Mediaboss Marketing

So Donald Trump wants to bring "stop-and-frisk," which he claims worked "fantastically" in NYC, to the entire nation...and this, as part of his black outreach initiative...aside from the bizarre tone-deafness, there are some things we should remember about Stop-and-frisk, which he conveniently ignores, all of which information is readily available from the court documents in the case;

1. From 2004-2012 there were 4.4 million stops, 2.3 million of which were followed up by a f...risk.

2. In fewer than 1.5% of frisks was a weapon found (one of the key rationales given for the program).

3. This means that in only about 0.7% of stops did the person stopped have a weapon.

4. Of these weapons (about 34,000 in all), only 4500 were guns. Thus, guns were found in only 0.1% of all stops.

5. Only 1.1% of stops resulted in other contraband like drugs being found

6. Overall, only 12 percent of persons stopped even received a summons/citation, let alone an arrest for some criminal offense. So 88 percent of persons stopped were entirely innocent of any wrongdoing.

7. Even those summonsed were mostly given citations for public alcohol consumption or disorderly conduct.

8. Nearly half of these summonses were ultimately dismissed or adjourned without findings of guilt (i.e., they were some bullshit -- technical legal term)

9. 83% of all persons stopped were black or Latino

10. This disparity existed even though whites, when stopped, were actually slightly more likely to have drugs or guns on them than people of color.

11. Only about 15% of stops were the result of police investigating specific violent crimes. Most were for subjective causes like "furtive movements" or even simply because the persons stopped "lived in a high crime area."

12. The disproportionate stops of people of color were NOT justified by crime rate differences in the city. In fact, the racial composition of a precinct was a better predictor of who would be stopped than the crime rates in that precinct. According to the judge who found the practice unconstitutional:

blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be stopped than whites within precincts and census tracts, even after controlling for the racial composition, crime rate, patrol strength, and various socioeconomic characteristics of the precincts or census tracts where the stops take place.

13. The NYPD admitted it's purpose was to intimidate people of color. When a former member of the NYPD, and later a state senator, challenged Police Commissioner Kelly on the policy, he was told that the NYPD focused on young blacks and Latinos because he wanted to instill fear in them, every time they leave their home, they could be stopped by the police.

THIS is what Donald Trump supports. Unconstitutional, police-state tactics against people of color in the name of crime control.

Yes sweetheart, that's racist...

Originally posted here:
Tim Wise | Facebook