Court rules that racist profiling by Arizona Sheriff was, in fact, racist profiling

Discuss

15 Responses to “Court rules that racist profiling by Arizona Sheriff was, in fact, racist profiling”

  1. Antinous / Moderator says:

     Cheers!  It’s only been going on for a few decades.

    • bzishi says:

      And it will go on for another decade while they continue to appeal. Then they will get their consent decree, which they will violate and be back to court again for another decade. Eventually the government will drop the case. With luck, a decent sheriff will have been elected by then.

      • Jarrod Henry says:

        Sadly, the people of maricopa county are perfectly happy with Joe Arpaio and his racist ways.  They keep electing him ,despite this stuff, by WIDE majorities.

  2. LogrusZed says:

    well…it’s the first time a court has found this. 

    • The Rizz says:

      well…it’s the first time a court has found this.

      In other news, the court is expected to announce Monday that they have managed to find their asses by using both hands.

  3. EH says:

    We can only hope he lives a long life led by the example of Ariel Sharon.

  4. anon0mouse says:

    This proves that the sheriff wasn’t lying when he said SB 1070 wouldn’t lead to racial profiling from the police…because clearly they’ve been doing it all along anyway. Good to see an honest politician.  Warm and fuzzies all around.

  5. marilove says:

    As an Arizona native and resident of Phoenix for over 12 years:  I am not surprised.

    I worked on Paul Penzone’s campaign. Man, I wish Paul would have won. I knew it wasn’t likely, but I did try. I promise, Maricopa County.  I did try.

    • Jake0748 says:

       As someone who lives nowhere near Arizona, let me just say, thank you for trying.  :)

      • marilove says:

        You’re welcome.  It was my pleasure, and totally worth it even though we lost.  I really liked Paul — a lot.  I’ve met tons of politicians and whatnot through the years and man, he was just a nice guy.  Not a politician — just a guy that cares very much for his city/county. I’m still so pissed! :P

  6. Misusing the term “racist profiling” instead of “racial profiling” is a bit like saying the article has a “sensationalist headline” rather than a “sensational headline,” right?

    • Boundegar says:

      It’s clever, but not the least bit inaccurate or misleading.

      • Well, not to be pedantic, but it is misleading. Are we profiling racists? Are racists doing the profiling? If so, of who? Or did the author make an ignorant mistake and confuse “racist” with “racial”? As I was pointing out, it was more of an attempt to create a sensationalist headline (i.e., link bait) rather than just tell the story with its own merits. “Editorializing” more than “cute”, I think, and it obviously detracts from the real story. It also means that the article is less likely to be found by people searching for the proper term, “racial profiling,” doing a disservice to the cause that is behind the intentional choice of “racist profiling” in the title.

  7. CLamb says:

    If you want to read the decision for yourself you can find it here http://www.kjzz.org/sites/default/files/melendres%20v%20arpaio.pdf .

Leave a Reply