Republican Sherriff Targets Hispanics

T

Timshel

New member
Who cares how the labels voted 50 years ago? Republicans/Conservatives tell us we can trust local police with broad discretion to racially profile. They are for policies at odds with civil rights NOW.

So, can we leave it to the states and municipalities to enforce civil rights.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/24/53379.htm


GREENSBORO, N.C. (CN) - A North Carolina sheriff orders officers to discriminate against Latinos, telling them, "go out there and get me some of those taco eaters," and blew off the federal government's order to stop it, calling a Justice Department report "meaningless," the United States claims in court.

...

The Justice Department's September 2011 letter to the county cites an April 2007 article in the News & Observer newspaper, titled "Sheriffs Help Feds Deport Illegal Aliens."

In a "widely publicized statement," Johnson told the newspaper that anyone of Mexican origin is inherently suspicious: "'Their values are a lot different - their morals - than what we have here," the article quotes him as saying. "In Mexico, there's nothing wrong with having sex with a 12-, 13-year old girl. ... They do a lot of drinking down in Mexico,'" according to the September letter, which cites the News & Observer.
 
For law enforcement NOT to profile is about the stupidest thing they can do just to appease the pinheads......

If we have a white female killer on the loose its idiotic to stop and question black males....you know who the hell is suspect, thats who you question
and thats who you look for......If you're looking for black males drug dealers, you don't harass Hispanic women....of course you profile, thats how
you catch the bad guys....
 
SuperstringTheory said:
Who cares how the labels voted 50 years ago? Republicans/Conservatives tell us we can trust local police with broad discretion to racially profile. They are for policies at odds with civil rights NOW.

So, can we leave it to the states and municipalities to enforce civil rights.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/12/24/53379.htm


GREENSBORO, N.C. (CN) - A North Carolina sheriff orders officers to discriminate against Latinos, telling them, "go out there and get me some of those taco eaters," and blew off the federal government's order to stop it, calling a Justice Department report "meaningless," the United States claims in court.

...

The Justice Department's September 2011 letter to the county cites an April 2007 article in the News & Observer newspaper, titled "Sheriffs Help Feds Deport Illegal Aliens."

In a "widely publicized statement," Johnson told the newspaper that anyone of Mexican origin is inherently suspicious: "'Their values are a lot different - their morals - than what we have here," the article quotes him as saying. "In Mexico, there's nothing wrong with having sex with a 12-, 13-year old girl. ... They do a lot of drinking down in Mexico,'" according to the September letter, which cites the News & Observer.
Click to expand...
If your goal is to stop crime than why shouldn't you concentrate on exactly that? If illegal aliens are the primary element of crime, why, beyond an absurd doctrine of political correctness, would you stop or hinder those from doing the job which is demanded?
 
bravo said:
For law enforcement NOT to profile is about the stupidest thing they can do just to appease the pinheads......

If we have a white female killer on the loose its idiotic to stop and question black males....you know who the hell is suspect, thats who you question
and thats who you look for......If you're looking for black males drug dealers, you don't harass Hispanic women....of course you profile, thats how
you catch the bad guys....
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with this case or racial profiling. You are a moronic pinhead who makes no attmpt to understand what the concerns of others are.
 
Meathead said:
If your goal is to stop crime than why shouldn't you concentrate on exactly that? If illegal aliens are the primary element of crime, why, beyond an absurd doctrine of political correctness, would you stop or hinder those from doing the job which is demanded?
Click to expand...

He was not concentrating on stopping crime. He let white people gulity of the same crime go. He concentrated on arresting Mexicans or those appearing to be one. That's not a crime.

Being hispanic is not proof of illegal presence. It is certainly not proof of illegal immigration.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
This has nothing to do with this case or racial profiling. You are a moronic pinhead who makes no attmpt to understand what the concerns of others are.
Click to expand...
Make the distinction. It is not at all clear. If you know that a critical percentage of perpetrators are of a distinctive appearance, is it racial profiling to concentrate on that grouping, especially if is not a local majority?
 
Meathead said:
Make the distinction. It is not at all clear. If you know that a critical percentage of perpetrators are of a distinctive appearance, is it racial profiling to concentrate on that grouping, especially if is not a local majority?
Click to expand...

That is racial profiling.

brava was talking about whether police should look for identifying traits of a KNOWN suspect. Totally, different. The distinction is quite clear to anyone but a moronic pinhead like brava.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
That is racial profiling.

brava was talking about whether police should look for identifying traits of a KNOWN suspect. Totally, different. The distinction is quite clear to anyone but a moronic pinhead like brava.
Click to expand...
I don't know anyone well enough to pass judgement, but I might if you were clearer about your suggestion of "racial profiling".
 
SuperstringTheory said:
This has nothing to do with this case or racial profiling. You are a moronic pinhead who makes no attmpt to understand what the concerns of others are.
Click to expand...

I'm not referring to any particular case...I'm talking about general, common sense methods of enforcing the law.

This particular cop is certainly wrong in his methods if the article is true......that doesn't mean 'profiling' as a law enforcement tool is wrong....

I should have made that clear from the start.
 
Sativa said:
he is actually a democrat...but if you knew that, we all know you would not have made the thread
Click to expand...

No, he is a Republican.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...johnson-discrimination-charges_n_1896343.html

A Republican first elected in 2002, Johnson suggested the probe was political.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...rgeting-latinos-deportation-article-1.1162932

A Republican first elected in 2002, Johnson on Tuesday called the probe political.

http://www.ncatregister.com/theyard...cle_18cae3c6-0769-11e2-b280-0019bb30f31a.html

The Republican sheriff said the accusations against him are politically motivated.
...
After a closed session meeting to discuss the federal report Monday, members of the Republican-dominated county board of commissioners had nothing but praise for the embattled sheriff.
 
Joe Arpaio is a Republican darling too. The partisanship of these turds does not really matter, so much as the fact that Conservative Republican douchebags support their actions and policies.
 
bravo said:
I'm not referring to any particular case...I'm talking about general, common sense methods of enforcing the law.

This particular cop is certainly wrong in his methods if the article is true......that doesn't mean 'profiling' as a law enforcement tool is wrong....

I should have made that clear from the start.
Click to expand...

You mentioned instances where the police had proof concerning an identifying trait. It certainly would not be correct to have some sort of dragnet of all members of that group but of course you can use it to narrow the focus. Nobody is complaining about that and you routinely bring up this strawman.

That's not what is intended when people complain about racial profiling. Racial profiling is what meathead was talking about, where you target a specific group for harassment because there may or may not be some support for the idea that that demographic is more likely to commit a crime. For instance, it would not be right to start pulling over all white people on motorcycles and harass them because they are more likely to be involved in the production and distribution of meth or be guilty of some other crime.
 
Sativa said:
that was essentially the point of my post
Click to expand...

But you think the party label of who voted for what, nearly 50 YEARS AGO, is somehow relevant to current minority voters? If they are 75, maybe they will still care about that. Otherwise, idiots like Sherriff Johnson, Arpaio and Pearce (who was Romney's immigration advisor) are what current voters are looking at. You are not going to change the perception of what the GOP is doing now with intellectually dishonest history lessons. It's like saying everybody in Cleveland should cheer for the Ravens.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
But you think the party label of who voted for what, nearly 50 YEARS AGO, is somehow relevant to current minority voters? If they are 75, maybe they will still care about that. Otherwise, idiots like Sherriff Johnson, Arpaio and Pearce (who was Romney's immigration advisor) are what current voters are looking at. You are not going to change the perception of what the GOP is doing now with intellectually dishonest history lessons. It's like saying everybody in Cleveland should cheer for the Ravens.
Click to expand...

so one dude equals an entire party?

yeah bro....sure thing
 
Sativa said:
so one dude equals an entire party?

yeah bro....sure thing
Click to expand...

No. This has already been addressed. I clearly made the point that it is NOT just one person. MANY Conservative Republicans support these sort of policies and argue that local police should be empowered and encouraged to behave this way. Arpaio and Pearce (an advisor to the GOP's Presidential candidate) are not Sherriff Johnson. They are very much responsible for the perception of Republicans and the party labels of those voting on a bill from 50 years ago will not change that.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
No. This has already been addressed. I clearly made the point that it is NOT just one person. MANY Conservative Republicans support these sort of policies and argue that local police should be empowered and encouraged to behave this way. Arpaio and Pearce (an advisor to the GOP's Presidential candidate) are not Sherriff Johnson. They are very much responsible for the perception of Republicans and the party labels of those voting on a bill from 50 years ago will not change that.
Click to expand...

"clearly"? you sure about that?

SuperstringTheory said:
But you think the party label of who voted for what, nearly 50 YEARS AGO, is somehow relevant to current minority voters? If they are 75, maybe they will still care about that. Otherwise, idiots like Sherriff Johnson, Arpaio and Pearce (who was Romney's immigration advisor) are what current voters are looking at. You are not going to change the perception of what the GOP is doing now with intellectually dishonest history lessons. It's like saying everybody in Cleveland should cheer for the Ravens.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top