Mesa Police Chief George Gascón stares down Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Nice Gay Porn Picture of GasCan

Let's just be happy Bozo Joke's rain of terror is almost done...

Enough has been stolen, enough people have died, We've been lied to enough, we the tax payers have footed the bill long enough for Bozo Joke Arpaio...
Saban in 2008 !

Stallion: call the picture what you will... people who live in glass houses (buyers of books featuring a henna dyed hair, photoshopped smooth Arpaio)... shouldn't throw stones.

Seems to me that the joker Arpaio went against somebody with brains..(Gascon)and an inmigrant to boot and lost.Good for you Gascon..keep it up..show the Joker what a real police officer should be like...

there are two kinds of :"Illegal Aliens" in Az.
The first is someone who:is working, at jobs that no other person will do,pays social security taxes, state taxes, in which he will never collect in benefits,in 99% of instances will stay out of trouble.
The second "illegal Allien" is..someone who crosses the border to ,kidnap,kill, and sell drugs.Does not care about our State.
Most people (joker's supporter's)will point a finger at the first People while with the other hand buying drugs from the second.
The Joker's Supporters will say or point a finger at the Mexican cartels killing each other in Mex. what they don't understand is, they are killing each other in Mex. for the right to sell drugs in this state and accros tha Nation, because that;s where the money is and drug addicts..
They are not fighting each other to sell drugs to Mexicans
While most People will point a finger at those standing on corners trying to find a job.they don;t look at the latter.
Now the question is: which would you rather have in Az?
Joker's supporters would vote for the latter because before they go to a demo to support the Joker... they get high
which is more important to them?? and to Az??

Great article!!!

Todd PonyBoy just wishes he was in the picture too; on his knees and smokin' Gascon's Cuban cigar.

There are two things I like about Phoenix New Times: (1) Its irreverent, give 'em hell attitude toward those in authority (when their actions warrant it), and (2) its in-depth treatment of subjects, whether in a single long article or in columns which follow-up on earlier reporting. In other words, good old-fashioned muckraking journalism of the sort which seldom appears in, er, that other local newspaper.

Ray Stern's article contains both elements, and congratulations are in order. Nevertheless, I feel that Mr. Stern's article was blemished by his statistical analysis of crime rates for the illegal immigrant population. I recognize the fact that he seems to be making an effort to provide "balanced" coverage of the issue, but in doing so he employs weak arguments which cede territory without any compelling reason to do so.

For example, in analyzing Chief Gascon's conclusion that illegal immigrants don't commit crimes out of proportion to their percentage of the population, Stern characterizes Gascon's argument as follows: from February to April of this year, just under 8 percent of "suspects" arrested by the Mesa Police Department admitted to being here illegally; and since "the estimated population of illegal immigrants in Arizona is 8 percent" the crime rate for the illegal immigrant population is proportional to their presence here.

I don't know whether the 8 percent figure is accurate, but we can use it as a working premise.

The problem begins when Stern goes on to analyze the data by month. First, he notes that the percentage of admitted illegal immigrants who were arrested rose from 6 percent in February to 10.7 percent in April. No problem so far, but now he concludes that, using Gascon's own argument, "it would make sense that illegals commit crimes slightly out of proportion to their numbers".

Well, let's see. In February, illegals had an arrest rate 2 percentage points BELOW their estimated statewide population percentage. In April it was 2.7 percentage points ABOVE this. It seems to me then, that one is as justified in using the minimum figure as the maximum figure. If we can say, on the basis of these figures, that illegal immigrants are "slightly more likely" to commit crimes than their numbers here suggest, we are also justified in arguing, from the same figures, that they are slightly LESS likely to commit crimes than their numbers would suggest. Why, then, does Mr. Stern insist on using the maximum instead of the minimum? Better yet -- since both conclusions seem unwarranted -- why not take the average for these two months, yielding an arrest rate of 8.35 percent -- again, perfectly in line with Gascon's arguments as represented by Stern.

Mr. Stern insists on the maximum as a more realistic figure for several reasons, given in his article.

The first of these is that "it seems unlikely that the population of undocumented residents in Mesa nearly doubled in three months." So it does. However, it also seems unlikely that the crime rate of illegal immigrants in Mesa nearly doubled from 60 per 1,000 to 107 per 1,000 over three months. Perhaps, like Vulcans, illegal immigrants periodically run amok. No? Then perhaps we should remember that what we are actually discussing is not the crime rate, but the arrest rate. That in turn begs the question of special enforcement actions (e.g., raids on drop-houses and other targeted law-enforcement efforts) taking place more intensively in some months than in others. There is also the issue of ordinary statistical fluctuation over the short term. Sometimes the figures dip below average, and sometimes they rise above. It's a shame that Mr. Stern didn't dig just a little deeper in order to sort these issues out properly.

The second reason Mr. Stern chooses to use the maximum figure in concluding that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a rate slightly higher than their numbers justify, is that "It is also a stretch to think that, in any month this year, illegal immigrants made up nearly half of the 25 percent of Hispanics in Mesa."

I suppose that 10.7 is "nearly half" of 25, if you want to argue loosely. What Stern really means is that he considers it "a stretch" to think that illegal immigrants comprise 10.7 percent of Mesa's total population.

Exactly why that is a "stretch" Mr. Stern doesn't say. In arguing to the contrary, New Times readers should consider two factors: first, the "8 percent" figure may understate matters. According to an article by Michael Kiefer for the Arizona Republic, published on Feb. 25 of this year, "a November 2007 report by the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that favors immigration control, estimated there are 579,000 undocumented immigrants in Arizona, or 9 percent of the state’s population. The concentration of undocumented immigrants is thought to be higher in metropolitan Phoenix."

That last sentence leads us directly to consideration of the second factor: except for migrant farm laborers and the like, most illegal immigrants settle where most of the jobs are. In Arizona, most of the jobs are in the major cities like Metropolitan Phoenix (including Mesa). No doubt it is also easier to blend in amongst the teeming masses in large cities than in Mayberry where strangers are scrutinized; and certainly illegal immigrants, like other immigrants, tend to collect in areas where they are already established and can support new arrivals, materially and culturally. No doubt whole neighborhoods in Mesa are comprised largely of illegal immigrants.

So, if 8 (or 9) percent of Arizona residents are illegal immigrants, and comparatively few (less than 8 or 9 percent) reside outside the major cities, then MORE than 8 (or 9) percent must reside in major metropolitan areas. If the statewide average is 9 percent, it is scarcely a "stretch" to assume that perhaps 10.7 percent of Mesa residents are illegals.

To be fair to Mr. Stern, he has additional arguments. The third of these involves figures from the MCSO, the Arizona Department of Corrections, and the Phoenix Police Department.

Stern cites DOC figures saying that "14 percent of inmates were foreign nationals as of June 1". However, he also quotes a DOC spokesman as saying that a "notable portion" of these individuals were in the country LEGALLY. Though the spokesman claimed not to know how many, Stern cites "his records" which show that ICE currently plans to deport 6.7 percent of total inmates.

We know, then, only that *at least* 6.7 percent of DOC inmates are illegal immigrants. However, since DOC goes through procedures to determine the residency status of inmates, and MCSO checks this when the prisoners are arrested and jailed (prior to their sentencing to prison), the residue of unknowns must be small. Perhaps there are individuals who have been determined to be here illegally, but whose final deportation orders have yet to be processed by ICE.

At any rate, according to these figures, the percentage of illegals in the custody of DOC could be as small as 7 percent. One should also remember that "foreign nationals" come from places other than Mexico and Central America. There are significant numbers of foreign nationals in the Valley from Canada, the Caribbean, Africa, Asia, and Europe. Presumably they also contribute criminal elements from time to time.

Another point to consider here is that illegal immigrants, being generally poor, are more likely to be assigned public defenders rather than private attorneys. As Sarah Fenske points out in her current New Times article, defendents thus represented may be more likely to be convicted and incarcerated. Even so, prison figures of 6.7 percent don't exactly scream "illegal immigrant crime spree" when compared to an illegal immigrant population on the order of 9 percent statewide (and likely significantly higher where major metropolitan concentrations are concerned).

For Phoenix Police Department figures, Mr. Stern cites an "April column" in the Arizona Republic discussing how many suspects booked by PPD into jail turned out to be undocumented.

Due to the Arizona Republic's patented obscuro-ware, I couldn't locate the item in question. Eventually, through a library database, I did find an op-ed piece by PPD Chief Jack Harris dated May 28 of this year, in which Harris states: "Also, of the nearly 46,000 criminals that Phoenix officers booked into the Maricopa County jail last year, more than 6,000 were found to be in the country illegally and holds were placed on them for federal authorities. I appreciate the efforts of the Maricopa County sheriff and his staff at the jail, as the status of these undocumented individuals was identified largely through the screening conducted by jail personnel who have undergone federal immigration training."

That corresponds to the 13 percent figure given by Stern. Note also that these figures were actually provided by MCSO, and that (for reasons Stern notes in his article) this 13 percent of arrestees figure is likely to be far more informative than the 20 percent of jail population figure.

So far, then, the PPD/MCSO figures provide the only evidence in Stern's article for saying that illegal immigrants commit crimes in (even slightly) greater proportion than warranted by their percentage of the population -- though again, their percentage of the statewide population has yet to be reliably determined, and their metropolitan concentrations are thought to be higher still.

In addition, however, there are other factors to be considered. Presumably, in comparing arrest rates between illegal immigrants and legal residents, we would like to exclude arrests which are purely immigration related, since what we are really interested in is general crime rates exclusive of immigration issues. That, however, is not forthcoming in Stern's article.

Furthermore, there are all those cases where arrests were made *because* the suspects admitted to being here illegally. That is, the kind of minor offenses for which legal residents would merely be cited and released, but which in the case of undocumented suspects resulted in their arrest *because* they admitted to being here illegally (and were therefore subject to detention while an ICE hold was placed and processed). These cases should also be excluded from any comparison of arrest rates, for the same reason, since they inflate the statistics of one group for purely technical reasons.

Unfortunately, Mr. Stern failed to go far enough in breaking down and analyzing those figures, but I suspect that if he had, the arrest rates for illegal immigrants (exclusive of misdemeanor charges which would result in citation and release of legal residents under otherwise identical circumstances, and exclusive of purely immigration related charges) would actually be consistently LESS than the estimated population percentage of illegal immigrants in the jurisdictions concerned.

All in all, the best data available thus far on crime rates for illegal immigrants in Arizona, provided by state, county, and local sources, provides no evidence that illegal immigrants commit crimes out of proportion to their numbers. Indeed, so little hard data is available, even as to basic items of information such as illegal immigrant populations in specified areas (such as Mesa), that firm conclusions are impossible. What little reliable data there is suggests that illegal immigrants are no more likely to commit non-immigration related crimes than legal residents -- perhaps less, as the vast majority of them struggle to keep a low profile while working menial jobs in order to send remittances back to their extended families in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America.

While it is merely anecdotal evidence, I can't help but note my own experiences. I ride the city bus, and the illegals are so afraid of drawing attention to themselves that they often hang back, mutely gesturing for the anglos (like myself) to board before they do, lest someone become irritated by them and scrutinize them. Is this really the behavior of congenital criminals? Or is it the behavior of circumspect individuals trying to pass amongst the general population while they do menial work for low wages?

God damn the lazy fucks at Phoenix New Times' IT department. You would think that, given the ostensible superiority of capitalism as an economic system, their Webmaster would by now have figured out how to write code for comments software which incorporates the paragraph breaks inserted by the writer, instead of turning multi-paragraph text into ONE BIG RUN-ON SENTENCE. Thanks for turning several hours spent in crafting a carefully reasoned, constructive criticism into an unreadable waste of time.

I am very pleased with our new police chief, George Gascon. He has a very level headed approach to this whole illegal immigrant thing. While I do not believe people should come to this country illegally, I don't believe we can give up our civil rights to solve a problem. Remember, the old saying, when they came for the jews, I said nothing because I was not jew, when they came for the blacks, I said nothing because I was not black, etc. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

I like the New Times. But I am absolutely flabbergasted by the myopic view concerning the Mesa illegal immigrant sweeps.

If Gascon "stared down" Joe, then why did only a week after the sweeps did they revise their policy and now require their officers to determine the resident status of arrestees? Why did Gascon (by his own admission) have far too many police officers to control the small group of protesters during the sweeps? 130 officers for roughly 70-100 protesters. Why did the Mesa PD first come out and say they weren't going to investigate the anti-Joe graffiti and the very next day reverse itself and say that since he was an elected official they would investigate?

Because Sheriff Joe, for all his rhetoric and bravado, is on the right side of this issue. He is in line with the majority of Maricopa voters when he throws out the net to catch illegal immigrants. And he is right when he says Mesa is becoming a haven for illegals and the criminal element. In my 15 years in Phoenix, I have seen Mesa go from a nice bedroom community to a dangerous place I only visit when absolutely necessary. Seems like more than half of the violent news stories in the valley seem to come from Mesa.

And Mesa residents should be mad, the law abiding ones at least. I wouldn't be surprised to see Gascon fired soon if he doesn't start falling in line with public opinion and enforcing the law equally.

I know the New Times has an anti-Joe agenda. I realize that being a politically slanted organization, much like Fox News but leaning a different direction, that probably won't change. But stories like this one that obviously fly in the face of the facts isn't doing any service to either your publication of the anti-Joe forces of the world. It just diminshes your reputation as a news source and makes you look desperate.

Emil,

We're on it. Your issue will be ticketed and addressed Monday morning.

If Sheriff Joe is soooooo bad, why does he keep getting relected by such large margins? Perhaps he is doing what the voters want - arresting criminals.

Ya everyone knows Joe is a PR hound but how about the real issues? Our problems aren't from illegals -key word illegal. Lets talk about the word illegal. We may need to remind the government, those upholding the supposed laws and public what the word illegal means. According to the dictionary illegal immigration means a foreigner who either has illegally crossed an international political border, be it by land, water, or air, or a foreigner who has entered a country legally but then overstays his/her visa. This means they have broken the law. Period.

Sorry I just don’t get it. If you break the law you break the law. Not a, well if you broke the law 5 years ago don’t worry about it we will only take action if you break another law. Has everyone gone insane? The entire issue is stupid. The logic by the government is – Oh well we haven’t been enforcing the law so lets change it. Not the same but kind of the same idea- Kids can’t meet the education requirements so lets dummy down the test (another joke).

Kids, our economy is in serious trouble and the entire issue of who and who doesn’t belong here is a joke/distraction to the real issues. We are headed into a majot depression. Have we learned nothing from teh past. We need to refocus on teh real issues jobs, education, health and why we are at war. WAKE UP!

Ken, the "stare down" description, while mildly hyperbolic, is essentially accurate. Arpaio had previously engaged in a war of words in the media, criticizing Gascon's policies and approach, and asserting his preeminent authority to do as he wished, without proper notification or coordination, despite the expressed wishes of the local Chief of Police and in violation of professional protocol and courtesy. Arpaio had also planned to take control of events from a local command post. Instead, when Gascon's show of force established Mesa PD's control of the area and its supervision of events, Arpaio became flustered and retreated to downtown Phoenix, where he angrily denounced Gascon for daring to intervene. That's as close to a "stare down" as a figurative expression can get.

It's also interesting to note the effect that Mesa PD's supervision had on the usual assortment of armed, right-wing protesters and provocateurs. When they saw (or more likely, heard beforehand through the grapevine) that their usual antics were not going to be tolerated and that protesters would be assigned to segregated, carefully monitored areas, they didn't show. Also, as far as overkill is concerned, don't forget that Mesa PD expected on the order of 400 protestors, but when only a handful of anti-immigration activists came that greatly reduced the numbers.

As for changes in Mesa PD's policy, that was dictated by Mesa's deeply conservative Mayor and other city leaders. Ask them why the policy was changed. My theory is that they needed a bone to throw to the reactionaries who called to complain after Gascon opted for public safety, law, and order, instead of the usual circus which constitutes the Joe Show.

As for the graffiti flip-flop, Mesa's initial "so what?" reaction was natural enough, but later they probably decided that if anything ever did happen, Uncle Joe would try to tie it to the "anti-Joe" graffiti and blame Mesa officials for irresponsibility in failing to investigate. So they put political pragmatism ahead of normal procedures and said they would investigate.

Now, when you say that "Mesa has become a haven for illegals and the criminal element", aren't you conflating two separate issues? Because most of the crimes committed in Mesa, as Stern's article clearly shows, aren't committed by illegals. So, if you're really concerned about crime in Mesa -- and you're right to be -- then you ought to be agitating to have limited law-enforcement resources assigned to the biggest problems first, where it can do the most good.

I assume you agree that the biggest problem isn't otherwise law-abiding cooks and tree-trimmers and so forth, whose biggest crime is being here illegally and driving a jalopy with dirty plates, but instead involves drug dealers, burglars and robbers, rapists and other violent criminals -- in short, professional and recidivist criminals committing felonies. No doubt some of those are also illegals, but not most of them, and besides, Joe's "sweeps" aren't targeting that criminal element, they're targeting random brown-skinned persons. If he manages to pull in a few serious criminals with outstanding warrants that way, its by luck only.

So exactly how does Stern's story "fly in the face of the facts"? Which facts do you contest, and why? Contrary to diminishing Phoenix New Times, this story is yet another feather in its cap. And if they have an anti-Joe agenda it's because his behavior warrants it. He's a major public official with a lot of power and he (and his deputies) abuse it on a regular basis, sometimes heinously. You ought to be congratulating New Times for its civic spirit in doggedly exposing this.

Gascon is an arrogant scumbag. He should NOT be wearing that uniform. He's a worthless rent-a-cop who has no interest in protecting Mesa and its CITIZENS. He is a shame to the force. He's nothing but a media hog like the rest of the useless politicians these papers trail after like dogs.

"the frustration over illegal immigration that has caused voters over the past four years to deny certain rights and public benefits to undocumented residents"

WTF?!?!?! "Undocumented resident?!" Way to doctor it up, Ray. They are in the country illegally. There is nothing more to it. Call them what they are: Illegal.

If you are an ILLEGAL ALIEN who skirted our laws on purpose, you do not deserve the RIGHTS and privileges of a legal citizen of the United States. That isn't to say that you deserve to be left in the street bleeding, but why on earth would you deserve benefits given to hard-working, LEGAL citizens?! That's idiotic.

Hell, let's just give up on protecting our borders. You're right, Ray. Let's just get all lovey-dovey and let them all in. Who cares?! Really, what's the big deal anyway, right? So, a couple of whack-job terrorists or convicted murders or what-have-you's walk across the unchecked border... You'll still let your kids go play at the park, right? Sure, there's absolutely nothing to worry about when anyone can just waltz into the country.

Idiot. This is just a bag of panzie-ass, bleeding-heart liberal dribble to throw on the bullshit pile.

A country that stops maintaining its borders eventually stops being a country.

How nice that Concerned Legal Citizen came all the way from Tampa, Florida just to share his rabid opinions with us. If you don't like it here, why don't you go back home? (Just my little joke.)

There is, alas, one effing big problem with your claim that Ray Stern's article is "just a bag of panzie-ass, bleeding-heart liberal dribble to throw on the bullshit pile" because "a country that stops maintaining its borders eventually stops being a country".

The problem is that defending the borders is the job of the U.S. Border Patrol and other federal immigration authorities, not the job of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Maricopa County doesn't even share a border with Mexico. (Yuma, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise counties do.)

If the U.S. Border Patrol stood idly by and allowed unfettered immigration without respect to U.S. law, you might have a point. But it doesn't. And while the MCSO has, on occasion, a legitimate auxilliary role to play in enforcing immigration law, Uncle Joe's "sweeps" don't qualify.

Furthermore, they don't begin to make a dent in illegal immigration. Perhaps you don't understand that arresting roughly two dozen illegal immigrants once a month in these so-called "crime sweeps", is merely a publicity stunt in a state containing more than half a million illegal immigrant workers. All these sweeps do is waste scarce law-enforcement resources that could be better spent on operations targeting serious crimes, instead of pulling over countless random, brown-skinned individuals without reasonable cause, in order to discover a few illegal immigrants among them. Operations such as reducing the backlog of outstanding felony warrants on known and dangerous, but unarrested, habitual criminals; or collecting police intelligence to target professional, recidivist criminals; or virtually anything else that might have a more beneficial effect on public safety than pulling in a handful of otherwise law abiding dishwashers, maids, landscapers and other dogsbodies.

But of course, you can't see this, because your concern isn't really crime or the law, but racist paranoia.

Dear "Lazy IT Fuck",

It's a little early for congratulations. Because after seeing my comment posted as the 20th (WITH carriage returns inserted, mirabile dictu), I checked back a little later for new comments, by hitting the refresh icon, to find that there are now only 19th comments listed again. After several additional clicks on the refresh icon, there are again 20: and there is my comment at the end again. But going to the main menu and then clicking on this story returns the number to 19 and makes that 20th comment disappear yet again. I noticed the same problem with Sarah Fenske's article Green Machine some time ago.

P.S. Another problem is that going to the New Times site, clicking on this story, and then clicking on "show all" (to display the complete text of the story) reduces by 1 the number of comments shown to exist. I don't know how long that will last, but as of now it occurs consistently.

Emil,

Because of the mad traffic we get on our 16 sites, we must use a cache system to serve out dynamic pages in a static fashion, or we'd suffer major slowdowns on publish days and other high-traffic events. When a comment or review gets posted, the cache file for that particular page gets re-created, and then distributed across our network. What you're seeing when you get inconsistent counts on comments is the load balancers working faster than the cache propagation.

FYI, we have a link at the bottom of each page titled 'Problem with the site?', which will get lazy IT fuck eyes on a problem a lot faster than mentioning it in a story comment.

Joe is doing what the community wants...enforcing the law!

Emil,

Because of the mad traffic we get on our 16 sites, we must use a cache system to serve out dynamic pages in a static fashion, or we'd suffer major slowdowns on publish days and other high-traffic events. When a comment or review gets posted, the cache file for that particular page gets re-created, and then distributed across our network. What you're seeing when you get inconsistent counts on comments is the load balancers working faster than the cache propagation.

FYI, we have a link at the bottom of each page titled 'Problem with the site?', which will get lazy IT fuck eyes on a problem a lot faster than mentioning it in a story comment.

Joe and Candy Ass can suck it.

Good work but it's time to start looking at Corrput Scottsdale now. The crooked city prosecutors, the worthless mayor and abusive cops and the judges who make it all possible. IMO, start with Judge Orest Jejna.

What a stupid hit piece on the Arizona Sheriff.

We need a lot more Sheriff Joes in this country. The other
nit wit mentioned in the article is a product of the broken
justice system in California.

In my book, Joe is doing his job and is mindful of the citizens and their tax dollars. These other clowns should probably be in jail for not doing their sworn jobs.

Christ, it depresses me to see how many people blindly line up to suck off Arpaio because he's "tough on crime!!!". He's wasting taxpayer money paying for Honduras' national security and catching brown people. He's not doing jack to keep the county safe with this immigration bull (unless you're afraid of brown people) and the sooner he's finally lost his grip on Maricopa, the better. I can't wait until Sun City finally doesn't wake up on election day.

Gascon believes in harassment of good working families as much as criminals--just so he can get his job done. He closes his eyes to the "blue wall" and lets things slide so long as they "get the job done." He believes in the oldest excuse there is "the ends justify the means." I can not look at him without thinking about how he abuses the system. Just take the air patrol everyone says they feel safe seeing. Harrassment by air cops to push a family over the edge. They want to insite crimes so they can finish a vendeta. Gascan thank goodness--not my cities Chief of Police--sorry, CHiefia de la Policia. Remember this is the new New Mexico.

Gascon is an open-border-promoting Mexican dirtbag that used to work for LAPD. If there was ever any reason to call a cop a pig, Gascon is it. He ought to be deported.

Illegal aliens are criminals and parasites, one and all. Their very presence here and practically everything they do on U. S. soil is illegal. They need to be ferreted out, rounded up like cattle, punished for their numerous crimes, then booted back to whence they snuck in from with such extreme prejudice that they will never, ever think of violating our sovereignty again. Enough is enough.