I am the former director of special education for a few public school districts in New York and one of the largest charter school entities in Arizona. If I had not taken the proper legally required actions to investigate even one claim of a sex crime within the special education departments that I oversaw, do you think I would have still had a job?
So tell me, why does Sheriff Arpaio still have his job after it is well documented that he did not investigate over 400 sex crimes, many involving children, with one as young as 2 years old?
Fred Barlam
Ahwatukee FOOTHILLS
Rich posted at 6:29 pm on Sun, Dec 18, 2011.
C'mon Fred, you lived in New York. From the World's capital of style beats substance, and you have to ask? Forgedaboutit.
JMJ posted at 8:36 pm on Sun, Dec 18, 2011.
Welcome to Arizona.
downtownresident posted at 6:11 am on Mon, Dec 19, 2011.
Joe was elected by a bunch of old people who grew up in another time when elected officials were honest. Those times have changed and Joe is the result of having too much power and no oversight.
LET'S RECALL HIM!
Arizona Willie posted at 7:51 am on Mon, Dec 19, 2011.
Fred Barlam, for someone who claims to have such a high level job in education you are remarkably stupid.
Why does Sheriff Joe still have his job? Why hasn't he been fired? The title of your letter is " Anyone else would be fired ".
He hasn't been fired because he is an elected official. Just like the President of the United States. He can't be fired -- except by being voted out or impeached.
You may be a public servant but you were hired not elected.
If you aren't any smarter than that YOU should be fired.
CooperG posted at 9:31 am on Mon, Dec 19, 2011.
Umm, I think some people here are parsing words a little too closely.
Barlam's letter never uses the word "fired," that's the title the editors gave it. He simply questions why Arpaio hasn't been forced from office (and he should).
What Barlam is using is called a "metaphor" to make a comparison of people in public positions. It's not intended to be taken literally. He's saying that if he were caught doing anything much less than Arpaio has done (much less the 10 jail deaths caused by his staff, the 70,000 unserved felony warrants, the $100M is waste, fraud and abuse of the jail funds scandal, the Sheriff's Command Authority Scandal, the sex crime investigation scandal, the $80M in lawsuit losses with another $100M in claims pending and now the findings he has violated the 1st, 4th and 14th Amendments to the Constitutions, the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act) he or anyone else would have been fired or certainly forced to resign in disgrace.
The problem is people who support Arpaio do so knowing full well he breaks the laws he has sworn to uphold and allows felons and sex offenders to get away with their crimes and choose to look the other way. So law breaking is okay with them so long as Arpaio is the guy letting the bad guys get away with the crimes. That's really warped.
bobunf posted at 9:59 am on Mon, Dec 19, 2011.
How many cases like this before the people decide the Sheriff should be fired by recall, impeachment, indictment or in some other manner?
Brian Crenshaw was serving a short sentence for shoplifting. He was legally blind. Crenshaw refused to show his ID in a lunch line and Sheriff’s deputies pushed him to the wall, punched and kicked him, and placed him in lockdown. For the next six days, nobody entered or left his cell.
Crenshaw was found unconscious with a broken neck, several broken toes, and extensive internal injuries. He was comatose, his intestines had ruptured, and his vertebrae needed to be straight-ened with a halo. Doctors told Crenshaw's mother that his internal injuries were so severe they had to surgically open his stomach to relieve swelling. He died as a result of injuries that had been untreated for six days.
The family sued and the lawsuit against Arpaio and his office resulted in an award of $2 million. In an all too typical pattern, Arpaio's office destroyed evidence in the case, making it more difficult to prosecute.
Some mentally ill people will opine that Brian Crenshaw's refusal to show ID in the lunch line was reason enough to torture and kill him and subsequently for the Sheriff to obstruct justice. Sane people will not agree.
Accuracy posted at 5:46 pm on Mon, Dec 19, 2011.
Anyone else would be fired.
Fired by who . . . Thomas Perez, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Eric Holder?
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has given Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County until January 4th to tell the feds how he is going to obey their edicts. Arpaio responded, “We are going to cooperate the best we can. And if they are not happy, I guess they can carry out their threat and go to federal court.”
Or wait for the U.S. Supreme Court that will rule and decide whether a state can secure its borders and protect its citizens when the federal government fails to?
The high court agreed to take up this question when it agreed to consider Arizona’s illegal immigration law.
Fred Barlam posted at 8:56 am on Tue, Dec 20, 2011.
@ Arizona Willie
Did you read my letter? If so, did you comprehend the meaning? Where does it say anything about "firing" Arpaio? As CooperG has already told you, I didn't put the title on the letter, the editor did. If you've ever written a letter to the editior in any paper, you would know who titles it.
Now, let's look at history. Nixon resigned as President of the U.S. over illegal activity. Spitzer resigned as Governor of NY over cheating on his wife with a prostitute. Weiner resigned as a Member of the U.S. Congress over sexting. So Willie, do you think they resigned willingly, or were FORCED to do so? In my letter I am questioning why that isn't happening with Arpaio. If a president, state governor and a congressman can be forced to resign, why then isn't a lowly county sheriff being forced to do so? Why aren't all the elected officials in the sate not demanding that Arpaio be accountable for his actions? That is the crux of what I said.
And lastly Willie, please do not question the cognitive abilities of others before you have questioned your own!
bobunf posted at 10:38 am on Tue, Dec 20, 2011.
Accuracy, what has the Supreme Court and SB1070 got to do with the facts that our Sheriff is a vindictive, corrupt and very expensive racist who has imbued his jails and police operations with a culture of unconstitutional discrimination and cruelty?
That, it put it charitably, he does less than he should about crime?
That at least a third of our community, rather than looking to the Sheriff and his officers as protectors and allies, look on them with fear, loathing and the utmost distrust while avoiding any contact to the extent at all possible?
That the MSCO has all the cooperation with at least of third of our community as that of a hostile occupying army - like in Iraq and Afghanistan?
That he prosecutes people for not liking the Sheriff?
That he unnecessarily kills, maims and injures people in our jails?
That he arrests people for no cause - "reasonable or otherwise?"
That he clearly violates the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?
That he clearly violates the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?
That he acts like a deranged nut with his 50 caliber machine gun, tank, TV cameras with old actors, and other nonsense?
That he can't prosecute prostitutes because his officers videotaped themselves having sex with the "suspects?"
And on and on and on and on.
What has the need to retire this incompetent and cruel old man got to do with any Supreme Court case?
Accuracy posted at 2:22 pm on Tue, Dec 20, 2011.
bobunf posted question: “What has the need to retire this incompetent and cruel old man got to do with any Supreme Court case?”
A U.S. Justice Department report released, written by Thomas Perez, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Commission under Eric Holder, accuses Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office of racially profiling… a blatant pattern of discrimination against Latinos (illegal immigrants) from Mexico.
Sheriff Arpaio has denied the racial profiling allegations, saying people are stopped if deputies have probable cause to believe they have committed crimes and that deputies later find many of them are illegal immigrants.
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Arizona’s illegal immigration law and decide if there is any systematic disregard for the Constitution.
bobunf posted at 10:23 pm on Tue, Dec 20, 2011.
Actually, accuracy, to be accurate, the Supreme Court will consider the prior question of Federal preemption and various other Constitutional issues.