TakeYouToTasker

Again, he wasn't targeting Hispanics because of some innate quality, or lack there of, that he believed was unique to Hispanics. He was targeting a group of criminals which is comprised of almost entirely Hispanics. That's how profiling works, and law enforcement would be just about impossible without it. There is nothing racist at all about it, as it doesn't assume guilt, but is rather a narrowing down of suspects.

I agree. The problem is an issue with local government/law enforcement. Local government and law enforcement is abrogating their responsibility to the tax payers. An escalation means drawing on forces outside of the jurisdiction of Berkley, and likely leads to the National Guard battling violent protesters in the streets. So that's where we stand.

Every single time I go.

Because profiling isn't de facto racist. He wasn't targeting Hispanics because they were Hispanic, eschewing pulling over other racial groups who could have been equally guilty per capita. He was targeting Hispanics because of his focus on immigration crimes in the Southwest of the United States, the perpetrators of which are overwhelmingly Hispanic. That isn't racist. It's racial, but not racist. Racist would be if he was targeting Hispanics, because "!@#$ Hispanics".

I like the rules we had last year.

Again, not racist. You'll note that no one here is arguing that Arpaio was some sort of grand gentleman.

The (illegal) immigrants were walked from a local county lock up to Tent City, specifically a portion of Tent City with electrified fence, as was the policy of Maricopa County to house individuals there for immigration crimes. The transfer was done in such a way as to be extremely visible. Outside of this, the prisoners were treated no differently than anyone else incarcerated in Tent City. It wasn't based on race. It was based on the type of crime.

If the purpose is the segregation of a specific type of criminal, then no. Again, if you're talking about immigration enforcement in the Southwest of the United States, you aren't going to be dealing with many white people.

Profiling is not only a legitimate tool of law enforcement, it is a necessary tool of law enforcement; and your charge of "pulling over brown people with no cause" is an empty charge.

Yes, all of it was like that. They all wore old time prison uniforms and pink underwear, they all worked in chain gangs. They all ate stale/moldy bologna sandwiches and drank warm hard water from the tap. They all suffered in 140 degree heat with zero amenities.

Your article gave several examples of individual acts of racism by employees of Maricopa County's prison system, but gave zero examples of racism by Arpaio.

All conditions in the prison were equally abysmal. When it's 140 degrees it's 140 degrees. The diets were the same, the conditions, were the same, the clothing was the same. Segregation of a certain type of criminal is not racist.

Yup. Not a good person in my opinion.

As I said earlier, Arpaio was going to be a political prisoner had he not been pardoned. That is incredibly scary, regardless of your personal opinions about Arpaio.

None of that demonstrates racism by Arpaio. None of it.

Boyst doing his level best to begin with a disinformation gambit.

Currently, the alternative is the US Military taking action against US citizens on US soil. I have huge issues with that, as should anyone with a libertarian bent.

Correct. As I said, I was not a fan of Arpaio. His concept of justice was broken, as he used a pre-trial prison as punishment for crimes yet to be prosecuted. He wasn't a good person, but that doesn't make him a racist.

You'll have to be more specific, and provide a source please.

I lived in Scottsdale for 8 years durring Arpaio's tenure, and while I wasn't a fan, I didn't find him to be racist.

He's in the Hall of Fame. Doesn't belong on this list.

This is a good post.

Leonard Smith Bill Brooks John Holocek Jerry Ostroski Mark Pike Sammy Morris Carwell Gardner Scott Chandler Marcus Easley

I'd say that Jim Brown is a human being with warts and flaws just like the rest of us, and that he has done some bad things in the past. I'd also so that that his work with youth trying to escape the gang life has probably impacted more lives in a life-changing positive way than his prior transgressions did negatively. I'm curious though, why that matters. Are you trying to say that Jim Brown's opinion doesn't matter because of unrelated things in his past? If that's the case, can you please give me your comprehensive list of sins that disqualifies you from being heard, nullifying the value of your position on other matters. If not, I'd like to know what the point of bringing Jim Brown's past into the matter has to do with this specific argument, other than an attempt to engage in logical fallacy by Poisoning the Well, silencing dissent through character assassination.

Hear me out: offer the Raiders a 1st round pick for EJ.