View Full Version : Jay La Suer / Sheriff Arpaio Event Nov 6

11-02-2009, 7:11 PM
Even if you can't make it to the dinner, come on out and greet Joe outside the venue before 5pm. Bring your banners, posters, flags, etc. and let's show Joe how much we all love him here in San Diego!!

Also please donate to the Jay La Suer campaign. Even $10 or $20 can help him defeat the Bill Gore machine which has geared up to steal next year's election from We the People! Gore and his mentor Kolender knew that Gore couldn't win on his own next year so they schemed to get him in early by having Kolender resign from office - something he promised the citizens of San Diego he would never do. For that reason alone, Gore must be removed from office next year in the election, but it can only happen if we all get behind the best candidate and make sure everyone knows who has been endorsed by Joe Arpaio - "America's Toughest Sheriff".

Make your reservation for Nov. 6 and/or donate here: www.SheriffJay.org You can also pay at the door IF you have a reservation!


11-05-2009, 1:14 PM
bump for RKBA freedom


11-05-2009, 1:20 PM
I'd think planners might be sensitive to any possible indictments of Arpaio.
Not good when the man you're hanging your hat on has a load of dirt a mile long (merely shaded by a correct and popular issue).

11-05-2009, 1:35 PM
Aligning himself with Arpaio just cost LaSuer any and all credibility and viability.

Dumb move Jay.

11-05-2009, 1:54 PM
Yes, let's remember that Sheriff Arpiao has been convicted by a self appointed jury of Calgunners.

Hopefully, they won't string him up until the investigation into any alledged wrongdoing is completed.

Oh, the irony.

11-05-2009, 2:27 PM
To the self appointed jury of Calgunners please explain what is wrong with Arpaio? All I have read so far is how he run his jail. And if in fact there is an on going investigation of alleged wrongdoing, why convict before proven guilty?

11-05-2009, 2:38 PM
It's readily searchable.

He's a power-drunk authoritarian with very questionable financial dealings.

His deputies have seized/copied privileged defense documents.
His deputies have attacked press critical of him (including arrests) - charges dropped day later.

BTW, his "unpleasant jail" concept includes poor treatment for those not convicted of crimes. Given the war on gun owners here in CA, you'd think CA gunnies would think twice about supporting crap like that.

11-05-2009, 3:50 PM
To the self appointed jury of Calgunners please explain what is wrong with Arpaio? All I have read so far is how he run his jail. And if in fact there is an on going investigation of alleged wrongdoing, why convict before proven guilty?

Since you asked....

Richard Post was a paraplegic inmate arrested in 1996 for possession of marijuana and criminal trespass. After some time in a cell he complained to the guards that his catheter was full. He flushed the toilet several times in order to get their attention. Instead of giving him medical care the guards strapped him into the restraint chair so tightly that they broke his neck. The event, caught on video, shows guards smiling and laughing while Post is being injured. Because of his injuries, Post has lost much of the use of his arms, he is now a quadriplegic. Post settled his claims against the Sheriff's office for $800,000.

In 2006, inmate Ambrett Spencer, who was incarcerated for drunk driving and was nine months pregnant with a baby girl, complained of severe stomach pains and asked for medical attention. The infirmary nurse, who had no prenatal training, believed the pain was not an emergency. It was two hours before an ambulance was called for Spencer, who in the meantime had passed out from severely low blood pressure and lost so much color that the EMT who arrived at the scene said he knew she was "not getting enough blood to [her] organs and skin." At the hospital -- four hours after first reporting pain -- Spencer gave birth to a dead daughter, Ambria Renee. It was determined that Spencer's pain had been caused by placental abruption, internal bleeding resulting in loss of blood to the baby, which babies can usually survive if the mother is taken to the hospital and labor is quickly induced.

Scott Norberg, a former Brigham Young University football wide receiver, who died while in custody of the Sheriff's office. Arpaio's office repeatedly claimed Norberg was also high on methamphetamine, but a blood toxicology performed post-mortem was inconclusive. During his internment, evidence suggests detention officers shocked Norberg several times with a stun-gun. According to an investigation by Amnesty International, Norberg was already handcuffed and face down when officers dragged him from his cell and placed him in a restraint chair with a towel covering his face. After Norberg's corpse was discovered, detention officers accused Norberg of attacking them as they were trying to restrain him. The cause of his death, according to the Maricopa County medical examiner, was due to "positional asphyxia". Sheriff Arpaio investigated and subsequently cleared detention officers of any criminal wrongdoing.

Brian Crenshaw was a legally blind and mentally disabled inmate who suffered fatal injuries while being held in Maricopa Country Jail.

Brian Crenshaw refused to show his identification card in a lunch line, was savagely beaten by guards and left in his cell for six days without medical treatment. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Arpaio insists Crenshaw suffered ruptured intestines, a broken neck, several broken toes, and extensive internal bleeding from “falling off a bunk” a little over four feet high.

Crenshaw's family filed a lawsuit against Arpaio and his office, which resulted in an award of $2 million. As in the Scott Norberg case, it was alleged that Arpaio's office destroyed evidence in the case. In the Crenshaw case, the attorney who represented the case before a jury alleged digital video evidence was destroyed.

Deborah Braillard was a diabetic inmate who was denied her insulin for over two days. When her constant moaning became too much for her cellmates to bear, the guards moved her to an empty cell where she could writhe in pain alone. She died in the hospital.

Mentally handicapped Charles Agster, who weighed only a hundred and thirty-two pounds, was arrested on loitering charges after refusing to leave a convenience store. He was taken into the prison hogtied and wrenched so tightly into a restraint chair that he died within minutes. Although Arpaio admits no wrongdoing, he refuses to let the family of Charles Agster see the surveillance footage of their son being put into the restraint chair.


And let's not forget this, apparently it's not just the Feds who like to raid the wrong house and kill your dog...
In 2004, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office SWAT team led a raid on an Ahwatukee home in a gated subdivision, looking for illegal weapons. No illegal weapons were found, but during the raid, the house burned down, SWAT officers forced a dog back into the building where it subsequently died, and an armored vehicle rolled into a neighbor's parked car as a result of brake failure.

How much does this cost taxpayers?
The appeals court awarded 635,000 dollars to Flanders, 30% of which Arpaio had to pay personally. The Norberg family received an 8.5 million dollar settlement on their son’s behalf. Michael Manning, the attorney for the Norberg family, is suing on behalf of Braillard’s son and father for 20 million dollars. The family of Charles Agster is seeking 25 million. Maricopa County paid Post 850,000 dollars for his injuries and the Crenshaw family is suing as well.
That would be $54,985,000.00

55Million dollars and 4 or 5 lives, yeah, that's worth it.. :rolleyes:

11-05-2009, 4:07 PM

11-05-2009, 4:23 PM
I don't think that Jay having Sheriff Joe at an event is supposed to convey that he knows about or supports everything that Sheriff Joe is purported to have done. I know he categorically does not support illegal actvities by anyone.

So why Sheriff Joe?

In San Diego County there are (IIRC) 80k-100k unserved arrest warrants....unserved partially because there is not room in the jails for them if they were arrested. This is obviously a bad situation for supporting the rule of law in SD.

Therefore, expanding jail capacity inexpensively is Jay's goal, and is a plank of his campaign. Sheriff Joe (of course) wrote the book on that topic, and has received considerable publicity for it.

Can we agree that most voters are not policy wonks, and decide whom to vote for on relatively shallow impressions? The popular perspective about Sheriff Joe's jails will appeal to many of those voters, many of whom are sick of crime, sick of coddling criminals, and extremely concerned about the spiraling costs of government.


11-05-2009, 4:25 PM
That is unfortunate. Sheriff Joe is not someone I would ever want to be aligned with. I've seen the guy interviewed a few times and the impression I came away with is that he is openly proud of his mistreatment of his prisoners, and seems to view them as subhuman. He's an arrogant fool.

11-05-2009, 4:35 PM
in a word:
its too bad.... as others have said, at first "sheriff joe" seems like someone fighting the good fight.
but he's not right in oh, so many ways.
for LaSuer this is a bad move, IMO.