You're going to have to elaborate on this because that's, kinda, the way jail works. There's a difference between jail and prison. If you're arrested on a Friday night, you won't go before the judge until Monday. If it's an offense where you can't sign your own bond (most of them) you'll be in jail Friday night, Saturday, Sunday, and most of Monday without being officially charged with any crime. Also, roughly half of the inmates in any jail won't have been convicted of a crime. A jail's primary purpose is to house those awaiting arraignment or trial who can't make bond or weren't granted bond. Its secondary purpose is to house those who have been convicted of minor crimes whose sentence is less than one year long.
Are you talking about the 14 words? Are you trying to say it is not a neo-Nazi slogan? I know I've often seen references to "14/88," the 88 of course meaning "Heil Hitler."
https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/88 H is the eighth letter of the alphabet. So 88 = HH = Heil Hitler
I understand that's the way jails work. He was shipping people off to his tent jail under the guise of the local jails being overcrowded (while simultaneously giving him and his cronies pay bumps and fishing trip bonuses), and he used this tactic to pressure them into signing plea agreements. It's completely reasonable to jail someone locally while they await arraignment or making bail arrangements, but to send them off to a location where inmates are getting heat stroke and dying? What purpose does it serve, other than as a pressure tactic? And it wasn't just those suspected of actual crimes or immigration violations; he went after his political opponents as well.
That is one hell of a stretch. You might as well say it means "High Hitler" and is in reference to the mans drug abuse.
Do you have any evidence that any inmates died of heatstroke? And jails and prisons are allowed to use pressure tactics. Why do you think most people agree to a plea bargain in the first place. ? I've heard of prisons using what I've heard was called "diesel detention". They wait until the day before a visitor is coming to see an inmate and then ship them (in a diesel powered truck hence the name) to another facility. When a visitor applies to see the inmate in question again they repeat the process. In this manner the inmate never gets to see family, friends or any visitor whatsoever other than their lawyer.
Oh well if its on the internet. Mind posting a link preferably from an unbiased source if at all possible. ?
I put a link to the ADL in a post above. I think they know what the Nazi shitheads in America are up too.
Check out the DOJ's report based on a two-year investigation of the Maricopa Sheriffs department: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/16/us/maricopa_documents.html?_r=1& Or this local investigation http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news...rate-that-dwarfs-other-county-lockups-7845679 There were many suicides, but nearly as many deaths. The jail would reach temperatures up to 145 degrees. I understand pressure tactics occur in jails and prisons, but this constituted prisoner abuse. This is all public record. The Federal government didn't just order Arpaio to stop his abusive pattern of misconduct for the hell of it. They had substantial evidence of wrongdoing, found that he and his office were acting unconstitutionally on multiple occasions, and Arpaio has essentially admitted to all of this.
Yep, Arpaio seems to have noticed that some dumb fucks agree with Colonel Jessup in A Few Good Men and thinks that netted him a pass from the law.
I found Colonel Jessup to be pretty sympathetic with the exception that he didn't step up when Private Santiago died and openly admit he had ordered the Code Red. But I do love how Tom Cruise character in questioning carefully manipulated Jessup into giving contradictory testimony. "Colonel, if you ordered Santiago not to be touched, and your orders are always followed, why was Santiago in any danger?'
You seem to have an intimate knowledge of Nazi culture, so I'll defer to you. If you are right and this is the Nazi slogan, then... checkmate, Nazis. How does one argue against the right of white people to "exist?"
true but he didn't just break the law. The man is a literal monster and should have been convicted on about 50+ different charges and god only knows how many counts each. Trump did this to send some messages: 1. I'm president and I do what I want 2. any LEO that wants to fuck up some Mexicans (or any other brownfolk) knock yerselves out 3. you guys under pressure from Mueller? Keep your mouth shut, I got this.
actually know, the courts have been ruling the other way since Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse and the rational behind those cases has been tested twice at SCOTUS and upheld both times - and one of the decisions was written by Scalia. The DoJ reversed course on the subject, flying in the face of precedent, because the Pharisees (icluding Pence and Sessions) demand it.
literally almost 30 years of precedent, and not the EEOC court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Waterhouse_v._Hopkins
I could, and I might, list in this thread all the utterly monstrous shit that man did and got away with, but it's a lot and I don't know if I want to invest the time when you'll likely come back and say "that doesn't look like anything to me" and I'm forced to regret all the times that I wonder why people considered you so loathsome.
If we are going to have this conversation, and I really want to, I think it would be helpful to start at the beginning. Fourteen Words: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." What does this sentence mean to you? What sort of existence does it suggest? What kind of future does it propose to secure?
There doesn't appear to be any ambiguity to me. If your argument lies in speculating on the quality of existence or the quality of future, then you're laying groundwork for a strawman. 1. Secure the existence of [presumably white] people. 2. [And redundantly,] secure a future for white children. It appears to be an existential statement. Therefore, there's no alternative to 1 & 2 short of genocide. I'd suggest that 1 & 2 are reasonable demands for every race and necessary to survival of the species.
But why is it framed as an imperative ("we must"), as if the existence and future of white people are threatened? It seems to be calling for action, so I think it's reasonable to inquire what that action would be. Would you agree that it seems to imply that the future existence of white people is threatened by current social trends in a way other peoples are not? And that these trends involve the casual intermingling of races on an equal basis?
