Sherrif Clarke

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I paid taxes when I was in Germany.  Does that make me a German citizen?
I paid taxes in Italy.  Does that make me an Italian citizen?
I paid taxes in France. Does that make me a French citizen?
Etc...

You don't get to pay taxes until you're an adult, child.

---

I wish people would stop throwing that word around.  Simply because Clarke is a moral troglodyte with all the compassion of a honey badger having an exceptionally bad day doesn't make him a traitor.

Boru

Any US citizen who aligns themselves with Dumbfuck and his cabal of looters is by definition a traitor.

Sorry, but no.

Boru

[Mister Agenda]

Under Clarke, Terrill White had the water to his cell shut off for six days and no drinking water was provided to him. He died and the coroner ruled it a homicide. In 2014 a woman who was shackled and in handcuffs for 21 hours while in labor and while hospitalized for post partum treatment. At least 40 women were shackled in this manner. In 2017 a federal jury awarded over 6 million dollars to a woman who accused a Milwaukee county jail guard of raping her at least five times while she was 19 and pregnant. In 2016 a mentally ill female inmate went into labor and her child was stillborn; she was denied prenatal medical treatment and received prenatal vitamins only once.

Source: Wikipedia

It is clear he does not run a tight ship when it comes to the jails he is responsible for. The policy of shackling all prisoners who are hospitalized, even women in labor, is something other states manage to do without and still chaos has not ensued in the ten states that forbid it. I would think 'law and order' includes abiding by the Constitution's proscription against cruel and unusual punishments.

So it wasn't Clarke who did these things, but other people?

That is correct, he did not personally physically abuse people. Does that excuse him in your eyes?

[Huggy Bear]

The OP banned already? I was waiting on his Jesse Lee Peterson thread...

[T0 Th3 M4X]

So it wasn't Clarke who did these things, but other people?

That is correct, he did not personally physically abuse people. Does that excuse him in your eyes?

It depends.  Did he tell them to do it?  Did he watch it happen and ignore it?

I think a lot depends on understanding.  If it was someone else acting on their own without his input, then I wouldn't think it would be inclusive of him.  People can do bad things and be sneaky about it.  So for me, it would be about if or not he let it happen out of willful ignorance? 

Although I don't think it's necessarily optimal, I believe it's best to assume innocence until proven guilty.  From a personal perspective, I don't know enough about it to form a position of guilt.  Maybe he was being a bad dude and maybe he wasn't.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That is correct, he did not personally physically abuse people. Does that excuse him in your eyes?

It depends.  Did he tell them to do it?  Did he watch it happen and ignore it?

I think a lot depends on understanding.  If it was someone else acting on their own without his input, then I wouldn't think it would be inclusive of him.  People can do bad things and be sneaky about it.  So for me, it would be about if or not he let it happen out of willful ignorance? 

Although I don't think it's necessarily optimal, I believe it's best to assume innocence until proven guilty.  From a personal perspective, I don't know enough about it to form a position of guilt.  Maybe he was being a bad dude and maybe he wasn't.

The four incidents mentioned by Mr. Agenda all happened while Clarke was sheriff.  One of the incidents went to court.  An attempt to say 'I don't know enough about it to form a position of guilt' is absurd, as Clarke clearly knew what was going on and did fuck all to stop it.  This makes him a horrible human being.

If by some minute, infinitesimal chance he completely missed a lawsuit in which his office had to pay a judgement of six million dollars to a rape victim in their custody, he was an absolutely horrible sheriff.

Boru

[T0 Th3 M4X]

It depends.  Did he tell them to do it?  Did he watch it happen and ignore it?

I think a lot depends on understanding.  If it was someone else acting on their own without his input, then I wouldn't think it would be inclusive of him.  People can do bad things and be sneaky about it.  So for me, it would be about if or not he let it happen out of willful ignorance? 

Although I don't think it's necessarily optimal, I believe it's best to assume innocence until proven guilty.  From a personal perspective, I don't know enough about it to form a position of guilt.  Maybe he was being a bad dude and maybe he wasn't.

The four incidents mentioned by Mr. Agenda all happened while Clarke was sheriff.  One of the incidents went to court.  An attempt to say 'I don't know enough about it to form a position of guilt' is absurd, as Clarke clearly knew what was going on and did fuck all to stop it.  This makes him a horrible human being.

If by some minute, infinitesimal chance he completely missed a lawsuit in which his office had to pay a judgement of six million dollars to a rape victim in their custody, he was an absolutely horrible sheriff.

Boru

How do you knew he knew?  I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't say I know enough about all of it to form a fair conclusion.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The four incidents mentioned by Mr. Agenda all happened while Clarke was sheriff.  One of the incidents went to court.  An attempt to say 'I don't know enough about it to form a position of guilt' is absurd, as Clarke clearly knew what was going on and did fuck all to stop it.  This makes him a horrible human being.

If by some minute, infinitesimal chance he completely missed a lawsuit in which his office had to pay a judgement of six million dollars to a rape victim in their custody, he was an absolutely horrible sheriff.

Boru

How do you knew he knew?  I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't say I know enough about all of it to form a fair conclusion.

His office was sued by a woman who was raped five times by one of his employees.  Suppose you managed a bakery (you know, one of those bakeries that doesn't sell cakes to gay people).  One of your employees turns out to be a serial rapist.  His victim sues your company.  How can you NOT know that you have a personnel problem?

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Usually, this defense is offred in the reverse...."I was just following orders" - it's particularly delightful to hear some nonsense about how the boss 'aint at fault because he didn't explictly order somebody to rape a bitch. Combined with the more common form, one gets the idea that..perhaps, no one is ever ultimately responsible for anything in Murrica anymore.....

:jerkof:

Whatever happened to "you're fired!-ing" these sorts of dipshits? Why do they have any defenders?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

How do you knew he knew?  I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't say I know enough about all of it to form a fair conclusion.

His office was sued by a woman who was raped five times by one of his employees.  Suppose you managed a bakery (you know, one of those bakeries that doesn't sell cakes to gay people).  One of your employees turns out to be a serial rapist.  His victim sues your company.  How can you NOT know that you have a personnel problem?

Boru

If we could all tell who all the people are who are raping others, then we wouldn't have as much of a problem, now would we?

I could go to the grocery store, shop for a good hour, pass 200 people, some of which probably raped, or likely even experienced rape at some point, and I most likely couldn't point out one of them to you.  I would gander you couldn't do it either.  Throw it that people who rape don't generally do it out in the open.   So how do you know?  Maybe you catch them, maybe you don't.  Maybe the victim says something, but many times they don't because of fear, and the nature of rape.  Rape is less about sex, and more about exerting power over someone else.  When someone is overpowered, they are less likely to fight back or tell.

When I was in college, domestic violence, especially against women, was one of the focal points of my education.  Part of it was because I volunteered in a homeless shelter and I got to see many of the effects up close.  A lot of your "bad guys" seem friendly, but that's also part of what makes them dangerous.  They present well, they don't appear to be suspicious, and they know how to manipulate.  Those very things are what they use to overpower other, and more times than not they'll use it to shift blame to their victim.  That's why you get women saying "Well it was just one mistake because I upset him, so he won't do it again."  He flatters her, apologizes, buys her gifts, then back at it once she drops her guard.

[The Grand Nudger]

Serial offenders don't get to play that card Max.  You shouldn't have wasted your time.  Clarke remains the terrible human being he's always been, lol.