Remembering Scott Norberg

[creekster]

This is the beauty of federalism. 50 little socail experiemtnts allowed to try to solve problems in their own way and each of them composed of even smaller expereiments. Local solutions to local problems. People allowed to vote with their feet, pocket book or in the booth. It's why our country works.

[Heisenberg]

ever since the aftermath of the 2004 world series i haven't been much of a bo-sox fan. after reading this thread, i still feel good about my decision.

i remember norberg. he was a good guy at byu though obviously dealt with some demons. this story is a tragedy. my doctor leo marvin analysis-sheriff joe is a paranoid, egomaniac, control freak. i wonder if he gets upset at his wife if the kitchen cabinets aren't neatly arranged or the towels aren't hung in exactly the right way. she hasn't faked her death yet, has she?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I haven't visited this thread since Monday. It's apparent to me that Red Sox didn't get anything from my posting of Kenny's relatively recent rendition of The Gambler. Red Sox doesn't know when to fold'em. A reasonable person would have backtracked on the statement saying a 30 something year old man with two children is better off dead.

Here's my category of people that are better off dead (whether I believe that the state should be able to execute them is another story):

1. Terminally ill people who are suffering a lot of pain and want to die.

2. Habitual child molesters.

3. Murderers

Delirious drug addict doesn't fit into any of the categories above. A drug addict in his 30s with two children who seemed to at least have some kernel of an intent to redeem himself really doesn't fit into the above categories.

From a spiritual angle, I really don't get the "better off dead" comment. Norberg grew up in an active LDS family, went to the temple and served a mission. Norberg obviously already had all the chances that we believe we give to people that have already passed on through our temple work. Norberg went tragically off the path. He was in his 30s, he still had the chance to redeem himself, now he can't.

We're routinely told that if we question directives coming from our leaders, that we're on the wrong side of things. Maybe I'm being judgmental here, but my swigging of green tea and questioning of the utility of spending treasure and credibility on fighting gay marriage seems to be a few steps below becoming drug addict. I've been told that I'm dangerously veering off the path. According to most everything I've been taught, Scott Norberg probably doesn't stand a chance at making it to the Celestial Kingdom. I've also been taught that Norberg could have redeemed himself through repentance and a significant change in lifestyle. So, Red Sox will have to excuse some of us that find his "better off dead" comment pretty horrifying.

[SteelBlue]

Until a judge or jury says guilty, they should be treated humanely (unless they attack jail personnel).

I hate to pile on here as I think to some extent you've been misunderstood in this thread. However, you might want to explain the above statement. Do you actually mean that once convicted a prisoner should no longer be treated humanely? Or did you mean that Arapaio shouldn't be allowed to enforce his rules on anyone who hasn't yet been convicted?

[Green Monstah]

Yeah, I've thought this through. Have you?

Do you know anything about his other than what you read on CB/CFU? The reason I ask is that in addition to all the crap you hear about him, he also led the charge to get a new state-of-the art jail built with maximum security, but also with classrooms, chapels, etc. I like the fact that he uses innovative, cheap methods (e.g., tent city) to prevent potentially dangerous criminals from being released due to lack of capacity in jail cells. Is he a bully? Absolutely. Does he hold political grudges? Yep. Is he divisive? Without a doubt. Is he effective? In my opinion, yes....and that's the bottom line.

All you have to do is not be a jackass while you're locked up, and you'll be just fine. For some, that's more difficult than it sounds. And for the record, I have friends who are MC Deputies and they swear they're not indoctrinated with some strange culture of violence. For the most part, they like the fact that their boss has their back when people push them to the edge and they have to protect themselves (which is something they don't enjoy, nor do they seek out such opportunities).

[Green Monstah]

I haven't visited this thread since Monday. It's apparent to me that Red Sox didn't get anything from my posting of Kenny's relatively recent rendition of The Gambler. Red Sox doesn't know when to fold'em. A reasonable person would have backtracked on the statement saying a 30 something year old man with two children is better off dead.

Here's my category of people that are better off dead (whether I believe that the state should be able to execute them is another story):

1. Terminally ill people who are suffering a lot of pain and want to die.

2. Habitual child molesters.

3. Murderers

Delirious drug addict doesn't fit into any of the categories above. A drug addict in his 30s with two children who seemed to at least have some kernel of an intent to redeem himself really doesn't fit into the above categories.

From a spiritual angle, I really don't get the "better off dead" comment. Norberg grew up in an active LDS family, went to the temple and served a mission. Norberg obviously already had all the chances that we believe we give to people that have already passed on through our temple work. Norberg went tragically off the path. He was in his 30s, he still had the chance to redeem himself, now he can't.

We're routinely told that if we question directives coming from our leaders, that we're on the wrong side of things. Maybe I'm being judgmental here, but my swigging of green tea and questioning of the utility of spending treasure and credibility on fighting gay marriage seems to be a few steps below becoming drug addict. I've been told that I'm dangerously veering off the path. According to most everything I've been taught, Scott Norberg probably doesn't stand a chance at making it to the Celestial Kingdom. I've also been taught that Norberg could have redeemed himself through repentance and a significant change in lifestyle. So, Red Sox will have to excuse some of us that find his "better off dead" comment pretty horrifying.

Well, I'm pretty un-orthodox when it comes to my belief in the afterlife. I don't think he's swirling in a lake of fire and brimstone, but is probably working things out as we speak...which may give some texture to my comment.

[Green Monstah]

I hate to pile on here as I think to some extent you've been misunderstood in this thread. However, you might want to explain the above statement. Do you actually mean that once convicted a prisoner should no longer be treated humanely? Or did you mean that Arapaio shouldn't be allowed to enforce his rules on anyone who hasn't yet been convicted?

Good catch. No, they shouldn't be treated inhumanely, but the rules change, IMO. I think that rewarding good behavior is a good idea, but if they start trying to become physically violent, I have no problem with beating convicted felons senseless. You just can't risk the lives of the hard-working people who babysit these folks.

[Green Monstah]

My problem with Arpaio is that he uses the power of his office to attack his political opponents. He is in collusion with the Maricopa County Attorney.

From wikipedia:



RedSox's support of Arpaio reminds me of that old line when the woman sees her son in the marching band: "Look, everyone is out of step but Joey"

Arpaio is just plain nuts. The people of Maricopa County are also nuts. Either Arpaio is right and all the people listed above are corrupt lawbreakers, in which case Maricopa County's citizens are obviously nuts for electing, hiring, or otherwise producing so many corrupt people in positions of power; or Arpaio is wrong and the people of Maricopa County are obviously nuts for allowing such a complete nutjob to still maintain his office. Either way, Killer Dog is right on in that Arpaio is not the problem - it's the people of Maricopa County that elect him that are the problem. (It says "Maricopa County" on my Arizona birth certificate - does that give me enough moral authority to make a comment on the situation?)

My beef was never moral authority...it's people who aren't in any way affected (for better or worse) by Arpaio that are his loudest opponents on here. I'm no longer a resident of Phoenix, but if I were, I'd vote for him again in an instant. Is he flawless? Nope. He's got warts (some that are big and nasty, figuratively speaking, of course), but I'd rather have him as my Sherriff than any law enforcement official that I know of. Maybe I'm just Machiavellian in that regard.

At any rate, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one and will not reply further. PM me if you want to continue the discussion.

[SeattleUte]

What are you talking about? Instant death for a small crime is not extreme?

Maybe you missed my point....putting Kublai Khan and Joe Arpaio in the same basket is a false analogy....Arpaio fits somewhere between Khan and Anarchy (and there are many levels in between). I'll be sure to water things down for you in the future.

Police brutality and police murder is the norm in the arc of history. America is the freakish exception.

You take much for granted. If there is any justice in the cosmos you will be re-born in a dirt poor Mexican barrio with no opportunity and then get the living shit beat out of you for no reason at all by a corrupt cop.

[FMCoug]

It's easy to point fingers at jail and prison personnel who risk their lives everyday watching over the very bottom of our society. If I work in a prison and someone threatens me, I drop the hammer (or I end up beaten or dead). There may not be a more dog eat dog world than inside of prisons and jails.

My biggest beef with Arpaio is not how he treats convicted prisoners, but how he treats those who are awaiting trial (like Norberg). Until a judge or jury says guilty, they should be treated humanely (unless they attack jail personnel). I don't know what provoked the Norberg mess, but considering he had attacked a police officer hours before, I'm disinclined to believe the whole incident started unprovoked.

So convicts don't deserve humane treatment huh?

[KillerDog]

Do you know anything about his other than what you read on CB/CFU?

That's as far as I got in your reply. If your message can't stand on its own and instead you have to imply or outright state that your opponent is uneducated or ignorant then you don't have much of a message.

[KillerDog]

I have no problem with beating convicted felons senseless.

Joe is that you? Seriously RedSox, did you type this or does some nefarious person have your keyboard? It is almost as if you are ... wait that's it, RedSox must be trolling.

[SoCalCoug]

I think that rewarding good behavior is a good idea, but if they start trying to become physically violent, I have no problem with beating convicted felons senseless. You just can't risk the lives of the hard-working people who babysit these folks.

Just shooting them would be a lot easier.

[Hallelujah]

I hate to pile on here as I think to some extent you've been misunderstood in this thread. However, you might want to explain the above statement. Do you actually mean that once convicted a prisoner should no longer be treated humanely? Or did you mean that Arapaio shouldn't be allowed to enforce his rules on anyone who hasn't yet been convicted?

Generally, prisoners have better living conditions than our military. Can you imagine any of our military personnel complaining about overcrowding or lack of a library...........and on and on. I figure if our military can live in tents while in the Middle East, prisoners can as well along with pink uniforms.

There's always a process in which you can avoid humiliation in prison....don't commit a crime.

[BigFatMeanie]

Do you know anything about his other than what you read on CB/CFU? The reason I ask is that in addition to all the crap you hear about him, he also led the charge to get a new state-of-the art jail built with maximum security, but also with classrooms, chapels, etc. I like the fact that he uses innovative, cheap methods (e.g., tent city) to prevent potentially dangerous criminals from being released due to lack of capacity in jail cells. Is he a bully? Absolutely. Does he hold political grudges? Yep. Is he divisive? Without a doubt. Is he effective? In my opinion, yes....and that's the bottom line.

One can be effective without being a bully and without holding political grudges. Do you believe the ends always justify the means?