The recent decision by Mayor DiBlassio of New York City to not appeal a judge's ruling brings back the argument regarding how the "Stop and Frisk" tactics of urban police are concentrated on, especially, young African American and Latino males, as the latter exist in an aura of suspicion that surrounds them. But do the aforementioned tactics violate "racial profiling" statutes? And do the authorities care, anyway?
Moreover, as far as suspicion goes, perhaps, the relevant question is, "Since most white collar crime is done by European Americans, everyday, then why not start randomly checking the books of companies, corporations, and banks?" In other words, why is there greater concern for people stealing $20 from a person walking down the street or selling $10 rocks of crack cocaine, than for those who constantly steal millions from tens of thousands of retirement funds and the like,for example?
Nevertheless, some complain of police bullying, while others are rightly concerned about the psychological affects on the victims of unnecessary Stop & Frisk practices. And, does being a "white" cop make one feel like a superior being to those who do not claim that moniker? What about a non-European American cop who doesn't even have any history in this country? How can the government endorse such "privilege" to some of the population under the guise of "democracy"?
And how about the statistics regarding the actions of racist employers/employees and landlords? How many African Americans and Latinos suffer from those injustices each and every minute, every second, everyday, including possible loss of work and loss of residency? Why don't the police randomly stop and question all "white" employers/employees and landlords to check and see if they're committing racist acts?
Two crucial aspects of this racist Stop & Frisk practice aren't mentioned. They are 1) Since the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are executed by those who are not seeking to be detected, then it is, at best, a false abstraction to suggest that guns taken during a "Stop & Frisk" would even be used in crimes other than "illegal possession of firearms" (which means nothing, other than determining who gets to be a George Zimmerman and who doesn't). and 2) The "convenient" war on bullying, the game that is currently being played throughout our society, especially in schools, apparently doesn't include babies being killed by US drone rockets in Pakistan. And so, ultimately, the real issue is: Why can't people live together, without using each other as means to ends? Meanwhile, the Catholic priests, Baptist ministers, Jewish rabbis, and Muslim imams smilingly answer, "Come here, son..I want to share some of myself with you."
Still, Heather MacDonald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, admits that the New York City's Stop & Frisk policy may not be perfect. But she points out that crime — especially violent crime — happens disproportionately in minority neighborhoods. ( please refer to "Lawsuit Over NYPD's 'Stop And Frisk' Program Heads To Court", by JOEL ROSE, March 18, 2013)
By the way, women and girls are being violated in every neighborhood, in every state, everyday. Violence against females is, by far, the most frequent, as well as the most vicious crime that happens constantly, in our society. Why isn't real energy put into fighting that "crime"?
Finally, why is Stop & Frisk so conveniently implemented for African American and Latino men? At least to me, the real question isn't "Why does a hungry person steal?" Rather, as it has been asked by others before me, the real question should be, "Why do so many who are hungry NOT steal?" It's all about control! For the legitimacy of our government lies in its "threat capacity" through the police and military. Citizens are forced to be automatons, or else! So why is a human better morally than, say, any cat, dog, or bird?
Liberation!
G. Djata Bumpus
0 comments:
Post a Comment