After the May 1, 2020 disturbance at the ICE detention center on the campus of the Bristol County House of Corrections, Sheriff Thomas Hodgson held a press conference at which he presented his own rather self-defensive, one sided version of events characterizing the detainees as “bad people” and “rabble rousers” to imply that baldly malicious, unjustifiable actions had been committed by them, while he as the guardian of the people had done everything by the book.

It should be remembered that Sheriff Hodgson consistently employs the blanket description of undocumented immigrants as “criminal illegal aliens” to imply a threat to all of us. However, coming into the country improperly is only a civil misdemeanor.

If the sheriff were correct that a misdemeanor makes someone a criminal, anyone of us who had to pay a traffic ticket is a criminal and a threat to the community.

“Criminal” implies much worse than a misdemeanor, and with the word “illegal” as part of the description, it implies it’s very, very bad.

That is why he favors it.

Studies, even Homeland Security ones, show that people here undocumented, in trying to remain undetected to avoid deportation, do not commit crimes that would result in shining a spotlight on themselves, and that communities with immigrant and undocumented residents experience less crime than communities without them.   

Not only did he declare at a press conference immediately after the disturbance on May 1 that there were video recordings to back his assertions, but he also clearly stated that he would welcome an investigation saying,

“If we are falling short, we need to know why and what we can do to fix it.”     

However, when Representative Kennedy called for an investigation, Hodgson claimed it was politically motivated because the sheriff is a Republican and Kennedy a Democrat.

Within days of the event the sheriff violated state law by denying entrance to his facility to a state senator who is the co-chair of the Senate’s Racial Justice Working Group and a member of the Joint Committees on the Judiciary and Public Safety & Homeland Security that prevented her from inspecting the condition of the detention center using the difference in party affiliation as having been the senator’s motivation.  

 What was he hiding?     

We found out.   

How bad chronic diarrhea can be after a cholecystectomy depends greatly on dysbiosis that means Candida-yeast overgrowth and Small Intestine Bacterial Overgrowth (SIBO). cheap viagra soft If you want to get order viagra 100mg price, send an online request, the medicine will reach to you in short. viagra sale canada You can immediately provide creamy Cappuccino drinks as well as refreshing Irish Coffee servings which taste like ice cream. Individuals are advised to consult with a registered http://djpaulkom.tv/video-the-killjoy-clubs-surprize-video-off-of-reindeer-games/ purchase cialis medical professional prior to using the drug Usage depends largely on doctor’s recommendation.

After a seven month long investigation by the office of Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey determined that the Sheriff’s Office violated the civil rights of federal immigration detainees while responding to a disturbance in the ICE facility and made recommendations which included adopting enhanced language access, the enhancement of reporting requirements following a calculated use of force, enhanced policies and procedures for de-escalation, adopting a diversity training program for staff, strengthening policies for housing federal immigration detainees, retaining an auditor or consultant at the facility, and  that the sheriff and his staff under his direction follow the sheriff office’s own protocols, recommendations he said he would welcome when had declared before the investigation,

If we are falling short, we need to know why and what we can do to fix it,”

the sheriff’s response to the recommendations was to demand,

“How dare she say she expects me to follow them.”     

Such a fine example to those youth we would prefer follow the rules and laws of society rather than ignore them and become law breakers.

He showed us clearly that his principles are those of convenience and expedience. He categorically rejects that with which he disagrees because it is not what he wanted even though it informed him of what the failings were and “what we can do to fix it” and turned his back on his own statement.

 Why should anyone of us follow any law enforcement or sheriff office directive if, like the sheriff, we do not agree with it?

If a sheriff can demand to know how the Attorney General, whose job is to act as an advocate and resource for the Commonwealth and its residents in such areas as combating fraud and corruption, protecting consumers, protecting civil rights, and maintaining economic competition as the chief lawyer and law enforcement officer of the state as established in the State Constitution, can dare do that job and then publicly announce his choice to ignore them, how can we fault anyone who follows his very public example?   

How does his announcement in any way not stand as an example of what citizens see wrong with policing and law enforcement in general.