AZMEX Responds to Sheriff Joe’s Threat to Shoot Militiamen (By Accident)

You may recall our recent post AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio to Militia: We Will Shoot You. By Accident. One of our prime sources for border info pondered the implications of Sheriff Joe’s threat, made after one of Apaio’s men encountered a militia member who [allegedly] pointed a gun at the law enforcement officer. Here’s his take on the incident.

1.    First and foremost: the underlying situation is entirely due to the failures of the federal govt. to secure the borders. Sharing the guilt are America’s dopers. Who finance the cartels and the thousands of murders.

2.  Despite his claim of being a “Minuteman”, he seems to be unknown to any of the “regulars.” Their very strict SOP / ROE [Standard Operational Procedure / Rules of Engagement]: observe and report. Firearms are carried solely for self defense . . .

3.   This incident once again points out the need for protocols / procedures between law enforcement and citizens during encounters.  A related issue, here in the SW, law enforcement and the drug gangs often get the wrong address.

4.   Law enforcement routinely shoots anyone who points a firearm at them.

5.   Yes, it was a bad idea. The cartels and associates have warned that citizens and off duty law enforcement interfering with shipments can be held accountable. That can also apply to citizens who report activities. However, the growing frustration of citizens is understandable.

6.   In this particular incident, given the increasing infiltration of law enforcement by cartels, how can citizens be sure those they meet with a badge and uniform are not on both payrolls? Even Sheriff Joe’s office has been successfully compromised.

7.  Remember also, that cartel associates often use acquired law enforcement uniforms, badges and cloned vehicles in their activities. When able, actual law enforcement personnel and vehicles

8.  Given the current federal government, anyone who might interfere with, or even harm a drug or human trafficker, may very likely at the least, face federal civil rights charges.

9.  To many of us lowly locals, it is beginning to look like “public” lands in southern AZ are increasingly reserved for cartel and government personnel only.

comments

  1. avatar Anonymous says:

    “To many of us lowly locals, it is beginning to look like “public” lands in southern AZ are increasingly reserved for cartel and government personnel only.”

    That’s because they are receiving a government escort and free access to US guns courtesy of ATF gunwalking.

    1. avatar Proverbs says:

      Point 9 catches most of my attention, too. Here in AZ, our state Game & Fish Agency has basically roped off the southern 25 percent of this very large state. The Hunting Regulations run a dotted line east-to-west, just south of Casa Grande (40 mins south of Phoenix), and the following warning is quoted from the printed regulations: “Homeland Security Issues along the International Border may affect the quality of a person’s hunt.” Most of our deer live in this vast area. But it’s not uncommon to get hasseled by Fed. agents while hunting, wanting to know what you are doing walking around with a rifle. At least it’s usually better than having the human coyotes and ‘immigrants’ walk into your hunting camp and ask/demand for food and water, or to give them a ride north. We’ve run into terrible situations hunting there, and more and more citizens are avoiding the area. It’s like the US is abandoning a huge chunk of our country.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        It’d be cheaper, more effective, and safer for all concerned to just build the damn fence!

      2. avatar Solitude says:

        It’s sad… back in the late 80’s and early 90’s I used to hunt dove, coues and javelina in southern AZ.

  2. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/20110525mcsoarrests0525.html?nclick_check=1

    If you ever watched the first season of Discovery Channel’s “Cops & Coyotes”, Deputy Navarette should look familiar. Turns out there were several times Navarette tipped off the cartels about drug interdiction by MCSO.

  3. avatar Roll says:

    If they are looking for the cartel goons, then WTF are they doing in Maricopa county? They do eventually make there way up there, but they should be in Pima, Cochise, Santa Cruz counties ….ya know, the ones next to the BORDER…where we run into drug mules and cartel a-holes every damn day…

  4. avatar Paul53 says:

    Dear Sherriff Joe. Can you understand “premeditated” murder? Granted the militias shouldn’t be that far North of the border, but shooting Americans “by accident” isn’t in your job description.

    1. avatar George says:

      “…shouldn’t be that far north of the border…”

      Well sadly, as a result of the cartels moving further north and LEOs having to follow along, soon the northern AZ border may become the new DMZ…

      1. avatar Paul53 says:

        Agreed wholeheartedly. I live in El Paso. My favorite bartender knows that there’s a price on her head because her husband is a BP agent. Favorite Mexican restaurant is up in Alamogordo, and have to go through a BP checkpoint when Northbound from here. They sometimes give me a hard time for being anglo with a New England accent! Their take “English and Irish get off the plane in Boston and disappear!”

  5. avatar Hal says:

    “8. Given the current federal government, anyone who might interfere with, or even harm a drug or human trafficker, may very likely at the least, face federal civil rights charges.”

    Harm? As in, physically? Yes, we as citizens do not possess the authority to open fire on or assault drug/human traffickers simply by virtue of their douchbaggery. That would be like saying I can drive up to a drug dealer on the corner and shoot him. Besides that, however, the statement quoted above is an awfully big stretch. Can we leave the tin-foil hats in the gun safe next to our rifles for a while?

  6. avatar Jason says:

    FIFY:
    1. First and foremost: the underlying situation is entirely due to the failures of the federal govt. to secure the borders. Sharing the guilt are America’s political class. Who finance the cartels and the thousands of murders, through their war on drugs, which drives the drug trade into the hands of criminals, increases drug profits, promotes violence as the only conflict resolution, and promotes violence as the best way to avoid punishment.

    1. avatar CB says:

      No kidding. By that logic everyone in the speakeasies in the 20’s were responsible for Capone and all the other gangsters. Don’t prohibit harmless substances/substances in extreme public demand “for the children” and you won’t have the black markets and crime that follow.

      1. avatar Ted G says:

        Legalize everything and nothing will be illegal… nice way to pass the buck.

        1. avatar eshank881 says:

          So you’d be in favor of bringing back prohibition? The point is that most of the trafficking revolves around marijuana, a substance that has been shown to be less harmful than alcohol and for which there is sufficient demand to create a market. Don’t allow legal markets for high-demand goods with no victims, and the criminals will fill the void with a black market. This is because there’s money to be made and most criminals are happy to do worse for less. Blaming people who want the substance and who, were it not for the government, would be able to procure it legally IS passing the buck. CB nailed it, but good job with the slippery-slope obfuscation there Ted.

        2. avatar James Navy Vet says:

          Prohibition has failed PERIOD, there is no other way to look at it. We have the highest prison population in the world – 25% of the prisoners and only 5% of the worlds population. Drugs are still accessible, commonly used, and of high quality. The only thing the war on drugs as gotten us has been a shit load of deaths, prisoners, and trillions in tax payer money spent.

          Legalization isn’t the perfect solution but is the best one there is. And it doesn’t need to be perfect, just better than what we have now.

    2. avatar Hal says:

      I see it both ways. The war on drugs is expensive and creates a lot of these problems. I am in support of decriminalization, at the very least. However, until something like that happens we still need to acknowledge the realities of the situation. The war on drugs may have created these criminal organizations, but American decadence pays for them. This includes stoners who are by definition either totally ignorant or totally apathetic.

      The cartels = drug laws + profits.

      They can’t exist without both. It’s a little silly to blame one and not the other. Whether consumer demand and the profits that come with it should be legal or not is a philosophical distinction that does not alleviate the responsibility that every single pot-head shares if they are purchasing cartel weed.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        There’s that grabber mentality again, applied to the boogieman of people who like to relax with a euphoriant.

        1. avatar Hal says:

          Boy Rich, did you actually read what I wrote? You’re deliberate misinterpretation of my statement borders on troll behavior. I am not ARGUING for the war on drugs, nor am I saying that they should be illegal or confiscated. I never said that… in fact I said quite the opposite. You’ve completely mischaracterized what I wrote (you know, much like the statist media does) based on… well frankly it’s such a crazy logic leap that I can’t really see what you based your comment on.

          To address your flame against me, I am not a grabber. In fact, I am pretty damn sure that nothing I have EVER written on TTAG could be misconstrued as being in support of gun control or gun laws. I am a second amendment purist, and I man that in every sense of the word. There’s not a gun law on the books that I wouldn’t see abolished. So I resent your comment, especially given that you were attacking a stance I am not taking.

          Let’s examine my original comment: “I see it both ways. The war on drugs is expensive and creates a lot of these problems. I am in support of decriminalization, at the very least. However, until something like that happens we still need to acknowledge the realities of the situation. The war on drugs may have created these criminal organizations, but American decadence pays for them. This includes stoners who are by definition either totally ignorant or totally apathetic.

          The cartels = drug laws + profits.

          They can’t exist without both. It’s a little silly to blame one and not the other. Whether consumer demand and the profits that come with it should be legal or not is a philosophical distinction that does not alleviate the responsibility that every single pot-head shares if they are purchasing cartel weed.”

          Now how does any of that constitute a grabber mentality Rich? Nowhere in that comment did I say ANYTHING in support of drug laws or drug confiscation. I would happily throw drug laws in the trash alongside gun laws. My comment was about being grown-ups and accepting responsibility for one’s actions. If a person wants to smoke the cartels’ weed then they should at least be honest with themselves about their culpability in funding them. Should the drug-prohibition induced vacuum that created the cartels exist? No, but that does not automatically alleviate the other side of the equation. Just as I am well-aware that when I buy Saudi oil I am supporting despots and if I wear Nike running shoes I am supporting sweat shops. I am a grown up and a man and I accept my role in supporting those practices. I am not even saying that people SHOULDN’T smoke Mexican weed, just that they should have an OUNCE of awareness by accepting that they are part of the tripod. The cartels = shitty US drug prohibition laws + profits. Stop the apologist crap and stop denying the brutal reality of that equation because nothing you can ever say will disprove it. The cartels wouldn’t exist without profits; deal with it. Don’t attack me by calling me a grabber simply because you aren’t comfortable with people having to accept that their behaviors affect more than just themselves.

          Actions, like elections, have consequences.

  7. avatar twency says:

    “4. Law enforcement routinely shoots anyone who points a firearm at them.”

    Well, um, yeah. I hate abuse of authority as much as the next TTAG reader, but I think most people, law enforcement or otherwise, correctly interpret a firearm pointed at them as a threat of deadly force.

  8. avatar Rich Grise says:

    I strongly disagree. There is no problem with “American dopers.” The problem is the insane WAR on American dopers.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      (continued) Call off the insane war and the cartels would evaporate.

      Frankly, it sounds exactly like the grabber mentality, just with a different boogeyman.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Note to self: read all the comments before shooting off my keyboard.

      2. avatar JuanCudz says:

        Like the Mob ‘disappeared’ after the Volstead Act was repealed?

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Well, I wasn’t around back then, but I have been told that repeal of prohibition was followed by a dramatic reduction in the amount of crime and mayhem in the streets. They say that there was a lot less bootlegging.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          I think maybe the “mob” didn’t “disappear,” they just turned to other victimless crimes that people like to do and harm no one but power-trippers fear and hate, like prostitution and gambling.

          And some former bootleggers probably went into the legal booze business and made normal profits like any other normal free person might do in any business.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email