Hello, ladies and gentlemen. Previously, I wrote about how we would cease to have the right to free speech, religion and assembly under the Trump regime.
This time, I have searched and seized instances where Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked the fourth amendment. This subject has even been brought up in the presidential debates when he tried to justify the stop and frisk method.
The Fourth Amendment:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (ACLU).
Stop and Frisk was implemented in New York City after the World Trade Center attack on September, 11, 2001. The argument is it stopped further attacks before they started. On the other hand, reports have discovered that “innocent New Yorkers have been subjected to police stops and street interrogations more than 4 million times since 2002, and that black and Latino communities continue to be the overwhelming target of these tactics. Nearly nine out of 10 stopped-and-frisked New Yorkers have been completely innocent, according to the NYPD’s own reports” (New York Civil Liberties Union).
In 2003 alone, the New York City Police Department stopped its citizens 160,851 times. By breaking it down, we see African Americans were stopped 54 per cent, Latinos were stopped 34 per cent and Caucasians were stopped 12 per cent of the time.
“The number of stops declined after the peak in 2011, and in 2013, there were fewer than 200,000 stops. In 2014, there were just under 46,000, according to NYPD data,” the Washington Post said. “[W]hile the number of recorded stops decreased through 2013, the crime continued to fall — calling into question how effective the stops have been in decreasing crime. If the practice had a direct impact on crime, one would assume the crime rate would soar after police ended the stops.”
However, despite the racial profiling and unconstitutional nature of this strategy of reducing crime, Trump continues to advocate its use.
“We have gangs roaming the street. And in many cases, they’re illegally here, illegal immigrants. And they have guns. And they shoot people. And we have to be very strong. And we have to be very vigilant,” Trump said at the first presidential debate. “[W]e need law and order in the inner cities, because the people that are most affected by what’s happening are African-American and Hispanic people. And it’s very unfair to them what our politicians are allowing to happen.”
If that isn’t racial profiling, then I don’t know what is. He’s justifying targeting ethnic groups as potential criminals by stating the crime is happening to said ethnic groups. I mean, yeah, if by “crime,” Trump is referring to racial persecution.
Stop and Frisk, at the level it was under Major Rudolph Giuliani leadership, would not help the relationship between the community and law enforcement. When you target ethnic groups more often after already seeing them as potential criminals, you increase the level of resentment. That’s textbook sociology, people.
Treat people like criminals and they’ll feel like criminals. Treat the Constitution of the United States like historical fiction and people will treat you like a dumbass.
American Civil Liberties Union https://www.aclu.org/united-states-bill-rights-first-10-amendments-constitution
New York Civil Liberties Union http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices
http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data
The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/09/28/trumps-false-claim-that-stop-and-frisk-was-not-ruled-unconstitutional/
#TheySayItsGonnaRain 