. And we should carry the minimum amount of police presence possible, while maintaining safety standards.

Not retired ones, military or otherwise.

I don't care about Joe, I really don't. If they were doing this in California, my palm would still be inclined to reach my face in an attempt at understanding.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I totally agree with you . . .

I guess my point, since I grew up having police on campus already, is why is this such an issue now? I never felt intimidated or fearful knowing the police were on campus, growing up. The news orgs never ran stories laden with lies and half-truths to paint PHX PD as "dangerous for our kids". No one in AZ ever complained about PHX, Scotts, even Tucson PD stationed around or on campus. Now, the "posse" (which gets praise for helping with Amber Alerts, escapees, fugitives) is patrolling "near" schools and everyone thinks it's unsafe.

Well I guess next time PHX or Tucson needs help with an Amber Alert . . . Joe can tell the media how it's just unsafe and tyrannical to have these retired LEO's and Miltary out assisting in locating a missing child. Why would we want to put a missing child in further harm's way, right?

(I know this isn't your thread and you didn't post this article . . . so, again . . . I agree with your point, but we've long been past that in AZ, with no complaints).

reply to post by solomons path


And I certainly take the word of a regular citizen over the media, trust me on that.

I think the issue is from the fact that these people aren't currently IN law enforcement, and that scares a lot of people with the potential danger that it can create.

My kids were never apprehensive or scared of police in their schools either, but I can assure you that if they did see a non-uniformed citizen, brandishing firearms ( be it openly or holstered or whatever) they would feel very unsafe.

Then again, that's probably also related that I live in Canada and gun culture is simple not the same here.

~Tenth

I am not the least surprised because when I heard the NRA wanted teachers with guns ... that was my very FIRST thought!

There ARE pedos out there who aren't on the sex-offender list. Some have never been caught, some were caught and finished 'serving time' before the registries started, and others completed their 7 years on the registry list and are no longer followed.

So now, when the gym teacher rapes the kid in the shower and threatens to kill him and his family if he breathes a word of it ... all he has to do is flash his pistol to make the point stick even that much stronger.

techno beat format: small small beans beans small beans nuhnuhnuhnuh no one cares.

Wow... Some of you are some piss poor "conservatives." Come on grow a pair! Why would any man defend this "mistake" as one poster called it while okaying the act? This man was a SEX OFFENDER! The loser was going to arm the guy and send him to a school... The only thing you do to a sex offender is chop off his balls! Certainly not okay his actions just because a guy you like made a "mistake." You should slap yourselves.

Originally posted by Monger

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by neo96

 

That still does not excuse the fact that a sex offender is patrolling a school.

Way to defend him though.

no schools have actually requested this service from Sheriff Joe, and it’s easy to understand why.

Want to try agian?

Since no sex offender or violent individual is "patrolling" a school,.

Not yet, but it's only a matter of time before some brain dead school administrator requests the 'service,' if you could possibly call it that. This is just further evidence that Arpaio is so far off the deep end there's no hope of his ever coming back to his senses. The man is certifiable.

There is not much that can be done in my opinion. It has happened before that Sex offenders or dangerous people get jobs with authority/control over kids with by using a false identity.. Of course finger prints will be a procedure but that hasn't stopped them before..

So 1 bad apple out of 3,450 VOLUNTEERS is enough for you to discredit what these people are doing there? The article stressed how none of the schools requested the added security, I'd like to know how many refused it.

What this sheriff is doing is exactly what's needed, and I'm willing to bet that you and the author of this article are just scared that widespread efforts like this are going to cut off the fuel supply for your gun debate.

Increased security at schools without costing the taxpayers a dime? How could you possibly oppose this

By the way, what of the 3,449 other volunteers? These people should be celebrated for caring enough to actually get off their butts and DO something to help ours kids while the rest of you are preoccupied with a pointless debate.

reply to post by Bone75


Some schools don't want them there, Sheriff Joe says too bad for them they will be there anyway. There's also more than just one with a criminal past, if you had bothered with any links you would know this.

As for MY gun debate, I don't have one, I think the debate should be dropped as no reform legislation is going to pass anywhere. I have my position on gun control and I support the second amendment.

You make a lot of assumptions on where I stand on a lot of things just because I don't think this program is a good idea and I find the Sheriff to be a complete moron as well as a Nazi Fascist pig.

reply to post by Kali74


Kali . . . I don't know if you are suffering from conformation bias or you are intentionally misrepresenting the situation . . .

Please find for me in your source confirmation of this:

Some schools don't want them there,

You do realize what it means when a print article uses italics, don't you?

Stop promoting lies . . .

Here is an article with actual quotes from school officials . . . not a hit piece called for by those trying to bring Joe down. You'll also notice that this has been going on since the start of the semester . . . another lie (or intentional mistruth) in the Salon piece, which wants outrage. (BTW - people will make noise if they think they can deter something, but generally not when they think it's too late . . . like if policy is already in place as opposed to "about to start" )

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Posse members started patrolling around schools in the Queen Creek Unified School District when they went back into session two weeks ago, and district officials and parents couldn’t be happier.

Sheriff's posse lauded for patrol


So please . . . from Boston . . . tell us Arizonan's again how much everyone hates this program and there is a rougue sheriff scaring people with criminal volunteers. Please show me the many examples of actual schools complaining and refuse, only to have Joe tell them to "kiss off". Please show me anywhere where it says these posse members are actually on campuses, interacting with kids . . .

I've already pointed out that this article is full of lies, for politcal gain, and that it is based off of old info to start.

Deny ignorance? Or does that motto only apply when it fits your political leanings?

reply to post by solomons path


Me being from Boston is entirely irrelevant. It changes nothing about any of the articles I linked (more than just Salon). Some are for his posse patrolling near schools, sure, some are not. I posted articles which state that some parents and schools are concerned and don't want the posse near schools, you posted an article that state some parents and schools are happy about it.

My points are these and nothing I have said is bunk, lies or partisan:

From his own mouth, he doesn't care if schools want his posse nearby or not, he's going to continue having patrols near the (I think) 60 schools in his jurisdiction.

Some of the volunteers have criminal backgrounds including drug offenses, assaults, domestic violence and one person convicted of sex crimes involving children.

Is it okay in your mind to have one child sex offender 'deputized' and put on patrol that includes schools simply because it's only one out 3,400 or so?

Or does perhaps this man who is so concerned with child safety need to have better background checks in place for his volunteer posse?

Besides a raging pervert patrolling.....

I don't see anything wrong with an armed force guarding schools...

To me it seems like a DIRECT solution to a Direct problem.....

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by solomons path

 

Me being from Boston is entirely irrelevant. It changes nothing about any of the articles I linked (more than just Salon). Some are for his posse patrolling near schools, sure, some are not. I posted articles which state that some parents and schools are concerned and don't want the posse near schools, you posted an article that state some parents and schools are happy about it.

My points are these and nothing I have said is bunk, lies or partisan:

From his own mouth, he doesn't care if schools want his posse nearby or not, he's going to continue having patrols near the (I think) 60 schools in his jurisdiction.

Some of the volunteers have criminal backgrounds including drug offenses, assaults, domestic violence and one person convicted of sex crimes involving children.

Is it okay in your mind to have one child sex offender 'deputized' and put on patrol that includes schools simply because it's only one out 3,400 or so?

Or does perhaps this man who is so concerned with child safety need to have better background checks in place for his volunteer posse?

Lies, lies, lies, yeah . . .

You being on the other side of the country and not able to verify anything you have said . . . makes a pretty big difference if we are talking about truth and ignorance.

You also only posted three links . . . one of which was contained in the first (KPHO report). Please find me in those three links where any school administrator is complaining about this program or said they did not want their help.

I have provided you with a link that states exactly the opposite from a local source (State paper's website), a source that actively butts heads with Joe on many issues. Included are quotes from several school admin and parents (one article!!)

You have provided three articles that provide one quote from a parent that says

"They have guns? No, I don't like that and I can't believe something like this would be implemented without speaking to parents first," Susanne Ross told 3TV.

And one quote from a school principal that stated he was unsure if the marked car had posse or actual deputies in it . . . said he was confused, but didn't say he was against it.

So . . . please LOL some more and tell me how you've shown this outrage to be the case and how everyone is against it? Where are the parents protesting? Where are the heated school board meetings? You do realize that this news is over a month and a half old, right? And it seems the only reason it's brought up this week is due to Stephen Seagal helping to train his officers (Seagal owns a MA studio west of PHX).

If this wasn't connected to the media/govs push against guns, would it even be an news story . . . nah. If Joe wasn't such a polorizing figure would anyone outside of AZ heard about it . . . nah.

If we want to match shock for shock sake . . . would you rather want Arpaio or the Boston PD looking after you kid? Based on articles I can google . . . I wouldn't want my kid anywhere near Boston PD.

So . . . once again . . . in all your bias based on your perception of this person (Joe), which is based on articles that want people to think he is a monster . . . where you have stated you know nothing about other than a Salon and ABC article . . . what do you have beside poorly sourced articles filled with lies to back up any of your "shock" or your assertion that "criminals and pedophiles are given guns and sent amongst our children"? Why does it matter if Joe says he doesn't care if the schools want it or not . . . They are in his jurisdiction, his responsiblity, and no parents or schools complained or asked them to leave . . . beyond the lone "I don't like it" from your article.

I'll take your anwser off air . . . I'm not concerned with your personal opinion to be honest. However, there are those that live around this situation and know it is nothing like what it is reported in print . . . In fact, I haven't seen one protest, emergency meeting, board decision from any school district or PTA that has come out against this program. No one is making a deal about this except the media and as a result Joe.

Silly rabbits . . . keeping repeating the lies.

reply to post by solomons path


I find your reaction to this thread very strange.

If there is no protests why does your hero mention such himself?

If this wasn't connected to the media/govs push against guns, would it even be an news story . . . nah. If Joe wasn't such a polorizing figure would anyone outside of AZ heard about it . . . nah.

To me this story isn't about guns but this man yet again going above his mandate and in a manner contrary to its supposed intention.

If we want to match shock for shock sake . . . would you rather want Arpaio or the Boston PD looking after you kid? Based on articles I can google . . . I wouldn't want my kid anywhere near Boston PD.

I'd rather neither, I don't think it's healthy for children to grow up around armed guards, I think it inspires either paranoia or a numbness to being surrounded by armed authority 24/7.

So . . . once again . . . in all your bias based on your perception of this person (Joe), which is based on articles that want people to think he is a monster . . .

Yes, I think he's a monster and I think perhaps you might be a fan if you're so convinced that every negative article about him is lies.

your assertion that "criminals and pedophiles are given guns and sent amongst our children"

It's not my assertion. It happened, should we not talk about things happening?

Originally posted by neo96
Really now take a good look at the youth today most of them are violent and sex offenders themselves.

[anyone] who thinks children of today are pure as the undriven snow well most arent.

edit on 13-2-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

WTF are you talking about Neo? This guy is a child molester...and apparently you don't have kids.

This is a new low for you. Just wow...

reply to post by Indigo5


What is low is leaving out the rest of that post:

That doesn't excuse Joe either

Which was the rest of that post

And:

no schools have actually requested this service from Sheriff Joe, and it’s easy to understand why.

My name is neither Joe Arpiao or Boutler not a sex offender either, but yet again people twist posts to suit whatever they want.

reply to post by Kali74

I find your reaction to this thread very strange.

If there is no protests why does your hero mention such himself?

Two things to address here . . . why strange? Have I defended those that have commited past crimes or Joe himself? No . . . I'm defending the program and trying to deny ignorance that runs rampant in these politically motivated articles. Second, did you miss the part where I said previously that I don't like the man and have voted against him in each election . . . but, hero, huh? Keep making things up . . . those that run from the truth will keep giving you stars.

To me this story isn't about guns but this man yet again going above his mandate and in a manner contrary to its supposed intention.

Doesn't matter if it is about guns to you or not . . . this program is a direct result of Sandy Hook and as soon as it was announced at the end of December the anti-gun/Arpaio crowd started calling and complaining to the media. Most of the people who have called the media to "alert" them don't even live in the areas they are patrolling (say Phoenix in your source). When they couldn't get enough support to stop the program they started to run checks on everyone listed as a volunteer . . . that's what is called a "witch hunt".

As far as overstepping bounds . . . He is the elected sheriff of the county and it's his sole responsiblity to ensure the safety of it's citizens. How are increased patrols around school zones over-stepping his bounds? I thought this whole time the president and such keep saying how "we have to ensure the safety of our kids" . . . they deserve a vote to ban guns, but not protection from "bad guys". So, again . . . it's only about safety if it fits the "anti-gun" agenda . . . ?

I'd rather neither, I don't think it's healthy for children to grow up around armed guards, I think it inspires either paranoia or a numbness to being surrounded by armed authority 24/7.

Once again you are lying about this program . . . I'll say lying at this point, as you have been told these volunteers are not on school grounds and the kids have no contact with them . . . but whatever gets you stars.

Yes, I think he's a monster and I think perhaps you might be a fan if you're so convinced that every negative article about him is lies.

At least you are admitting this has nothing to do with the facts of this program or how it is administered and everything to do with your personal bias against Arpaio. A bias that is based on media reports and is very ignorant. As for being a fan . . . reading comprehension would suit you well . . . I've stated my feelings for him more than once, but acknowledging that won't get you stars or any "yeah me too"'s.

It's not my assertion. It happened, should we not talk about things happening?

Again . . . Reading is fundamental to knowing what you are talking about . . . from your own Salon source.

Let’s start with Dominic Boulter, a former member who was arrested — and convicted — for crimes against children.

FORMER member . . . when will Boulter be patrolling around "kids" if he is no longer a member? Well, truth is he never was a member of the "posse". He was a detention officer at the county jail and I believe is now back in Canada, where he came from. So, no it didn't happen. This happened in 2009, so what does this have to do with what is going on now? Lies . . . lies . . . lies for politcal gain.

Boulter Arrest 2009

Beyond that they found only one other instance of past "criminality" amongst this group. So again . . . what's this really about . . . the kids? Or hating Joe?

If you still hold to the lies in this article . . . you do so not in the interest of truth or the kids . . . you do so for your own political agenda and hatred of the man at the top. The same thing you keep saying about those that blame Obama for everything . . . and it's pretty pathetic. I thought you were all supposed to be enlightened intellectuals up in Boston . . . why is your reading comprehension so poor?

reply to post by solomons path


EDIT to add:

Plus everyone keeps saying that these are untrained "vigilantes" . . . The truth is, once again, they are overwhelmingly ex-LEO and Miltary. In addition, they have to perform at least 100hrs of training per year to stay a member of the posse.

They are very well trained, and yet, they're only used for patrol and search. If suspicious activity is encountered, they are to radio deputies and get them to the area, while maintaining visual contact of situation and subjects.

But, none of that fits the rhetoric or is attractive for print . . . again, lies, lies, lies, yeah.

What would one expect from a Salon.com hit piece defending gun control?

Here is the Left's version of who should be protecting children

www.massresistance.org...