Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio Is At It Again

[OldCoyote]

Jan 18, 2014 20:04:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

ok.  i get it.  so, he is tough on crime in a state that allows unlimited straw purchases of weapons.

so, if i am an coke dealer, i can literally buy 50 assault weapons a day until i, and my army of the undead, run roughshod over Phoenix.  i would like to see him tough that one out.

I would like to make a point about the arm sales.  The owner of lone wolf, one of the companies selling the guns was calling the ATF on each of the sales. Was told he had to make the sales!
He testified before Congress about this.  But Obama with his Executive Privilege hid most of the evidence.  lot of justice there.
 

[billisonboard]

Jan 18, 2014 20:49:35 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

... I would like to make a point about the arm sales.  The owner of lone wolf, one of the companies selling the guns was calling the ATF on each of the sales. Was told he had to make the sales! ..

That damn Second Amendment

[Tennesseer]

Jan 18, 2014 20:34:11 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Jan 18, 2014 10:24:10 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

And you would be one of those paying part of the $29 million to comply with the court order for his department's racial profiling.

Don't forget the $50  million+ paid out for lawsuits because of him or the $99 million in misappropriated funds that Joe spent.

He's a real asset to Maricopa County.

[sesfw]

think that the rumors are far worse than the reality, in the case of bho.

I wonder why the rumors are far worse than reality for bho and not Sheriff Joe.  Must be the liberal mind.

[swamp]

Jan 18, 2014 21:38:40 GMT -5 sesfw said:

think that the rumors are far worse than the reality, in the case of bho.

I wonder why the rumors are far worse than reality for bho and not Sheriff Joe.  Must be the liberal mind.

Or, that BHO is, you know, President of the United States and is more well known than the sheriff of Maricopa County. 

[djAdvocate]

Jan 18, 2014 20:49:35 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Jan 18, 2014 20:04:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

ok.  i get it.  so, he is tough on crime in a state that allows unlimited straw purchases of weapons.

so, if i am an coke dealer, i can literally buy 50 assault weapons a day until i, and my army of the undead, run roughshod over Phoenix.  i would like to see him tough that one out.

I would like to make a point about the arm sales.  The owner of lone wolf, one of the companies selling the guns was calling the ATF on each of the sales. Was told he had to make the sales!
He testified before Congress about this.  But Obama with his Executive Privilege hid most of the evidence.  lot of justice there.
 

link?

edit: never mind, i looked it up.  but i don't see the executive privilege angle in the coverage.  article was in LA Times, 9/11/11.

edit2: i remember something else about this story that i had forgotten.  it is very true that the ATF made mistakes on this.  however, the mistakes they made had more to do with the peculiarities of Arizona law, than flaws in F&F.  to wit:

the ATF was concerned that without sufficient cause to go after straw buyers, they could end up on the wrong end of a 2nd Amendment issue in a state that was not particularly Obama friendly- a battle that for obvious reasons, no sane person would undertake.

now, was it stupid to not see all of that in advance?  yes, it was.  but to think that AZ law had nothing to do with what happened is hopelessly naiive.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 18, 2014 21:38:40 GMT -5 sesfw said:

think that the rumors are far worse than the reality, in the case of bho.

I wonder why the rumors are far worse than reality for bho and not Sheriff Joe.  Must be the liberal mind.

i don't know of any rumors about Sherriff Joe.  care to elaborate for my "liberal mind"?

[sesfw]

Or, that BHO is, you know, President of the United States and is more well known than the sheriff of Maricopa County.

Sheriff Joe stands up for what he believes. 

[mmhmm]

Jan 19, 2014 18:26:50 GMT -5 sesfw said:

Or, that BHO is, you know, President of the United States and is more well known than the sheriff of Maricopa County.

Sheriff Joe stands up for what he believes. 

So did any number of nefarious characters throughout history.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 19, 2014 18:26:50 GMT -5 sesfw said:

Or, that BHO is, you know, President of the United States and is more well known than the sheriff of Maricopa County.

Sheriff Joe stands up for what he believes. 

And his beliefs are going to cost his county residents millions of dollars for his illegal activities. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 18, 2014 10:24:10 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 18, 2014 9:48:09 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

I like Joe.  I would be one of the majority who votes for him if I lived there.

And you would be one of those paying part of the $29 million to comply with the court order for his department's racial profiling.

I'd pay that if it was the cost of effective law enforcement.

One of the issues that seems to be completely and categorically ignored in these Joe Arpaio threads is whether or not Arpaio's methods--sans the costs of lawsuits, which are an artificial penalty imposed by the courts--give Arizonans vastly greater bang for their taxpayer buck.

Consider for example that American airline security is a joke, and perennially identified as such by media exposees. This despite billions in invasive screening tests, security staff, and nonsensical prohibitions on staplers, bottled products, etc. We have a new "TSA Idiocy" thread practically every week.

Contrast that to brazenly (and unrepentantly) "racist" Israeli airport security that employs only a fraction of the resources but targets "high risk" individuals (i.e. racial profiling). Despite being surrounded by enemy states, no Israeli commercial aircraft has been hijacked or brought down in nearly 50 years.

The Israelis are unrepentant because they know full well what the stakes are, it's their arses in the fire (unlike the armchair editorialists in this thread), and pragmatism tends to trump idealism when it's your own arse being blown out of the sky.

I don't know much about Mr. Arpaio outside of the fact that the media relentlessly portrays him as a liability, and that he enjoys enduring popularity in Arizona. It doesn't take a genius to suppose this might be because he's the only man willing to put resources to effective use, and the critics, judges, and lawyers crying "racist, racist" have neither a clue nor any skin in the game.

[swamp]

Jan 19, 2014 18:26:50 GMT -5 sesfw said:

Or, that BHO is, you know, President of the United States and is more well known than the sheriff of Maricopa County.

Sheriff Joe stands up for what he believes. 

So did Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and the Ayatollah. 

[Tennesseer]

Jan 19, 2014 19:23:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 18, 2014 10:24:10 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

And you would be one of those paying part of the $29 million to comply with the court order for his department's racial profiling.

I'd pay that if it was the cost of effective law enforcement.

One of the issues that seems to be completely and categorically ignored in these Joe Arpaio threads is whether or not Arpaio's methods--sans the costs of lawsuits, which are an artificial penalty imposed by the courts--give Arizonans vastly greater bang for their taxpayer buck.

Consider for example that American airline security is a joke, and perennially identified as such by media exposees. This despite billions in invasive screening tests, security staff, and nonsensical prohibitions on staplers, bottled products, etc. We have a new "TSA Idiocy" thread practically every week.

Contrast that to brazenly (and unrepentantly) "racist" Israeli airport security that employs only a fraction of the resources but targets "high risk" individuals (i.e. racial profiling). Despite being surrounded by enemy states, no Israeli commercial aircraft has been hijacked or brought down in nearly 50 years.

The Israelis are unrepentant because they know full well what the stakes are, it's their arses in the fire (unlike the armchair editorialists in this thread), and pragmatism tends to trump idealism when it's your own arse being blown out of the sky.

I don't know much about Mr. Arpaio outside of the fact that the media relentlessly portrays him as a liability, and that he enjoys enduring popularity in Arizona. It doesn't take a genius to suppose this might be because he's the only man willing to put resources to effective use, and the critics, judges, and lawyers crying "racist, racist" have neither a clue nor any skin in the game.

You would be paying for unlawful/unconstitutional law enforcement.  

[djAdvocate]

Jan 19, 2014 18:26:50 GMT -5 sesfw said:

Or, that BHO is, you know, President of the United States and is more well known than the sheriff of Maricopa County.

Sheriff Joe stands up for what he believes. 

what does he believe?

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 19, 2014 20:05:40 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 19, 2014 19:23:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'd pay that if it was the cost of effective law enforcement.

One of the issues that seems to be completely and categorically ignored in these Joe Arpaio threads is whether or not Arpaio's methods--sans the costs of lawsuits, which are an artificial penalty imposed by the courts--give Arizonans vastly greater bang for their taxpayer buck.

Consider for example that American airline security is a joke, and perennially identified as such by media exposees. This despite billions in invasive screening tests, security staff, and nonsensical prohibitions on staplers, bottled products, etc. We have a new "TSA Idiocy" thread practically every week.

Contrast that to brazenly (and unrepentantly) "racist" Israeli airport security that employs only a fraction of the resources but targets "high risk" individuals (i.e. racial profiling). Despite being surrounded by enemy states, no Israeli commercial aircraft has been hijacked or brought down in nearly 50 years.

The Israelis are unrepentant because they know full well what the stakes are, it's their arses in the fire (unlike the armchair editorialists in this thread), and pragmatism tends to trump idealism when it's your own arse being blown out of the sky.

I don't know much about Mr. Arpaio outside of the fact that the media relentlessly portrays him as a liability, and that he enjoys enduring popularity in Arizona. It doesn't take a genius to suppose this might be because he's the only man willing to put resources to effective use, and the critics, judges, and lawyers crying "racist, racist" have neither a clue nor any skin in the game.

You would be paying for unlawful/unconstitutional law enforcement.  

...that is considered unlawful and unconstitutional solely because it subjects a particular group of people to a greater degree of scrutiny (and on a statistically defensible basis, one might add).

Weren't you among the chorus of "It's not a scandal; it's due diligence." voices vis a vis the IRS cracking down on 'patriot' tea party groups trying to illegally obtain tax-exempt status? Where's your sense of "let everyone be equal" there? It seems to me the refrain from the political left in that case was "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". The groups more likely to defraud get the greater scrutiny, even if that means profiling organizations using keywords in their names.

Apply the same justification to Mr. Arpaio's profiling and suddenly out comes "the ends don't justify the means".

It wouldn't surprise me or concern me in the least if Arizonans continue to re-elect and re-elect Mr. Arpaio in a collective "screw you" to the national media and the courts.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 19, 2014 20:53:13 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 19, 2014 20:05:40 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

You would be paying for unlawful/unconstitutional law enforcement.  

...that is considered unlawful and unconstitutional solely because it subjects a particular group of people to a greater degree of scrutiny (and on a statistically defensible basis, one might add).

Weren't you among the chorus of "It's not a scandal; it's due diligence." voices vis a vis the IRS cracking down on 'patriot' tea party groups trying to illegally obtain tax-exempt status? Where's your sense of "let everyone be equal" there? It seems to me the refrain from the political left in that case was "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". The groups more likely to defraud get the greater scrutiny, even if that means profiling organizations using keywords in their names.

Apply the same justification to Mr. Arpaio's profiling and suddenly out comes "the ends don't justify the means".

It wouldn't surprise me or concern me in the least if Arizonans continue to re-elect and re-elect Mr. Arpaio in a collective "screw you" to the national media and the courts.

You can search my messages but I don't believe ìt was me.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 19, 2014 20:53:13 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 19, 2014 20:05:40 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

You would be paying for unlawful/unconstitutional law enforcement.  

...that is considered unlawful and unconstitutional solely because it subjects a particular group of people to a greater degree of scrutiny (and on a statistically defensible basis, one might add).

Weren't you among the chorus of "It's not a scandal; it's due diligence." voices vis a vis the IRS cracking down on 'patriot' tea party groups trying to illegally obtain tax-exempt status? Where's your sense of "let everyone be equal" there?

everyone was equal.  groups with "tea party" and "patriot" were singled out just as often as those with "progressive" and "liberal" in their names.  when the IRS agent who tried to state this before the congressional hearing did so, he was cut off.  that is because the information that did not fit the very narrow conservative narrative on this was totally unwelcome.  and this is why this "issue" went totally nowhere.  but it did manage to ruin a few people's lives, and waste a TON of taxpayer money, just like any good fake scandal.

honestly, i thought this was all settled months ago.  apparently not.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 19, 2014 23:07:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 19, 2014 20:53:13 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...that is considered unlawful and unconstitutional solely because it subjects a particular group of people to a greater degree of scrutiny (and on a statistically defensible basis, one might add).

Weren't you among the chorus of "It's not a scandal; it's due diligence." voices vis a vis the IRS cracking down on 'patriot' tea party groups trying to illegally obtain tax-exempt status? Where's your sense of "let everyone be equal" there?

everyone was equal.  groups with "tea party" and "patriot" were singled out just as often as those with "progressive" and "liberal" in their names.  when the IRS agent who tried to state this before the congressional hearing did so, he was cut off.  that is because the information that did not fit the very narrow conservative narrative on this was totally unwelcome.  and this is why this "issue" went totally nowhere.  but it did manage to ruin a few people's lives, and waste a TON of taxpayer money, just like any good fake scandal.

honestly, i thought this was all settled months ago.  apparently not.

Whatever the justification turned out to be in retrospect, the ones pooh-poohing the scandal when I debated it made it clear that it wasn't a scandal because vetting high-risk entities (in this case, would-be tax exemptees) was the most efficient and therefore the most logical use of IRS manpower. In short: Why should the IRS waste time and resources treating all organizations equally when a bit of keyword profiling helps them to hone in on the majority of bad apples?

But then apply the same logic to profiling where race is the discriminating factor and suddenly efficiency and effectiveness aren't so much as a footnote in the discussion. Which might be a pill worth swallowing if the pundits and judges insisting that equality trumps effectiveness were actually the ones who'd suffer the consequences of their judgments.

The Americans who are stakeholders--Arizonans--who are presumably reasonable people, have elected and re-elected Mr. Arpaio for 13 years in spite of the mountain of allegations against him. His detractors have failed to recall him on several occasions. And I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that a fair chunk of his supporters are Latinos, willing to put up with Joe's evil eye on them because he's still the man that best represents their interests.

[billisonboard]

Jan 20, 2014 0:06:19 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

... Whatever the justification turned out to be in retrospect, the ones pooh-poohing the scandal when I debated it made it clear that it wasn't a scandal because vetting high-risk entities (in this case, would-be tax exemptees) was the most efficient and therefore the most logical use of IRS manpower. In short: Why should the IRS waste time and resources treating all organizations equally when a bit of keyword profiling helps them to hone in on the majority of bad apples?

But then apply the same logic to profiling where race is the discriminating factor and suddenly efficiency and effectiveness aren't so much as a footnote in the discussion. ...

See Emerson re: foolish consistency

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 20, 2014 0:17:28 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 20, 2014 0:06:19 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

... Whatever the justification turned out to be in retrospect, the ones pooh-poohing the scandal when I debated it made it clear that it wasn't a scandal because vetting high-risk entities (in this case, would-be tax exemptees) was the most efficient and therefore the most logical use of IRS manpower. In short: Why should the IRS waste time and resources treating all organizations equally when a bit of keyword profiling helps them to hone in on the majority of bad apples?

But then apply the same logic to profiling where race is the discriminating factor and suddenly efficiency and effectiveness aren't so much as a footnote in the discussion. ...

See Emerson re: foolish consistency

Is there an actual argument in there, or does quoting Emerson suffice to prove that the two cases aren't comparable?

One deals with political orientation and the other deals with ethnicity. Perhaps you could articulate what factor in particular makes discrimination (for the sake of efficiency) acceptable in the former case and not in the latter. Aside from "the SCOTUS says...", bearing in mind you're speaking to someone who craves an actual, reasonable argument and who couldn't give a rat's fanny what the SCOTUS du jour has to say about any ideological matter.

[vandalshandle]

You guys have got to give Joe a break. He is 81 years old. He can barely remember where the executive washroom is at the sheriff's office. So what if he runs ruffshod over minoritoies? It keeps him out of the nursing homes, and serves as a good alternative to basket weaving  He is only following in the footsteps of J. E. Hoover!

[billisonboard]

Jan 20, 2014 0:56:24 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 20, 2014 0:17:28 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

See Emerson re: foolish consistency

Is there an actual argument in there, or does quoting Emerson suffice to prove that the two cases aren't comparable?

One deals with political orientation and the other deals with ethnicity. Perhaps you could articulate what factor in particular makes discrimination (for the sake of efficiency) acceptable in the former case and not in the latter. Aside from "the SCOTUS says...", bearing in mind you're speaking to someone who craves an actual, reasonable argument and who couldn't give a rat's fanny what the SCOTUS du jour has to say about any ideological matter.

Choice. One chooses their political orientation, chooses to form an organization, chooses a name for that organization, chooses to file for tax exempt status. One is an ethnicity.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 20, 2014 9:22:15 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 20, 2014 0:56:24 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Is there an actual argument in there, or does quoting Emerson suffice to prove that the two cases aren't comparable?

One deals with political orientation and the other deals with ethnicity. Perhaps you could articulate what factor in particular makes discrimination (for the sake of efficiency) acceptable in the former case and not in the latter. Aside from "the SCOTUS says...", bearing in mind you're speaking to someone who craves an actual, reasonable argument and who couldn't give a rat's fanny what the SCOTUS du jour has to say about any ideological matter.

Choice. One chooses their political orientation, chooses to form an organization, chooses a name for that organization, chooses to file for tax exempt status. One is an ethnicity.

Your whole argument presumes that organizers knew that putting 'Patriot', etc. in their names would earn them special scrutiny from the IRS, which clearly wasn't the case.

But for sake of argument, fine. Let's consider the distinction between "choice" and "informed choice" to be semantics.

You would have no problem with the IRS being ordered to crack down on groups with "Latinos" in their names, because a women's shelter calling itself "Latinos Helping Latinos" had a choice to call itself "Libertad Women's Shelter" and didn't?

And in the same vein, you're completely opposed to extra background checks granting arms permits to Americans with a history of bipolar disorder and other mental illness? Because the last time I checked, they certainly didn't have any choice in the matter.

[billisonboard]

Jan 20, 2014 9:47:23 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 20, 2014 9:22:15 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Choice. One chooses their political orientation, chooses to form an organization, chooses a name for that organization, chooses to file for tax exempt status. One is an ethnicity.

Your whole argument presumes that organizers knew that putting 'Patriot', etc. in their names would earn them special scrutiny from the IRS, which clearly wasn't the case.

But for sake of argument, fine. Let's consider the distinction between "choice" and "informed choice" to be semantics.

You would have no problem with the IRS being ordered to crack down on groups with "Latinos" in their names, because a women's shelter calling itself "Latinos Helping Latinos" had a choice to call itself "Libertad Women's Shelter" and didn't?

And in the same vein, you're completely opposed to extra background checks granting arms permits to Americans with a history of bipolar disorder and other mental illness? Because the last time I checked, they certainly didn't have any choice in the matter.

The IRS was looking at organizations seeking tax exempt status under a law that specifically prohibited them from primarily engaging in political activity. Background checks for those with a history of bipolar disorder seeking tax exempt status for their organization would be inappropriate. Background checks for them seeking weapons under a law calling for it would be appropriate. Seems we are back to Emerson.

[sesfw]

So did any number of nefarious characters throughout history.

Even more very good people.  Just common, everyday people that live the belief there is good everywhere.  And prominent people like President Lincoln.

Sheriff Joe's biggest criticism from others is if you are here without proper lawful channels you are breaking the law.  I've had educated liberals tell me with a straight face the illegals are just undocumented, not illegal.  And I just laugh at them.

OK ........ how are these 'undocumented' people supporting themselves.

Working?  what SS number are they using?  (breaking the law)

Welfare?   fraud  (breaking the law)

Homeless?   go back to country of origin and be homeless there

Sending kids to our schools?  Why should I pay for that with my taxes?  The schools' budgets are being stretched enough.

Tent city?  Yay for Sheriff Joe.  If the residents don't like it, don't' come back.  Unfortunately a lot of them do.

[vandalshandle]

Jan 20, 2014 10:16:59 GMT -5 sesfw said:

So did any number of nefarious characters throughout history.

Even more very good people.  Just common, everyday people that live the belief there is good everywhere.  And prominent people like President Lincoln.

Sheriff Joe's biggest criticism from others is if you are here without proper lawful channels you are breaking the law.  I've had educated liberals tell me with a straight face the illegals are just undocumented, not illegal.  And I just laugh at them.

OK ........ how are these 'undocumented' people supporting themselves.

Working?  what SS number are they using?  (breaking the law)

Welfare?   fraud  (breaking the law)

Homeless?   go back to country of origin and be homeless there

Sending kids to our schools?  Why should I pay for that with my taxes?  The schools' budgets are being stretched enough.

Tent city?  Yay for Sheriff Joe.  If the residents don't like it, don't' come back.  Unfortunately a lot of them do.

Not one single example that you have given in this post is against county law in any county in Arizona...and Sheriff Joe has no legal authority over anything that is not in violation of county law. However, he is clearly in violation of federal law, which is why the county is being fined by the feds.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 20, 2014 0:06:19 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 19, 2014 23:07:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

everyone was equal.  groups with "tea party" and "patriot" were singled out just as often as those with "progressive" and "liberal" in their names.  when the IRS agent who tried to state this before the congressional hearing did so, he was cut off.  that is because the information that did not fit the very narrow conservative narrative on this was totally unwelcome.  and this is why this "issue" went totally nowhere.  but it did manage to ruin a few people's lives, and waste a TON of taxpayer money, just like any good fake scandal.

honestly, i thought this was all settled months ago.  apparently not.

Whatever the justification turned out to be in retrospect, the ones pooh-poohing the scandal when I debated it made it clear that it wasn't a scandal because vetting high-risk entities (in this case, would-be tax exemptees) was the most efficient and therefore the most logical use of IRS manpower. In short: Why should the IRS waste time and resources treating all organizations equally when a bit of keyword profiling helps them to hone in on the majority of bad apples?

this is actually a very common logic used by (typically conservative) law enforcement supporters.

But then apply the same logic to profiling where race is the discriminating factor and suddenly efficiency and effectiveness aren't so much as a footnote in the discussion. Which might be a pill worth swallowing if the pundits and judges insisting that equality trumps effectiveness were actually the ones who'd suffer the consequences of their judgments.

i am not sure that racial profiling and profiling by word search have much to do with one another from a civil rights perspective, although i acknowledge that they are LOGICALLY similar.

The Americans who are stakeholders--Arizonans--who are presumably reasonable people, have elected and re-elected Mr. Arpaio for 13 years in spite of the mountain of allegations against him. His detractors have failed to recall him on several occasions. And I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that a fair chunk of his supporters are Latinos, willing to put up with Joe's evil eye on them because he's still the man that best represents their interests.

i have nothing for or against him, other than what i have read.  i have simply asked for reasons why people like him.  Dark gave me something tangible.  i would like more, so that i can understand this phenomena.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 20, 2014 9:47:23 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 20, 2014 9:22:15 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Choice. One chooses their political orientation, chooses to form an organization, chooses a name for that organization, chooses to file for tax exempt status. One is an ethnicity.

Your whole argument presumes that organizers knew that putting 'Patriot', etc. in their names would earn them special scrutiny from the IRS, which clearly wasn't the case.

But for sake of argument, fine. Let's consider the distinction between "choice" and "informed choice" to be semantics.

You would have no problem with the IRS being ordered to crack down on groups with "Latinos" in their names, because a women's shelter calling itself "Latinos Helping Latinos" had a choice to call itself "Libertad Women's Shelter" and didn't?

why would a women's shelter name itself that? 

[Sum Dum Gai]

why would a women's shelter name itself that?

If they only serve Latino women, why wouldn't they?  Makes their advertising easier.

[billisonboard]

Jan 20, 2014 14:03:41 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

why would a women's shelter name itself that?

If they only serve Lation women, why wouldn't they?  Makes their advertising easier.

Or is it why not Latina?