On a recent occasion, ex-President Donald Trump made a provocative proposition. During an altercation in Erie, Pennsylvania, he suggested a single, intense, brutal day led by law enforcement could swiftly terminate crime. This proposition, made just over a month before the electoral contest, did not translate into an explicit policy initiative.
Picturing a harsh sixty minutes where the law stands firm and unyielding, Trump implied that such an event would send an unequivocal message. He believed it could end crime in the blink of an eye. ‘It will end immediately,’ Trump asserted.
When asked if there was a concrete strategy behind this paradigm shift, or how such a drastic measure would be implemented, a Trump representative clarified that the idea was merely speculative. In their words, Trump was ‘clearly just floating it in jest.’
An official letter from the communications director elucidated their stance. Parsimony was key, they said, in communicating Trump’s message. They emphasized Trump’s consistent image as an advocate of legal strictness, a beacon of law and order.
Explaining further, they stated that disregard for existing laws would lead only to complete chaos. This is something that Trump believes has been massively instigated by Kamala Harris. Particularly during her tenure as the Attorney General of California, she swayed towards leniency towards criminals, as per his perspective.
Earlier in the year, Trump had faced legal consequences himself. He was proven guilty on 34 felony charges, all connected to his attempt to veil compensatory sums aimed towards an adult entertainment performer.
During one portion of his address, Trump leveled an allegation suggesting that the state laws in California were lax towards thieves. He seemed to imply that stealing goods worth up to $950 attracted no severe penalties, a notion he seemingly claimed as fact.
His remarks alluded to Proposition 47, a law based in California that had caused the downgrading of certain theft crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. However, Trump’s portrayal of the situation was not chronologically accurate. The financial threshold he mentioned was implemented four years before his claimed time.
In a broader American context, the rate of property crimes had shown a reduction. If we glance at the statistics from the previous year, there had been a decrease of 2.4 percent. Yet, the picture Trump was painting in his speech didn’t align with these national trends.
It’s worth noting Trump’s chronicle of promoting robust police action. He is no stranger to endorsing law enforcement’s assertive response in demanding situations, such as racial unrest.
The tragic incident of George Floyd’s murder in 2020 and its subsequent reverberations are a case in point. Trump had publicly expressed that the police response to the ensuing civil unrest was a sight to behold.