Systemic racial profiling and nationwide police violence threaten the lives of Ethnic Americans — youth and adults — EVERY day.
Abuse against all people(s) regardless of race, color, national origin, homeless, religion, age, sexual orientation or manner of clothing is becoming abundantly rampant. Discriminatory racial profiling by police is nothing new and is huge in law enforcement, risking the lives of many innocent people.
RACIAL and ETHNIC PROFILING: The term racial profiling refers to the practice. Whereby law-enforcement, intelligence, or homeland security personal factor the race or ethnic characteristics of any given *suspect* into their respective decision making process. This practice became particularly controversial toward the end of the 20th century when civil rights leaders charges that profiling was rooted in racism and the targeting, disproportionately and unjustly of Blacks and other non-white minorities.
1. Discrimination based on stereotypes
2. The concept of racial profiling has been defined in many ways, including:
3. Any police-initiated action that relies on the race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than the behavior of an individual or information that leads the police to a particular individual who has been identified as being, or having been, engaged in criminal activity.”
4. Racially-biased policing occurs when law enforcement inappropriately considers race or ethnicity in deciding with whom and how to intervene in an enforcement capacity.”
5. Using race as a key factor in deciding whether to make a Traffic Stop or Stop and Frisk Policy.
6. It appears at least two clearly distinguishable definitions of the term ‘racial profiling’: a narrow definition and a broad definition… Under the narrow definition, racial profiling occurs when a police officer stops, questions, arrests, and/or searches someone solely on the basis of the person’s race or ethnicity… Under the broader definition, racial profiling occurs whenever police routinely use race as a factor that, along with an accumulation of other factors, causes an officer to react with suspicion and take action
History: The existence of racial profiling dates back to slavery. In 1693, Philadelphia’s court officials gave police legal authority to stop and detain any Negro (freed or slaved) seen wandering around on the streets. This discriminatory practice continued through the Jim Crow era and now in the twenty-first century, racial profiling is prevalent across cities in the U.S.
One of the core principles of the Fourth Amendment is that the police cannot stop and detain an individual without some reason – probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion – to believe that he or she is involved in criminal activity. But recent Supreme Court decisions allow the police to use traffic stops as a pretext in order to “fish” for evidence. Both anecdotal and quantitative data show that nationwide, the police exercise this discretionary power primarily against African Americans and Latinos.
In a scene of the movie Men In Black II: Agent J. shows an auto-driving car to Agent K. The auto-piloted car has a driver-shaped airbag which can be deployed with the press of a button on the steering wheel. The fake driver is Caucasian, with a black suit, white shirt and black tie. The dialog:
Agent K: Does that come standard? [pointing to the driver-shaped airbag]
Agent J: Actually it came with a black dude, but he kept getting pulled over.
FOURTH AMENDMENT – SEARCH and SEIZURE – U.S. CONSTITUTION: 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.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law. Whether a particular type of search is considered reasonable in the eyes of the law, is determined by balancing two important interests. On one side of the scale is the intrusion on an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. On the other side of the scale are legitimate government interests, such as public safety.The extent to which an individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment depends, in part, on the location of the search or seizure.
PROBABLE CAUSE: The standards of probable cause differ for an arrest and a search. The government has a probable cause to make an arrest when “the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information” would lead a prudent person to believe that the arrested person had committed or was committing a crime. Probable cause to arrest must exist before the arrest is made. Evidence obtained after the arrest may not apply retroactively to justify the arrest. When police conduct a search, the amendment requires that the warrant establish probable cause to believe that the search will uncover criminal activity or contraband. They must have legally sufficient reasons to believe a search is necessary.
When an officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, the officer may briefly stop the suspicious person and make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or dispelling the officer’s suspicions.
1. Where there is probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a criminal activity, an officer may lawfully search any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.
2. An officer may conduct a traffic stop if he has reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred or that criminal activity is afoot.
3. An officer may conduct a pat-down of the driver and passengers during a lawful traffic stop; the police need not believe that any occupant of the vehicle is involved in a criminal activity.
4. The use of a narcotics detection dog to walk around the exterior of a car subject to a valid traffic stop does not require reasonable, explainable suspicion.
5. Special law enforcement concerns will sometimes justify highway stops without any individualized suspicion.
6. An officer at an international border may conduct routine stops and searches.
7. A state may use highway sobriety checkpoints for the purpose of combating drunk driving.
8. A state may set up highway checkpoints where the stops are brief and seek voluntary cooperation in the investigation of a recent crime that has occurred on that highway.
9. However, a state may not use a highway checkpoint program whose primary purpose is the discovery and interdiction of illegal narcotics.
My definition of Unarmed
Please keep in mind I am only able to research and write bio’s on 5-7 victims per day. Each bio is verified through multiple sources, photos are retrieved, copied, cropped. Each bio is written and condensed close as possible to a single paragraph, many have links to READ MORE. Each name, age, state and ethnicity are entered into 3 data bases and then, after all pertinent information has been gathered I individually post to the website. Therefore each bio takes anywhere from 30 to 60 minutes to complete.
I repeat, it is at my discretion as to what I consider as being unarmed. If the person has a weapon but is unable to use it because it’s under a seat, knocked to the side, fallen to the ground, in someone else’s possession etc. I consider that person unarmed. If someone is shot in the back, I consider that person unarmed. If the person is mentally ill and can be contained without using deadly force, I consider that person unarmed. If ANYONE can be contained without using deadly force, I consider that person unarmed.
There is no reason, in my opinion to shoot someone when police manage to apprehend and incarcerate extraordinarily dangerous serial killers/ mass murderers/spree killers and vigilantes yet cannot manage the capture of citizens of ethnic lineage without executing them.
However, if someone is shooting, holding a weapon or hurting someone (including an officer) and there is absolutely no other way to control them, I consider that person armed. Mind you, I credit witness statements far above police reports.
I DO NOT believe Law Enforcement reports. Lies the police tell that are so familiar anyone can recite them: “Reached for waist band”; “Pointed hand at police in a threatening manner.” “Backed the car toward officers” “Lunged at me” “Had a black object in hand” “Tried to grab gun” “Officers of the Un-Peace” or “Un-Peace Officers” Campaigns were formed against the “Blue Code” supposedly making it more visible to the public eye have taken place but all they seem to be doing is allowing the police to police the police and the police. Police are liars, period. So please don’t think I would even consider relying on their statements. The code of Blue Silence is too real to be ignored, and has been proven over and over again to be the real badge of the law.
As for Grand Juries they’ve been bought and paid for in more cases than can be counted. There is something fundamentally unfair about a grand jury system which doesn’t reflect the racial, political and ethnic diversity of the community it serves and the people it indicts.