Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Sheriff Dupnik and President Obama, Thank You for Your Worthless Opinions...Now Will You Please Go to Work?

I recently read a scathing piece about Sheriff Dupnik of Pima County, Arizona in the wake of the recent shooting. SixMeatBuffet is a funny blog and I read it frequently. Here is that post:

That piece had to do with Sheriff Dupnik blaming a vitriolic society for facilitating guys like Jared Loughner, the deranged Arizona killer, to do what they do. The Sheriff's comments were out of line, simplistic, and inaccurate. But what really caught my eye as I reviewed YouTube vids was what Sheriff Dupnik had to say about Arizona's immigration statute. I was amazed to hear him say that he was not going to enforce Arizona's new immigration law. He said it was "unneccessary." The Sheriff is also opposed to allowing folks to carry concealed weapons in Arizona.

The Sheriff clearly has a lefty lean. That's ok. If the voters in Pima County like him- and clearly they have for about 30 years- they can elect him.

The Sheriff also has the same right to voice his opinion just as any of us might. But what really frosts my ass about this guy is the same thing that has frosted my ass for years about politicians including small town and not so small town politicians. We don't hire lawmen for their fucking opinions. We hire them to enforce the law. I don't give two shits if Sheriff Dupnick hates every law on Arizona's books. It's his job to enforce those shitty laws or introduce legislation to change them. That's the procedure.

If politicians think a law sucks- get rid of it. That's their job.

Each and every lawman takes a sworn oath to uphold the laws of his jurisdiction and the state in which he or she polices in. No where in that oath does it say that you can pick and choose which laws to enforce. Nor does the oath say you can ignore laws that you find distasteful and unappealing.

I worked in a small town. There are many laws that I didn't like and as a libertarian you might guess which laws those are. But I make no apologies for enforcing them. Do I think smoking or selling pot should be illegal? No. Do I think laws ordering you to wear seat belts or helmets is intrusive and a government over reach? Of course. I enforced those laws despite my opinions about them.The point I am making here is that the world doesn't give a shit what my opinion is. I knew what I was hired to do. Nullifying existing statute by indifference was not part of the job description.

That's where guys like Sheriff Dupnick cross the line. The Sheriff whines about getting sued-pandering to the fears of taxpayers and voters. He opposes the immigration law because it is a political win-win for him. He can come off like a great guy- to both sides of the debate.

I agree with some of the points that Sheriff Dupnick makes. I am fine with his freedom to express those opinions. But Sheriff Dupnick crosses the line when he flat out says he won't enforce existing law. We call that dereliction of duty. A violation of his oath of office. He doesn't possess the contractual right to  tell his employers (residents) that he is not going to do the job he was hired to do. And God help those Tucson residents if they are going to re-elect people that refuse to enforce or obey laws. If we are going to do that- let's just give Arizona back to the Mexican government. The 9th circuit court has already ruled that it is illegal to require proof of citizenship prior to voting. The Federal Government's indifference- and it's refusal to protect our borders- is probably reason enough to impeach Obama. I'm not kidding. The President functions as the head of the executive branch- law enforcement and commander-in-chief. Is Obama derelict with regard to enforcing immigration? I think so. Did Obama take an oath? Yea, I think he did. Was part of that oath swearing to uphold the laws of this country?

The Pima County Sheriff and the President both have a lot in common. They both think they are above the law and that enforcing that law is just a suggestion and open to their idealistic interpretations and politically motivated opinions. They apparently neglect or have forgotten what they were elected to do in the first place.


Kristy said...

Soooo B just how do you really feel, I'm not sure just what "it frosts my ass" means!!! Ha ha love ya!

rawmuse said...

If I am the Defense attorney for the shooter, I am loving all this. It will virtually assure a change of venue, maybe an insanity defense. After all, all that hateful rhetoric drove the shooter to commit his act, along with the voices in his head. Here is what I think is happening. Dupnik knows that this kid crossed his radar screen in the past. He knows this kid made death threats. There are records of same. Such could have been enough to disqualify the kid for gun ownership at the Fed level. Dupnik knows he could have prevented all of this had he arrested him prior to the shooting. So he comes out strong on the offense. Casts a wide net of blame to take the heat off of his own hindparts. He is deflecting, IMHO.

rawmuse said...

Heh, the radio news just announced that the Sheriff will NOT release documents detailing prior contact with the shooter.

CYA at full throttle here...

Anonymous said...

The good sheriff sounds like a prime example of what he claims he hates. Unfortunately there is no known cure for stupid.

DaveP said...

I agree with the comments about not being able to choose which laws to uphold, at least on the local and state level.

What are your opinions about sheriffs refusing to cooperate with overreaching Fed laws (ie: 10th amendment issues) such as refusing to allow the DEA, FDA etc to storm-troop over your constituents (since sheriffs are elected) because of the medicine they choose to take or milk they choose to drink?

I'm just learning about 10th Amendment issues...a lot of local Libertarians really like sheriff Mack:

Brian said...

Excellent question Dave and I am glad that you have asked it.

Jefferson was a genius. He knew that if the Federal Government ever obtained power over the states- we would find ourselves at their mercy. There were other folks, like Sam Adams, that agreed with that premise. That is why they worked so diligently to put the balance of power into the states rather than the Federal Government.

Fast forward 230 years and we see that that the FED Government has usurped authority over the states. They were able to do this primarily- by seizing all of the wealth of taxpayers and then holding states hostage.

Having said that- I am almost always anti-Federal Government at all levels. I believe in the power of the states. The states can only hope to recapture their loss sovereignty by calling a constitutional convention. This will happen. I believe that. I think we still have a ways to go.