|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 2, 2013 16:01:49 GMT
While not everyone agrees that Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio is a racist he's certainly acting like one.
While Joe Arpaio denies that he or his officers profile Latinos the Court has already found that this is probably occurring before it issued this court order. If Joe Arpaio and his officers are not engaged in profiling then a monitor, as well as the audio and video's would probe that it isn't happening and yet "Sheriff Joe" is filing an appeal that would "prove" he and his officers aren't profiling Latinos.
The only logical reason for opposing this court order is if Joe and his officers actually are profiling Latinos because the monitoring, audio, and video would confirm that profiling. If it isn't happening then there is no logical reason for opposing something that would actually exonerate sheriff Joe Arpaio from all of the allegations. The monitoring, audio, and video would actually clear him of any "wrongdoing" in the federal lawsuit against is office so what possible legitimate reason is there behind the appeal except to prevent the gathering of evidence of profiling by his department?
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 2, 2013 16:22:38 GMT
Wow. I'm amazed that anyone other than the most liberal anti-Constitutional person would applaud such action by this judge. That's like saying......'hey, we've never found that you profiled based on race, but we're going to have a monitor on you 24/7 to be there "just in case" you DO break a law."
Hey Shiva----would you be okay with a judge saying....."Hey, I don't trust this Shiva guy.....I think he might be up to know good when he's doing all that gov't contract work, so I'm going to order that he be monitored, recorded in each thing he does the entire time he's at work."
Gonna be okay with that Shiva? AND if you do object to it, can we assume then that you ARE guilty of doing something wrong and have something to hide?
|
|
|
|
Post by dangermouse on Nov 3, 2013 13:57:34 GMT
It beggars belief that this racist-behaving homophobe still has a job after all this time. Arizona politics are murky indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 3, 2013 14:14:10 GMT
Wow. I'm amazed that anyone other than the most liberal anti-Constitutional person would applaud such action by this judge. That's like saying......'hey, we've never found that you profiled based on race, but we're going to have a monitor on you 24/7 to be there "just in case" you DO break a law."
Hey Shiva----would you be okay with a judge saying....."Hey, I don't trust this Shiva guy.....I think he might be up to know good when he's doing all that gov't contract work, so I'm going to order that he be monitored, recorded in each thing he does the entire time he's at work."
Gonna be okay with that Shiva? AND if you do object to it, can we assume then that you ARE guilty of doing something wrong and have something to hide?
That is not what the court found. The court found that there was extensive historical evidence of the Maricopa Sheriff's Office profiling Latino's in the past, where sheriff Joe Arpaio has stated that it has long since been addressed and is no longer occurring, and the court ordered monitoring, audio, and video recording to verify that sheriff Joe Arpaio took the necessary steps to ensure that the profiling of Latino's was no longer taking place. If sheriff Joe Arpaio has addressed historic profiling of Latino's already then he should not oppose the Court order that would verify that.
There is no question whatsoever that the Maricopa Sheriffs Office did engage in the profiling of Latino's in the past. The question before the court is whether that profiling has continued and that is what the monitoring, audio, and video tapes are for. Joe Arpaio is opposing the measures imposed by the court order that would prove that the profiling of Latino's is NOT happening.
Remember the Joe Arpaio's office is facing a current federal lawsuit over profiling of Latino's and, whether that can be proven in court, it still reflects that the DOJ does have evidence of it occurring.
Why would sheriff Joe Arpaio oppose measures ordered by the court that could prove that the Maricopa Sheriffs Office doesn't engage in profiling of Latino's anymore when the Sheriffs Office is facing a DOJ lawsuit that claims it has continued to profile Latino's?
That makes no sense whatsoever unless Joe Arpaio wants to cover-up current profiling of Latinos by his office. |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 3, 2013 16:25:35 GMT
Wow; the double standard views....when it's someone he likes as opposed to someone he doesn't" are amazing!
Shiva says: "Remember the Joe Arpaio's office is facing a current federal lawsuit over profiling of Latino's and, whether that can be proven in court, it still reflects that the DOJ does have evidence of it occurring."
That is in direct contrast to your views we just discussed about Bill Ayers. You said he was never convicted of anything and therefore should not be placed on any terrorist list. Even though w know he and his wife were doing the bombings.....from his own words to an undercover agent who infiltrated his group and spoke to him directly.
Shiva says: "Why would sheriff Joe Arpaio oppose measures ordered by the court that could prove that the Maricopa Sheriffs Office doesn't engage in profiling of Latino's anymore when the Sheriffs Office is facing a DOJ lawsuit that claims it has continued to profile Latino's?"
Because it's unconstitutional for starters. Monitoring someone for the purposes of TRYING to catch them doing something wrong? You are actually FOR that? I'm surprised....especially from someone who is always touting the Constitution.
Shiva says: "That makes no sense whatsoever unless Joe Arpaio wants to cover-up current profiling of Latinos by his office."
Yeah, right. Like YOU would submit to be monitored at work all day to see if you were doing something wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 3, 2013 18:40:38 GMT
The court did not issue the order requiring monitoring, audio, and video taping to establish that the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office was profiling Latinos but instead to provide evidence that it has stopped profiling Latinos.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a court ordering that evidence be collected that a Constitutional violation of the Rights of the Person has been stopped which is the reason behind the court order. It was not to "bust" Sheriff Joe's officers for profiling but instead to establish that the sheriffs department had stopped profiling.
The DOJ is claiming in it's lawsuit that the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office has continued to profile Latinos after Sheriff Joe Arpaio has stated it stopped doing that. I've only read anecdotal stories and hearsay evidence and I'm not in a position to determine if the case has merit but I do understand that a Court has reviewed the DOJ evidence and determined it was adequate for the case to move forward. That doesn't establish that the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office has continued to profile Latinos. It just means there was enough "evidence" for to lawsuit to proceed based upon a review by the Court.
The belief that when a government agency has been busted for violation of the US Constitution that the agency can simply state that it stopped that violation without the court having any authority to verify that is absurd. The Maricopa County Sheriffs Office was busted for profiling Latino's and the Court has an obligation to the American People to show that that this violation of the US Constitution has stopped.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 3, 2013 18:54:15 GMT
Like YOU would submit to be monitored at work all day to see if you were doing something wrong.
In fact in the manufacturing industry we have a "Cause and Corrective" action procedure for addressing "discrepancies" to eliminate problems with production and when we implement the "corrective action" we're required to document that it worked. There isn't a real difference here. The Sheriffs office was "discrepant" in that the actions of his department violated the civil rights of Latinos by profiling them. Sheriff Joe Arpaio has stated to the court that he implemented changes to end this "discrepancy" and now it is time to check to verify that Sheriff Joe's actions did, in fact, end the profiling of Latinos. |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 3, 2013 19:35:32 GMT
Police have a lot of latitude on stopping people they suspect of doing something illegal. Has nothing to do with racism.....despite the mantra from the left. They can stop someone they see weaving for suspicion of driving under the influence.....they can stop someone who has a broken tail light or an expired plate or an expired Safety Inspection Sticker. They can stop someone from making an illegal turn, speeding, or doing any numerous things wrong. Doesn't make the police racists or discriminating. And in a border state with a lot of illegals trying to get in, and just a lot of Hispanics in general, it makes sense that a lot of those stopped are going to be Hispanics. Here's a recent example from Maricopa County, Arizona.....so that maybe you can have a feel for what the police are doing and why. They stopped her for a traffic violation....and as you can see, it was a good stop:
MARICOPA, AZ - A woman was booked into Pinal County Jail after a deputy discovered 45 pounds of marijuana and 11 illegal immigrants in her vehicle.
On Friday, a PCSO K-9 deputy stopped a Ford Explorer for traffic violations near the City of Maricopa.
Inside the vehicle, driven by 29-year-old Janette Salido-Hernandez, the deputy reportedly saw four male passengers and noticed a moving blanket in the rear cargo compartment where seven other male passengers were hiding.
Bundles of marijuana were found in the back of the car, while another bundle was found in between the legs of the front seat passenger.
The 11 passengers admitted they were in the U.S. illegally and claimed they had no knowledge of the marijuana.
"Hernandez told detectives she left the home she was living at in Phoenix and was headed to Harrah's casino," said Sheriff Paul Babeu. "She claimed she saw a male subject standing by the side of Highway 347 attempting to wave her down. She stopped and the next thing she knew the male subject and all of the others got into her vehicle. Hernandez said she usually stops and helps people when they are stranded."
Babeu added the woman knew what she was doing was wrong and claimed to not have knowledge of the marijuana in her vehicle.
Hernandez was booked into Pinal County Jail for charges related to possession of marijuana. She was released Monday but then turned over to the United States Border Patrol.
The 11 illegal passengers were sent to U.S. Border Patrol for processing.
Read more: www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_central_southern_az/maricopa/pinal-county-sheriffs-office-deputy-stops-driver-finds-11-illegals-and-marijuana-in-vehicle#ixzz2jc2g2nM9 |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 4, 2013 12:34:58 GMT
Police have a lot of latitude on stopping people they suspect of doing something illegal.
The Court order was issued to confirm that Sheriff Joe Arpaio's "corrective action" had corrected the problem. The Court does have a responsibility in this regard and Arpaio, if he's actually corrected the problem, should logically have embraced the Court order. In truth he should have ordered the monitoring, audio, and video taping of stops on his own to verify that his own department had stopped using unconstitutional profiling in it's actions. Arpaio is actually arguing against something he should have done on his own to ensure that the unconstitutional actions of his department had been stopped.
BTW - I'm very impressed that a few examples of "lawful stops and police activities" by the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department can be cited. Some might have mistakenly believed that everything they do is unconstitutional when that was never the case. Only some stops in the past were unconstitutional, not all, and people need to realize that. Even the LAPD Ramparts Division at the height of it's corruption in framing suspects, planting evidence, and committing perjury in court still performed some legal activities. LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 4, 2013 23:48:56 GMT
Police have a lot of latitude on stopping people they suspect of doing something illegal.
The Court order was issued to confirm that Sheriff Joe Arpaio's "corrective action" had corrected the problem. The Court does have a responsibility in this regard and Arpaio, if he's actually corrected the problem, should logically have embraced the Court order. In truth he should have ordered the monitoring, audio, and video taping of stops on his own to verify that his own department had stopped using unconstitutional profiling in it's actions. Arpaio is actually arguing against something he should have done on his own to ensure that the unconstitutional actions of his department had been stopped.
BTW - I'm very impressed that a few examples of "lawful stops and police activities" by the Maricopa County Sheriffs Department can be cited. Some might have mistakenly believed that everything they do is unconstitutional when that was never the case. Only some stops in the past were unconstitutional, not all, and people need to realize that. Even the LAPD Ramparts Division at the height of it's corruption in framing suspects, planting evidence, and committing perjury in court still performed some legal activities. LOL
I'm not in support of monitoring anyone. IF his department has profiled a citizen illegally.....then bring a case. IF his department has found someone in the process of committing a crime or who breaks even a traffic law.....who is in our country ILLEGALLY.....and turns them over to the Border Patrol......then they are doing their jobs.
BTW, I haven't been stopped in a long while....but when I was, I ALSO had to show my I.D. and prove who I was and where I lived....AND that I had an up-to-date registration and insurance on my car. Are you saying it should be legal for ME to have to do so; but NOT legal for an Hispanic to have to do so???
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 5, 2013 9:47:13 GMT
It would be rather stupid to believe that somehow police KNOW that a person driving a car doesn't speak English well.....even BEFORE they get stopped. That's not why they get stopped. They get stopped for a traffic violation or suspicion of other illegal activities.
I'm not in support of monitoring anyone. IF his department has profiled a citizen illegally.....then bring a case. IF his department has found someone in the process of committing a crime or who breaks even a traffic law.....who is in our country ILLEGALLY.....and turns them over to the Border Patrol......then they are doing their jobs.
BTW, I haven't been stopped in a long while....but when I was, I ALSO had to show my I.D. and prove who I was and where I lived....AND that I had an up-to-date registration and insurance on my car. Are you saying it should be legal for ME to have to do so; but NOT legal for an Hispanic to have to do so???
It is true that a law enforcement officer can't know if a person in a car can speak English before a stop but they can often tell if the person is Hispanic. If the fact that the driver is Hispanic influences the decision to stop the vehicle then it's discriminatory based upon profiling. It could even be a "lawful" stop but discrimination can still be involved. Let me provide an example.
Two different drivers commit a "rolling stop" where they don't come to a complete stop at a stop sign and simply reduce speed to one or two miles per hour. A "rolling stop" violates the traffic law that states the vehicle must make a complete stop. If the officer lets a "white" person get away with it but stops a "Hispanic" then they're profiling and that is a violation of the US Constitution's "equal protection clause" in the 14th Amendment.
Yes, upon being stopped a person is required to provide a drivers license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance but the inability to provide either does not establish grounds for believing they're an illegal alien nor does the fact that they may not be fluent in English. There must be a reason related to "immigration" status for the officer to request documentation of legal immigration status. Once again the same criteria for requesting documentation of immigration status must be applied to all people regardless of race, ethnic heritage, or other criteria. If the Maricopa Sheriffs Office is disproportionately asking Latinos when compared to "whites" about immigration status then a valid reason other than them being Latinos must be provided. Being Latino is not grounds for assuming illegal immigration status.
Of interest anecdotally I was pulled over a couple of years ago (not ticketed but just advised about driving in the left lane on the freeway) and didn't have the "proof of insurance" for the car I was driving on me but did have for my other cars covered by the same insurance company. The officer accepted the fact that if I had insurance for my other cars that I probably had insurance for that car (I did) and didn't write me up for it. If I'd been a Latino or even a hippie driving a piece of junk as opposed to driving a Mercedes would he have cited me? I don't know but it would have been "profiling" if there was a difference in his actions based upon that criteria.
This addresses an related problem not associated specifically with this topic. If an employer chooses to use E-Verify as pre-employment screening then they have to use it for all job applicants. They can't just use it for Hispanic applicants. As a US Citizen I have a problem with the US government tracking me in the E-Verify system. The US government already know far too much about us as is. That was a primary reason Republicans opposed similar proposals like E-Verity and national ID cards in the 1960's. BTW - Did you happen to notice that in my Federal Tax proposal it eliminates a lot of personal information that our government currently collects on us because it eliminates all personal tax deductions that we report on our tax forms today? I think I might mention that on that thread.
|
|
You are actually FOR that?