Two men in their late 60s, Jim Larkin and Michael Lacey, have been exposing things about Sheriff Joe Arpaio that they perceive as the truth. Them and their journalists have reported all of the things about Sheriff Joe Arpaio that they could figure out. These things included terrible jail conditions, alleged sexual abuses and racial profiling. Learn more about Jim Larkin and Michael Lacey: http://www.laceyandlarkinfronterafund.org/about-lacey-larkin-frontera-fund/jim-larkin/ and http://james-larkin.com/
They were really a thorn in Sheriff Arpaio’s side for a long time, though they struck a nerve in 2004 when they published the address of where him and his family live. Somewhere in the laws of Arizona it says that publishing an officer’s name with malicious, harmful intentions is illegal.
In a way, this is really not an unreasonable law. After all, law enforcement people are put in vulnerable situations where doing their jobs properly may lead to people trying to stalk or kill them.
It’s bad enough that the risk exists for law enforcement, but publishing people’s addresses may exacerbate the problem. Also, here is a reasonable question: Was it completely necessary to publish the address of that man’s domicile? There might be other people who live him who are put at risk for being harmed, like a wife, children, grandchildren or friends.
Here is another consideration: being a law enforcement official is never an easy task, and people sometimes have to make difficult choices when there are no pretty options. Perhaps we can say that there was some underlying anti-cop sentiment in this act of publishing his address?
Anyway, for reasons listed above, Trump was nice enough to give this man a pardon. Jim Lacey and Michael Larkin are up in arms, because they believe that Sheriff Arpaio has objectified, discriminated against and dehumanized Latino people.
They are very much pro-immigrant, and they believe that helping another human being to come here and stay here immediately trumps any argument that anyone has about why immigrants shouldn’t be here. There is plenty of validity in Lacey and Larkin’s viewpoint because many of the countries that immigrants come from have rampant poverty and domestic violence.
A considerable amount of these problems have their origins in the fact that America came into those countries and economically exploited those places. In some ways, America is still directly and indirectly exploiting these countries.
One of the most well known tales of exploitation is the story of United Fruit. In the 20th century, United Fruit, an American company, took over a huge percentage of land in Guatemala and made it so that most of the native Guatemalans were landless, low paid peasants. All uprisings was squashed by America and demonized by the American media.