Sherrif Clarke

[The Grand Nudger]

Law enforcement rarely does.  More a condemnation of the state of our system than a pass on dereliction of duty.

Honestly, wtf is wrong with you, lol?

[Amarok]

That's simply not true 


If you show apathy and incuriosity at blatant abuse committed by your subordinates then you deserve jail

Welp, judge and jury thought otherwise.  He didn't get jail.  So what does that tell you about your claims?

It tells me they didn't think their decision through or are you saying the courts are always right?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Welp, judge and jury thought otherwise.  He didn't get jail.  So what does that tell you about your claims?

It tells me they didn't think their decision through or are you saying the courts are always right?

When did I assert the courts are always right?  I'm pretty sure the ruling was a consensus within a jury anyway.  I don't know all the very fine details of the case because I wasn't there, so I'll just take their word for it unless otherwise I'm given reason not to.  Why should I assume you know better than the jury or even a judge?

[Amarok]

It tells me they didn't think their decision through or are you saying the courts are always right?

When did I assert the courts are always right?  I'm pretty sure the ruling was a consensus within a jury anyway.  I don't know all the very fine details of the case because I wasn't there, so I'll just take their word for it unless otherwise I'm given reason not to.  Why should I assume you know better than the jury or even a judge?

I never said you did which is why I phrased it as a question 
Consensus within a jury does not alter the question 
Your free to take their word for it but I wouldn't considering my prior comments
I'm not asking you to assume anything you asked me a question I gave you an answer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

When did I assert the courts are always right?  I'm pretty sure the ruling was a consensus within a jury anyway.  I don't know all the very fine details of the case because I wasn't there, so I'll just take their word for it unless otherwise I'm given reason not to.  Why should I assume you know better than the jury or even a judge?

I never said you did which is why I phrased it as a question 
Consensus within a jury does not alter the question 
Your free to take their word for it but I wouldn't considering my prior comments
I'm not asking you to assume anything you asked me a question I gave you an answer

I don't go around calling people monsters.  As soon as I start looking at people like that, then it would start to change me into a monster.  I see everybody else on this great planet as having value, and the potential to do great things.  That includes you.  If they make mistakes, no problem.  So do I.   Every time I do, I wish someone would grab me by the collar, shake me, and help me find a better way.  I'm not always that lucky, but such is life.

[Amarok]

I never said you did which is why I phrased it as a question 
Consensus within a jury does not alter the question 
Your free to take their word for it but I wouldn't considering my prior comments
I'm not asking you to assume anything you asked me a question I gave you an answer

I don't go around calling people monsters.  As soon as I start looking at people like that, then it would start to change me into a monster.  I see everybody else on this great planet as having value, and the potential to do great things.  That includes you.  If they make mistakes, no problem.  So do I.   Every time I do, I wish someone would grab me by the collar, shake me, and help me find a better way.  I'm not always that lucky, but such is life.

I think he is a monster is it possible for him to change yes . But that does not change my opinion of him now .

[Mister Agenda]

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.

He's not going to jail if we think he's unfit for the job, complicity doesn't have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before it's reasonable to think he's in the wrong job. Maybe it wasn't a smart move to cut the number of deputies in his county in half and make up the difference with mandatory overtime. Maybe we can discern what kind of culture he promoted from his words:

'A society that makes enemies of its police better learn to make friends with its criminals.'

'The members of Black Lives Matter movement are subhuman creeps.'

'First off, there's no police brutality in America.'

'Don't blame the police for having to deal aggressively due to underclass dysfunctional lifestyles brought on by failed liberal Democrat policies that keep blacks mired in a position of living life at the bottom.'

An inmate who sued because of being fed spoiled 'nutriloaf' that made him violently ill (there's almost two dozen other inmate lawsuits across the country concerning this purported food product). Clarke: 'Well, I sure hope teenagers across America don't figure out they can sue over not liking what's put on their plates.' The jail refused to release the recipe for the loaf even after a federal judge ordered it to do so. After Clarke was removed as superintendent of the House of Correction in 2013, his successor discontinued the serving of nutriloaf.

'Before long, Black Lies Matter will join forces with ISIS to bring down our legal constitutional republic. You heard it first here.'

When two deputies brought suit against him for bringing in an evangelical group to proselytize staff during mandatory meetings: 'Unfortunately, we live in an era when some people will make even God the enemy.'

To me, he sounds like a 'tough on criminals' blowhard who fostered exactly the kind of culture in which you would expect mistreatment and even the wrongful deaths of inmates. There's a reason why we look to the top of an organization when we seek accountability. There's a saying: When there's a problem with staff, look at management.

---

Stupid because I'm not passing judgment on someone?  Whatever guy.  Well then I guess I'll be "stupid" because I don't go around passing judgment of people just because someone insists I should based on what they believe.

You sound stupid because you seem to be claiming that Clarke wasn't aware of the lawsuit by the alleged rape victim. I think that's a miscommunication and you meant that Clarke was unaware of the serial raping while it was ongoing...I should hope so. I don't think you are actually arguing that Clarke was unaware of the lawsuit, which has you and everyone else talking past each other. But if I'm wrong about that, you really are being stupid.

---

Right he had no understanding of the abuse 

I take it you've never visited a jail or prison.  They're not always the friendliest of places.

I'm not going to blame someone for choices others make.  The people who actually committed the acts against the inmates are more of a concern.

Prisons vary widely, largely depending on who is in charge.

[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.

He's not going to jail if we think he's unfit for the job, complicity doesn't have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before it's reasonable to think he's in the wrong job. Maybe it wasn't a smart move to cut the number of deputies in his county in half and make up the difference with  mandatory overtime. Maybe we can discern what kind of culture he promoted from his words:

'A society that makes enemies of its police better learn to make friends with its criminals.'

'The members of Black Lives Matter movement are subhuman creeps.'

'First off, there's no police brutality in America.'

'Don't blame the police for having to deal aggressively due to underclass dysfunctional lifestyles brought on by failed liberal Democrat policies that keep blacks mired in a position of living life at the bottom.'

An inmate who sued because of being fed spoiled 'nutriloaf' that made him violently ill (there's almost two dozen other inmate lawsuits across the country concerning this purported food product). Clarke: 'Well, I sure hope teenagers across America don't figure out they can sue over not liking what's put on their plates.' The jail refused to release the recipe for the loaf even after a federal judge ordered it to do so. After Clarke was removed as superintendent of the House of Correction in 2013, his successor discontinued the serving of nutriloaf.

'Before long, Black Lies Matter will join forces with ISIS to bring down our legal constitutional republic. You heard it first here.'

When two deputies brought suit against him for bringing in an evangelical group to proselytize staff during mandatory meetings: 'Unfortunately, we live in an era when some people will make even God the enemy.'

To me, he sounds like a 'tough on criminals' blowhard who fostered exactly the kind of culture in which you would expect mistreatment and even the wrongful deaths of inmates. There's a reason why we look to the top of an organization when we seek accountability. There's a saying: When there's a problem with staff, look at management.

---

Stupid because I'm not passing judgment on someone?  Whatever guy.  Well then I guess I'll be "stupid" because I don't go around passing judgment of people just because someone insists I should based on what they believe.

You sound stupid because you seem to be claiming that Clarke wasn't aware of the lawsuit by the alleged rape victim. I think that's a miscommunication and you meant that Clarke was unaware of the serial raping while it was ongoing...I should hope so. I don't think you are actually arguing that Clarke was unaware of the lawsuit, which has you and everyone else talking past each other. But if I'm wrong about that, you really are being stupid.

---

I take it you've never visited a jail or prison.  They're not always the friendliest of places.

I'm not going to blame someone for choices others make.  The people who actually committed the acts against the inmates are more of a concern.

Prisons vary widely, largely depending on who is in charge.

I sound stupid because I stated something I didn't state? Brilliant!

[Mister Agenda]

You stated it. It just probably wasn't what you actually meant. Doubling down on it and mischaracterizing it this way makes you seem dishonest and incapable of admitting a simple mistake.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You stated it. It just probably wasn't what you actually meant. Doubling down on it and mischaracterizing it this way makes you seem dishonest and incapable of admitting a simple mistake.

If it was a typo, and you identified it as such, then what's the issue?  But honestly, it's unclear what you are talking about.  What post?  If there was a typo, then no problem.  Just assume it was an accident and we can both move on.