The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

The Daily GOP Ignominious: TRUMPISM (Deplorables, Stop & Frisk)


The first presidential candidate since the practice became part of the election process will withhold his tax history from the viewing public.  The only reason for such an act: something to hide.

Happy anniversary! 4 years ago today, Romney released his 2011 tax returns (which Trump urged him to do). Where are Trump's? pic.twitter.com/MqwCgs5ltW
— The Briefing (@TheBriefing2016) September 21, 2016

Before we move to some serious anti-Trump information, let's remind ourselves of voters who may or may not fit the definition of "deplorable."



Deplorbales!


As we move towards the first 2016 Presidential Debate Donald Trump and his team have cranked-up visiting black churches. Does Trump actually believe visiting a few handpicked churches led by pastors who seem to serve so close to Trump it is impossible to avoid consideration of paid surrogacy?

Donald Trump at a black church in Cleveland, Ohio.

Why would Donald Trump contract Don King to introduce him to an audience of religious followers of one of Trump's black co-signing pastors? King is now 85 years old and obviously, has illusions of a past successful mouth-piece. Yet, We find it perplexing his choice of introduction: black people need Trump.  Really?
And, Trump's remarks after King finished his introduction ("N" word intact): “Ah, there’s only one Don King, only one Don.” 

Don King drops the N-word at Trump rally http://reut.rs/2cKtfHA


Can you recall ever hearing or seeing any political supporter (not matter the level of celebrity) speak in such a manner? I offer the vulgar use of the "N" Word was intentional via King and its use does not surprise as I consider Donald Trump.


From Trump's visit to the church of one of his dedicated political "shadows", to a potential p9olicystatement regarding re-establishing use of an unconstitutional police practice.  

I Would Do "Stop and Frisk"


Let's take a quick look at  graphics on "Stop and Frisk."   

April 2013 Mother Jones: data 2004 through 2012.


   
imgur


Bill Moyer's dot Com


Ending New York’s Stop-and-Frisk Did Not Increase Crime (April 2016)


After growing slowly in the early 2000s, stop-and-frisk began to rapidly increase in 2006,when there were 500,000 stops citywide. By 2011 the number peaked at 685,000. It then began to fall, first to 533,000 stops in 2012.
Given this large scale effort, one might expect crime generally, and murder specifically, to increase as stops tapered off between 2012 and 2014. Instead, as shown in Figure 1, the number of murders fell while the number of stops declined. Murder also continued to drop after stop-and-frisk wound down from its 2011 peak. In fact, the biggest fall in murder rates occurred precisely when the number of stops also fell by a large amount — in 2013.
Figure 1: Stops vs. Homicides in NYC (2006-2015)
(Source: NYCLU Stop-and-Frisk data and NYC CompStat) 
Figure 2 shows that crime in general also fell, both while the number of stops increased and fell. Crime continued to decline as the program wound to its 2014 close.
Figure 2: Stops vs. Crime in NYC (2006-2015)
(Source: NYCLU Stop-and-Frisk data and NYC Tcompstat.)
Statistically, no relationship between stop-and-frisk and crime seems apparent. New York remains safer than it was 5, 10 or 25 years ago. As analysis by the Brennan Center has shown, a part of this was the introduction of CompStat, which allowed police to consult data when making decisions about where and how to respond to crime.
Listening to the data has made New Yorkers safer, and it’s important to listen again. It says loud and clear: ending stop-and-frisk didn’t cause a crime wave in the city.


It appears cessation of NYC's Stop and Frisk has not resulted in an increase in street crime. Violent and property crime in the nation's largest society continues to decline.

ACLU Boston
Image result for stop and frisk statistics 2015

ACLU Chicago (Summer 2014; 250,000 stops)

 

Trump, I am certain, is listening to the zany Paleozoic ERA former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani as he speaks about Stop & Frisk. The fact that a federal judge ruled the policing practice is unconstitutional, we have leaders of the GOP (Trump, Giuliani et al) Publicly espousing such an abusive practice. 

Let's take Trump's Stop and Frisk from another perspective. Trump says re-establish the practice. Trump ha also stated policy which includes banning Muslims from entering our nation. I believe he has also spoken of Stop and Frisk with regard to potential acts of terror. Since Stop and Frisk was disproportionately focused on people of color, should we assume Trump would employee storm-troopers akin to Hitler's "brown shirts" or his Waffen SS to reinforce nationwide political policy? Is Trump imbued with Giuliani's belief that black people are inherently more prone to perpetrate crime? Imagine the expense associated with Trump's enforcement of an unconstitutional practice as we consider all people of color as potential criminals? 

Also imagine the hiring practices necessary to staff additional police charged with Stop and Frisk (as well as "let me see your papers); thus "Stop (Question) and Frisk". How about what happens when one or more of Trump's "troopers' accost and react to anger from the multi-millionaire professional athlete who appears a bit too brown skinned, or who has an accent? We offer an additional scenario. What of the real dynamic of job performance based on meeting quotas as is the case with traffic stops and ticketing?  Performance evaluation is as real as the air we breathe, every working stiff will work to increase her/his earnings potential or maintain their employment. How can Trump and his henchmen team ensure fair and equitable treatment while enforcing Stop and Frisk? 

It should be noted the Pittsburgh Police Department recently endorsed Trump. Moreover, I have read reports the largest police union in the nation also endorsed Trump.  You may recall a few months ago Trump boasted about being able to shoot a person in the middle of a Manhatten street and he would not lose votes.  Why would an organization associated with upholding the law and protecting citizens find cause to support a man who callously refers to shooting another person?  Are these police unions chopping at the bits to resume the harassing nature of Stop and Frisk?  Do they find Trump a palatable impetus for growing police abuse against certain segments fof the population?

There is no good answer.

No comments :

Post a Comment