I’ve never heard of a child being removed from a dangerous situation and placed in some kind of protective custody/foster care as being arrested.
Sheriff Arpaio is a psychotic asshole if he has no problem arresting children for crimes that don’t understand.
Are you assuming, solely based on the article’s use of the term “arrest”, that they stuffed her in the county jail?
Well, to bring it back within the confines of the thread, we don’t have a national police force either*. However, individual state and local police agencies are occasionally forced to monitor their own statistics relating to possible racial profiling. A study undertaken by the Maryland state police (as part of a settlement in a civil suit) found that something like 66% of Maryland highway patrol stops involved black drivers, although they were only 18% of traffic.
That’s what the word means, so yes. Okay, not county jail, but at least some sort of juvie thing. If they meant something more akin to putting her into a foster home situation while they figured out what to do with her, then that’s what they should have said.
To arrest a child in that situation is an immoral thing to do, full stop. Making excuses for them like you are doing honestly sickens me.
It all depends what the “arrest” entails. She was handcuffed, if that’s what you’re thinking. I assume that it is a procedural move for the police to take possession of her. Nothing more.
Is it really a mandatory procedural move? Because it seems totally ludicrous to handcuff a 6 yo.
Who’s “they”? I’m no fan of Arpaio- being both brown and an immigrant- but shoddy reporting isn’t his fault.
Handcuffing policies are generally set by individual law enforcement agencies. If the stop in question was made by one or two officers, it wouldn’t be outlandish for them to handcuff everyone. They are generally empowered to take such actions to ensure their own safety.
Because 6 year old girls are the number one danger cops face.
I don’t see an argument with either of us if you think she wasn’t actually arrested. The problem was that you seemed to be defending the wording as given. And that would be sickening.
Arpaio just announced that Obama’s birth certificate is definitely a forgery.
Submitted without comment.
From the article:
They found a former worker.
For the state of Hawaii.
Who worked with birth certificates.
And who had signed Obama’s birth certificate.
And this somehow means it’s a forgery? There are just no words for the great, steaming piles of stupidity that this represents.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Moderating
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
OK, but I think this crap is pretty thread-relevant – Arpaio’s involvement is indirect, but real.
[/QUOTE]
Unless you have a recording of Arpaio saying that he was going to use attacks on Obama to further his violations of the rights of Hispanics in Arizona, you are wrong.
This thread was an invitation for posters to attempt to defend Arpaio against the charges of specific violations of the rights of people in Arizona, not simply a grabfest of “We hate Arpaio” stories.
You are free to open a substantive discussion of Arpaio’s Birther activities in GD or the Pit, but this thread already has a focus and a purpose and Arpaio-as-Birther (or supporter-of-Birthers), is not it.
[ /Moderating ]
[/QUOTE]
(emphasis mine)
Submitted with one comment: :rolleyes:
Oops. I mistyped. Meant to say she “wasn’t” handcuffed, as in “was NOT”, which makes what the sentence make much more sense.
Are you eyerolling at Arpaio or BrainGlutton? 
I can’t see where the confusion is. Especially with the portion of tomndebb’s moderation I highlighted.
I could have sworn the tomndebb quote wasn’t there before. Sworn! Anyway, question answered.
Excellent. Confusion cleared. Faith restored. All is well with the world. Well, other than the direct refusal to follow board moderation. But maybe he has some Der Trihs-like special dispensation.
So you reported the post to the moderators and nothing happened.
You did report the post to the mods first, right?
Don’t you get it?! The birther-story is thread-relevant now because of the timing of Arpaio’s latest birther-announcement: The first court arguments in his DOJ lawsuit are to be heard tomorrow, July 19. This announcement obviously is a feeble effort to divert public attention from that. He doesn’t seem to get that the only name that stands out in the birther-story any more is “Arpaio,” not “Obama.”
In fairness to magellan, if you would have said that in your first post it would have been a lot clearer what you are driving at.
Please take the moderating-related discussion out of this thread (and into ATMB if necessary).