Imagine you are the mother of a mentally handicapped thirty-three-year-old-man.  Your son functions on the level of a twelve-year-old boy.  His disability often causes him to act erratically, but you still hope that one day, he can lead a normal life.  One night in August, 2001, he is arrested on a misdemeanor loitering charge when he begins acting strangely in a convenience store.  When officers arrive to arrest him, he is clinging to the store's coffee machine and won't let go.  Four officers forcibly remove him from the store, handcuff him, and throw him to the ground to be hogtied. The force seems excessive, since your son is disabled and only weighs about a hundred and thirty pounds. A few minutes later, his limbs bound behind his tiny frame, officers load him into the squad car to take him away.  Before they pull away, your son asks you, like a little kid:

"Mom, will you ride in the car with me?"

"I can't," you tell him, "the police won't let me."

You figure that the police will probably hold your son overnight, and you head home to get some rest.

Two hours later, your son is dead.

When Charles Agster arrives at Madison Street Jail, he is confused, as is typical of his condition.  He tries to wriggle underneath a bench, and although he is still hogtied, three or more officers and a sheriff's deputy jump on him, punch him, and knee him in the side.  One officer grips his face, pressing upward toward his chin. Although he is now unresponsive, the officers drag him, face down, into the Intake area and strap him into a restraint chair.  They place a spit-hood over his head, encasing him in darkness.  Minutes later, he stops breathing.  The original autopsy lists "positional asphyxia due to restraint" as his cause of death.

Videotape of the incident shows guards trying to resuscitate Agster, but he's already brain dead. A 2002 Amnesty International report expresses concern "that the degree of force used against Agster was grossly disproportionate to any threat posed by him." 

http://www.arpaio.com/

Since you didn't read it the first time

here is a suggestion: take your bleeding heart bullshit to the Obama or Nancy Pelosi support forum.  You sure you are on the right forum?

Imagine you are the mother of a mentally handicapped thirty-three-year-old-man.  Your son functions on the level of a twelve-year-old boy.  His disability often causes him to act erratically, but you still hope that one day, he can lead a normal life.  One night in August, 2001, he is arrested on a misdemeanor loitering charge when he begins acting strangely in a convenience store.  When officers arrive to arrest him, he is clinging to the store's coffee machine and won't let go.  Four officers forcibly remove him from the store, handcuff him, and throw him to the ground to be hogtied. The force seems excessive, since your son is disabled and only weighs about a hundred and thirty pounds. A few minutes later, his limbs bound behind his tiny frame, officers load him into the squad car to take him away.  Before they pull away, your son asks you, like a little kid:

"Mom, will you ride in the car with me?"

"I can't," you tell him, "the police won't let me."

You figure that the police will probably hold your son overnight, and you head home to get some rest.

Two hours later, your son is dead.

When Charles Agster arrives at Madison Street Jail, he is confused, as is typical of his condition.  He tries to wriggle underneath a bench, and although he is still hogtied, three or more officers and a sheriff's deputy jump on him, punch him, and knee him in the side.  One officer grips his face, pressing upward toward his chin. Although he is now unresponsive, the officers drag him, face down, into the Intake area and strap him into a restraint chair.  They place a spit-hood over his head, encasing him in darkness.  Minutes later, he stops breathing.  The original autopsy lists "positional asphyxia due to restraint" as his cause of death.

Videotape of the incident shows guards trying to resuscitate Agster, but he's already brain dead. A 2002 Amnesty International report expresses concern "that the degree of force used against Agster was grossly disproportionate to any threat posed by him." 

http://www.arpaio.com/

Since you didn't read it the first time

Real easy to call plays from the sideline on this one, but for this single case there were probably 1000 just like it earlier in the same year involving intoxicated or high little skinny dudes that acted out in restraints and were dealt the same treatment because their behavior remained the same or escalated with all attempts of lesser force.  It is very hard to tell the difference between a drunk, high, diabetic, or retarded individual when they are acting aggressively.

Imagine you are the mother of a mentally handicapped thirty-three-year-old-man.  Your son functions on the level of a twelve-year-old boy.  His disability often causes him to act erratically, but you still hope that one day, he can lead a normal life.  One night in August, 2001, he is arrested on a misdemeanor loitering charge when he begins acting strangely in a convenience store.  When officers arrive to arrest him, he is clinging to the store's coffee machine and won't let go.  Four officers forcibly remove him from the store, handcuff him, and throw him to the ground to be hogtied. The force seems excessive, since your son is disabled and only weighs about a hundred and thirty pounds. A few minutes later, his limbs bound behind his tiny frame, officers load him into the squad car to take him away.  Before they pull away, your son asks you, like a little kid:

"Mom, will you ride in the car with me?"

"I can't," you tell him, "the police won't let me."

You figure that the police will probably hold your son overnight, and you head home to get some rest.

Two hours later, your son is dead.

When Charles Agster arrives at Madison Street Jail, he is confused, as is typical of his condition.  He tries to wriggle underneath a bench, and although he is still hogtied, three or more officers and a sheriff's deputy jump on him, punch him, and knee him in the side.  One officer grips his face, pressing upward toward his chin. Although he is now unresponsive, the officers drag him, face down, into the Intake area and strap him into a restraint chair.  They place a spit-hood over his head, encasing him in darkness.  Minutes later, he stops breathing.  The original autopsy lists "positional asphyxia due to restraint" as his cause of death.

Videotape of the incident shows guards trying to resuscitate Agster, but he's already brain dead. A 2002 Amnesty International report expresses concern "that the degree of force used against Agster was grossly disproportionate to any threat posed by him." 

http://www.arpaio.com/

Since you didn't read it the first time

I think we all read it the first time.  I said I wouldn't get involved in this thread but I need to ask you this...  If your significant other, child, sibling, parent, whatever, is a LEO and is confronted with a situation with a mentally "disabled" (I thought liberals don't usually the word "retarded"), would you want them to take it easy and give them the benefit of the doubt?  Is it the duty of LEO to keep the public safe or are they supposed to try and learn the character of the person before arresting them.  In fact, if you were confronted by a mentally disabled person, would you assume they are harmless?

Like Don pointed out, it's a damn shame that it happened.  But sh!t happens.  Try to reduce the chances of it happening to you by keeping yourself out of those situations.  Lastly, if a convicted criminal infringed upon my or a loved one's rights, I don't really give a damn if those criminals are now treated a little harsh in prison.  Typical of many Americans to blame others when it's their own actions that put them there in the first place.

I'm wondering if you're just trying to illicit a response.  If so, you did good.

Quote from: DonRow on January 22, 2012, 02:51:30 PM

Quote from: crazy cat on January 22, 2012, 01:19:57 PM

It's illegal to be retarded?  And deserving of death at the hands of the police?  Sounds like Nazi Germany all over again.....

What The Fuck?!? (Sorry Moderator for the language) this thread went from being anti "Illegal" immigration to being, now since we don't agree with your view on it, were now people who hate mentally handicapped people and we are "Nazi's" brah, if you even read what I typed you would've seen that I said it was a "really sad thing to happen" and "where the hell were the parents" what you think, just because there handicapped that there not strong enough?? I've seen one cop get hammered by a mentally disturbed person it took me and two other officers to subdue this man and on top of that we put him in the back of the patrol car the man gets on his back and kicks out the the rear door window and was sent to a mental institution for close observation. My best friend daughter is mentally handicapped with down syndrome and I love her with all my heart and would die for her. Maybe you should know who your fucking talking to before start being a troll and start throwing accusation. Couldn't just agree to disagree huh.. Pfff brah,  whateveahs...

Donrow, don't feed the trolls....

sorry..

here is a suggestion: take your bleeding heart bullshit to the Obama or Nancy Pelosi support forum.  You sure you are on the right forum?

Take your defense of 2a allies where you can get them. If you can't handle disagreements on other issues without getting defensive then the 2nd amendment, along with the rest of our rights, is doomed.

Its the SAME issue: trust of government and the extent of government power. How is it that we kick and spit when the HPD won't let us carry but its OK when a shoot from the hip sheriff and his staff kill "bad guys" via beatings and restraints? Its not a bleeding heart issue, its an appropriate use of power issue.

If the AZ residents who elect him are happy with him so be it. Holding it up as a shining example of effective law enforcement to be emulated elsewhere IS going to elicit some dissenting opinions.

Quote from: vooduchikn on January 22, 2012, 03:22:03 PM

here is a suggestion: take your bleeding heart bullshit to the Obama or Nancy Pelosi support forum.  You sure you are on the right forum?

Its not a bleeding heart issue.

If the AZ residents who elect him are happy with him so be it. Holding it up as a shining example of effective law enforcement to be emulated elsewhere IS going to elicit some dissenting opinions.

This post has liberal tears and blood all over it. I give a shit if he marches them outback and shoots them, especially the repeat offenders.

Fair enough.

And?

I'm way more liberal than most people on gun forums. And I'm an avid gun collector and life long hand loader that believes deeply in the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and in marksmanship as an American tradition.

Am I not welcome on the 2ahawaii forum because I lean more left than most here?

I'm not saying that I feel like I've been told to go elsewhere: I don't and I haven't. Just pointing out that I am very definitely on the right forum as is crazy cat. And that you do have allies on the other side of the political isle. You sure you want to lump them in with your enemies on the other side of the isle just because? Or is there such a thing as an ally on the other side of the isle for you?

Anyway. Sorry. Now I'm threadjacking.  I'm just surprised at how quickly and often a discussion becomes 'What?! You aren't 100% us? Then you must be 100% them! Git the bleedin' heart liberal, boys!!!"

But... enough. Gotta strip the .44 lever and oil it before company comes over tonight.

Fair enough.

And?

I'm way more liberal than most people on gun forums. And I'm an avid gun collector and life long hand loader that believes deeply in the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and in marksmanship as an American tradition.

Am I not welcome on the 2ahawaii forum because I lean more left than most here?

I'm not saying that I feel like I've been told to go elsewhere: I don't and I haven't. Just pointing out that I am very definitely on the right forum as is crazy cat. And that you do have allies on the other side of the political isle. You sure you want to lump them in with your enemies on the other side of the isle just because? Or is there such a thing as an ally on the other side of the isle for you?

Anyway. Sorry. Now I'm threadjacking.  I'm just surprised at how quickly and often a discussion becomes 'What?! You aren't 100% us? Then you must be 100% them! Git the bleedin' heart liberal, boys!!!"

But... enough. Gotta strip the .44 lever and oil it before company comes over tonight.

I don't think your left leaning man your more up the middle trying to see both sides of view. I agreed with you on stuff and disagreed with you on stuff, and when I did disagree with you never called me Nazi or a "Retard" hater. All you did was agree to disagree and we went on our merry way. so you take down that .44 and oil it up good.

Fair enough.

And?

I'm way more liberal than most people on gun forums. And I'm an avid gun collector and life long hand loader that believes deeply in the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and in marksmanship as an American tradition.

Am I not welcome on the 2ahawaii forum because I lean more left than most here?

I'm not saying that I feel like I've been told to go elsewhere: I don't and I haven't. Just pointing out that I am very definitely on the right forum as is crazy cat. And that you do have allies on the other side of the political isle. You sure you want to lump them in with your enemies on the other side of the isle just because? Or is there such a thing as an ally on the other side of the isle for you?

Anyway. Sorry. Now I'm threadjacking.  I'm just surprised at how quickly and often a discussion becomes 'What?! You aren't 100% us? Then you must be 100% them! Git the bleedin' heart liberal, boys!!!"

But... enough. Gotta strip the .44 lever and oil it before company comes over tonight.

I didnt know I had enemies on the other side of the "isle" (pun intended).

So far I have seen examples of what some (questionably) bad officer have done, who are not in the Sheriff. Their actions have nothing to do with the actions of the sheriff or the effectiveness on recidivism of offenders. Show me some penal systems that work better, save money, and also contribute to the community.  I see a bunch of QQ about the bad, what about him significantly reducing the operating expenses of the human society and greatly improving the quality of life for the dogs and others?

Imagine you are the mother of a mentally handicapped thirty-three-year-old-man.  Your son functions on the level of a twelve-year-old boy.  His disability often causes him to act erratically, but you still hope that one day, he can lead a normal life.  One night in August, 2001, he is arrested on a misdemeanor loitering charge when he begins acting strangely in a convenience store.  When officers arrive to arrest him, he is clinging to the store's coffee machine and won't let go.  Four officers forcibly remove him from the store, handcuff him, and throw him to the ground to be hogtied. The force seems excessive, since your son is disabled and only weighs about a hundred and thirty pounds. A few minutes later, his limbs bound behind his tiny frame, officers load him into the squad car to take him away.  Before they pull away, your son asks you, like a little kid:

"Mom, will you ride in the car with me?"

"I can't," you tell him, "the police won't let me."

You figure that the police will probably hold your son overnight, and you head home to get some rest.

Two hours later, your son is dead.

When Charles Agster arrives at Madison Street Jail, he is confused, as is typical of his condition.  He tries to wriggle underneath a bench, and although he is still hogtied, three or more officers and a sheriff's deputy jump on him, punch him, and knee him in the side.  One officer grips his face, pressing upward toward his chin. Although he is now unresponsive, the officers drag him, face down, into the Intake area and strap him into a restraint chair.  They place a spit-hood over his head, encasing him in darkness.  Minutes later, he stops breathing.  The original autopsy lists "positional asphyxia due to restraint" as his cause of death.

Videotape of the incident shows guards trying to resuscitate Agster, but he's already brain dead. A 2002 Amnesty International report expresses concern "that the degree of force used against Agster was grossly disproportionate to any threat posed by him." 

http://www.arpaio.com/

Since you didn't read it the first time

Your dysfunctional 33 year old was also a meth head.  The brain damaged guy didn't die from the cops - he died from 17 times over the unsafe limit of amphetamines.

So I ask once again, why does he keep getting elected?? It's sad the a mentally retarded kid died in jail, but I ask, why didn't the parents go to the jail with him in there own car? You can do that. And this guy saying that "the bed was only 4' 2" people around the world die from just falling out of the shower, or walking down the street and just slipping, it all depends on how and where you hit your head. I not in anyway advocating police brutality at all, but if not thing was done there was no hard evidents or the cops including Joe would have been thrown in prison for murder. Your right DOJ does work on evidents, but they have none and they've been watching him for the past four years if not longer you would think that they had something on him already. He is elected and payed to do a job, and that job envoles protecting that people and he's doing his job.

Like I said the, sad very sad that they died in custody but seams like something is missing from it, once again where we're the parents?? Usually mentally disturbed people go straight to the a mental hospital to be monitored I know cause I got into a scuffle and arrested one. And he was taken straight to mahilona for observation.

   But if he does end up with a civil rights violation from the DOJ I'll eat my words and he deserves every bit of it.

This was my thought exactly. 

As far as the DOJ operating on evidence, which department was it that ran Fast & Furious, again?  Who was it that failed to follow up on the Black Panther voter intimidation?  There are undoubtedly more examples of Holder's incompetence, and I think the drawn-out investigation of Arpaio is one of them.  As was said, it's a real shame that some people died in custody, but it's kind of the way the cookie crumbles, and it happens every year, probably at nearly every major detention facility in the country.  Amnesty International is a bunch of loons, and the fact that it gets really, really, hot in Tent City does not give me a moment's pause in applauding Sheriff Joe.

Quote from: crazy cat on January 22, 2012, 03:07:08 PM

Imagine you are the mother of a mentally handicapped thirty-three-year-old-man.  Your son functions on the level of a twelve-year-old boy.  His disability often causes him to act erratically, but you still hope that one day, he can lead a normal life.  One night in August, 2001, he is arrested on a misdemeanor loitering charge when he begins acting strangely in a convenience store.  When officers arrive to arrest him, he is clinging to the store's coffee machine and won't let go.  Four officers forcibly remove him from the store, handcuff him, and throw him to the ground to be hogtied. The force seems excessive, since your son is disabled and only weighs about a hundred and thirty pounds. A few minutes later, his limbs bound behind his tiny frame, officers load him into the squad car to take him away.  Before they pull away, your son asks you, like a little kid:

"Mom, will you ride in the car with me?"

"I can't," you tell him, "the police won't let me."

You figure that the police will probably hold your son overnight, and you head home to get some rest.

Two hours later, your son is dead.

When Charles Agster arrives at Madison Street Jail, he is confused, as is typical of his condition.  He tries to wriggle underneath a bench, and although he is still hogtied, three or more officers and a sheriff's deputy jump on him, punch him, and knee him in the side.  One officer grips his face, pressing upward toward his chin. Although he is now unresponsive, the officers drag him, face down, into the Intake area and strap him into a restraint chair.  They place a spit-hood over his head, encasing him in darkness.  Minutes later, he stops breathing.  The original autopsy lists "positional asphyxia due to restraint" as his cause of death.

Videotape of the incident shows guards trying to resuscitate Agster, but he's already brain dead. A 2002 Amnesty International report expresses concern "that the degree of force used against Agster was grossly disproportionate to any threat posed by him." 

http://www.arpaio.com/

Since you didn't read it the first time

Your dysfunctional 33 year old was also a meth head.  The brain damaged guy didn't die from the cops - he died from 17 times over the unsafe limit of amphetamines.

And the plot thickens.....

Arpaio is a fascist. He is not interested in enforcing the laws, but legalizing slavery. 

and the lurking conspiracy theorists emerge....

Arpaio is a fascist. He is not interested in enforcing the laws, but legalizing slavery.

What is wrong with making prisoners pay back their debt to society? Prisoners in Australia *built* their prisons.  There is no reason you can't and shouldn't use prisoners to do work details, make small goods for the public, clean and manage facilities like the humane society, and so forth.

Why should a tax-payer spend about 35k-60k dollars per head and get nothing in return? We are *PAYING* to rehab him - they should work every penny of that money off back to the community.

Think about it, why should we pay some workers to go and clean out the homeless camps - we have prisoners who would like to see the light of day and will work.  If they don't want to work, that is fine  -- go sit in your cell all day.

forced labor camps make great profits for the private prison industrial complex, which in turn influence politicians and judges with $donations$ aka bribes to pass tougher criminal laws that institutionalize more people who would otherwise be leading productive lives. look up 'kids for cash' and tell me there ain't something wrong with prison profiteering. It's actually soaking up your tax dollars. How come you tax-hating Republicans aren't all over this? Is it the tough-talk that sold you? I swear all someone has to do is say a few key words like tough-on-crime and you guys are swooning. It's a completely Pavlovian response of course.

forced labor camps make great profits for the private prison industrial complex, which in turn influence politicians and judges with $donations$ aka bribes to pass tougher criminal laws that institutionalize more people who would otherwise be leading productive lives. look up 'kids for cash' and tell me there ain't something wrong with prison profiteering. It's actually soaking up your tax dollars. How come you tax-hating Republicans aren't all over this? Is it the tough-talk that sold you? I swear all someone has to do is say a few key words like tough-on-crime and you guys are swooning. It's a completely Pavlovian response of course.

I can tell you this, the majority of Federal prisons are currently cutting back on their Unicor factories due to budget constraints.  In doing so, more and more inmates go without work assignments, which leaves them running around the yard more, which leads to moving contraband, which leads to gangs fighting for dominance, which leads to staff intervention, which leads to incidences such as the murder of Officer Jose Rivera.  The inmates themselves will tell you without work, they get into bad shit.  Inmates dont become inmates from leading productive lives.

First of all, I'm not a republican.  Secondly, I while I have not worked in the prison, I do have a fair academic knowledge of the subject considering I am in my last semesters of a criminal justice major that focused on prisons and security.

As far as tougher laws go, people could stop doing drugs. It's not that hard - just don't do it. Private prisons do a better job with less money than a normal facility.

First of all, I'm not a republican.  Secondly, I while I have not worked in the prison, I do have a fair academic knowledge of the subject considering I am in my last semesters of a criminal justice major that focused on prisons and security.

As far as tougher laws go, people could stop doing drugs. It's not that hard - just don't do it. Private prisons do a better job with less money than a normal facility.

Impossible!  No for-profit venture is capable of topping the altruism and benevolent efficiency of the State!