Stop and Frisk

RaShad Joseph
September 2016
Huffington Post

In a Public interview Donald Trump has called for more aggressive stop-and-frisk attempts in African-American neighborhoods. Trump also has proposed more aggressive policing with a focus of taking away people’s guns. In an interview with Fox news Trump states “If they see a person possibly with a gun or they think may have a gun, they will see the person and they’ll look and they’ll take the gun away”. Trump is basically saying that the police should have the right to search innocent people without a warrant and if a weapon is found they have the right to Seize it. Trump also comments that the “stop-and-frisk method” is a way to address violence in black communities but these comment made by Trump did nothing but disturb gun rights advocates.

This event relates to the Constitution because it to refers to the second amendment in the bill of rights which states that we have the right to bear arms. The proposed comments made by Trump would be considered constitutionally incapable because it interferes with the second amendment. Moreover, Trumps ideas on stopping and frisking innocent people would also be un-constitutional because it discommodes the fourth amendment which states that unreasonable searches and seizures require a warrant for it to be judicially sanctioned.

This event is personal to me because it hinders the public safety and security of Americans. If this were to become a reality due to Trump winning the presidential election the public safety of Americans would be in jeopardy because it gives police officers too much power and jurisdiction. Americans would fear leaving their house and running into the cops. Another reason why this event hits home hard for me is because Trump is targeting African Americans specifically. As me being an African-American I feel offended by the comments made by Trump in reference to “gun violence in black communities” Blacks aren’t the only ones who carry guns and blacks aren’t the only people who are violent and I’m tired of African-Americans being portrayed as these violent angry people because your race doesn’t define you character and I just feel that there shouldn’t be a double standard when it comes the safety and security of Americans.

What basic rights were in conflict in the Dred Scott case? What are some examples of similar conflicts today?

Dred Scott v. Sanford was a case brought before the court by slave Dred Scott who believed he was entitled to his emancipation. Scott did lose the case and therefore blacks were unable to petition the court for their freedom. Some basic rights that were in conflict in the Dred Scott case include but are not limited to; the right to own property, the right to deprive a person of property, the right to life, liberty, or property without due process, and private property shall not be taken for public use these are just a few to name. A similar conflict to Dred Scott v. Sanford would be Roe v. Wade in which the court annotated the Constitution as mandating that all states must allow abortion. Another example of a similar conflict would be the trial of George Zimmerman where a ma was on trial for the murder of a 17-year-old boy. All of these case are related in terms of discrimination.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s