Massachusetts court rules Black men fleeing the police is reasonable

[PtldPlatypus]

http://www.wbur.org/news/2016/09/20...men-may-have-legitimate-reason-to-flee-police

Specifically, the act of avoiding or evading police is not sufficient grounds for suspicion leading to a search. I have a feeling this is going to be a pretty controversial ruling. I could also see how this is going to get applied to police shootings.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Ridiculous. If they approached the guy and searched him for no reason then fuck the police and toss the conviction.

If a cop wants to talk to you and you run away I don't care what color you are. That is probable cause to at least detain you.

Well, hopefully this will at least stop people from wearing their pants half way down their ass. If you know you can just run you gotta be ready.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

I'm writing this as I listen to New Whirl Odor, wonder if Chuck D would agree with anything I say.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

If a cop wants to talk to you and you run away I don't care what color you are. That is probable cause to at least detain you.

Massachusetts court says "check your privilege..."

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Massachusetts court says "check your privilege..."

Well, a black guy can mug or kill one of the judges and just wear dark clothing and get away with it. They just gave them that privilege. I'm pretty sure most suspect descriptions aren't very descriptive anyway so now what do the cops do?

If the guy isn't caught red handed and they don't have a good description how do you catch him? DNA left after the fact?

Here is an example......Cop gets a vague description of a black guy, sees someone that slightly resembles the description. Approaches him and the guy runs away and jumps in his car and runs from the cops. They chase him and catch him without shooting him.

Let's say the guy didn't even do what the cop was going to talk to him about but after the chase they find his girlfriend's body in the trunk.

Now he can get away with murder.

If this stands a black guy could literally plan it like this to get away with murder. Kill her in the car and keep all the evidence in the car, it would all be thrown out. Just gotta get a cop's attention and then RUN!!!!!!!!

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

What if the guy in the story had a warrant? Will they be forced to release him and try to catch him later?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Well, a black guy can mug or kill one of the judges and just wear dark clothing and get away with it. They just gave them that privilege. I'm pretty sure most suspect descriptions aren't very descriptive anyway so now what do the cops do?

If the guy isn't caught red handed and they don't have a good description how do you catch him? DNA left after the fact?

Here is an example......Cop gets a vague description of a black guy, sees someone that slightly resembles the description. Approaches him and the guy runs away and jumps in his car and runs from the cops. They chase him and catch him without shooting him.

Let's say the guy didn't even do what the cop was going to talk to him about but after the chase they find his girlfriend's body in the trunk.

Now he can get away with murder.

If this stands a black guy could literally plan it like this to get away with murder. Kill her in the car and keep all the evidence in the car, it would all be thrown out. Just gotta get a cop's attention and then RUN!!!!!!!!

I'm sure someone could come up with a hypothetical to dispute every constitutional right. A .001% possibility of someone abusing a ruling doesn't negate its overall validity.

 

[Chris Craig]

This ruling will be overturned. One, you can't have separate laws for people based on their race, a law has to apply to everyone or it is biased. So, if they are going to say black people have the right to run, then so should Hispanics, Asians, whites, etc. Equality before the law.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

I'm sure someone could come up with a hypothetical to dispute every constitutional right. A .001% possibility of someone abusing a ruling doesn't negate its overall validity.

Running from the police is suspicious. The .001 percent possibility number is closer to the percentage of people who just run from cops and are actually innocent.

DUI checkpoints are completely unconstitutional but the court said it was minor when they upheld them if I remember correctly. Something about public safety outweighs the small infringement on our rights.

I would expect this to be overturned but who knows anymore?

 

[rasheedfan2005]

This ruling will be overturned. One, you can't have separate laws for people based on their race, a law has to apply to everyone or it is biased. So, if they are going to say black people have the right to run, then so should Hispanics, Asians, whites, etc. Equality before the law.

Sure you can. If i get fired for being white i cant sue for prejudice because im not a protected class. Where as if im fired for being a muslim or black ect i can sue my employer. All protected class laws are racist and exist as laws.

 

[Denny Crane]

We do not eliminate flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis whenever a black male is the subject of an investigatory stop. However, in such circumstances, flight is not necessarily probative of a suspect's state of mind or consciousness of guilt. Rather, the finding that black males in Boston are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO [Field Interrogation and Observation] encounters suggests a reason for flight totally unrelated to consciousness of guilt. Such an individual, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, a judge should, in appropriate cases, consider the report's findings in weighing flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus."

 

[rasheedfan2005]

We do not eliminate flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis whenever a black male is the subject of an investigatory stop. However, in such circumstances, flight is not necessarily probative of a suspect's state of mind or consciousness of guilt. Rather, the finding that black males in Boston are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO [Field Interrogation and Observation] encounters suggests a reason for flight totally unrelated to consciousness of guilt. Such an individual, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, a judge should, in appropriate cases, consider the report's findings in weighing flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus."

Hahhahahaha. We arent racist, feel free to run and trust the judge to take your side. This is some of the dumbest shit ive ever read.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Such an individual, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity.

Stupidest thing I've read in ages.

"Fuck it's the cops, run!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Is because of racial profiling?

No, "god damn these mother fucking pigs are always hassling me" is because of racial profiling. People don't run like there is a bomb to avoid getting hassled.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

If for every black guy contacted just to question them one also runs then that could be "just as easily"

They don't.

 

[MARIS61]

...the court noted that state law gives individuals the right to not speak to police and even walk away if they aren’t charged with anything. The court said when an individual does flee, the action doesn't necessarily mean the person is guilty.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.wbur.org/news/2014/09/05/boston-busing-anniversary

 

[rasheedfan2005]

 

[blue32]

...the court noted that state law gives individuals the right to not speak to police and even walk away if they aren’t charged with anything. The court said when an individual does flee, the action doesn't necessarily mean the person is guilty.

They'll probably just start charging people for things that would otherwise overlook.

Jaywalking, shit like that. This isn't going to help shit.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Running is not an admission of guilt.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Running is not an admission of guilt.

Who says it is? It couldn't be more suspicious whatever the reason for running is.

I watched cops and I always thought it was wrong that they would find a baggie of drugs after a foot chase and charge the guy with it. If there is other evidence like fingerprints, fine. If you have no other evidence then he got away with it by running as far as I am concerned.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

This ruling will be overturned. One, you can't have separate laws for people based on their race, a law has to apply to everyone or it is biased. So, if they are going to say black people have the right to run, then so should Hispanics, Asians, whites, etc. Equality before the law.

Rather than overturning the ruling, what will more likely happen is that a white person who is convicted after a fleeing-based search will appeal the conviction based on the equal protection clause, saying that if it's OK for blacks to flee the police, then it must consequently be OK for everyone to do so.

 

[Denny Crane]

Rather than overturning the ruling, what will more likely happen is that a white person who is convicted after a fleeing-based search will appeal the conviction based on the equal protection clause, saying that if it's OK for blacks to flee the police, then it must consequently be OK for everyone to do so.

Equal protection, ironically, does not apply equally. See "protected classes."

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Equal protection, ironically, does not apply equally. See "protected classes."

"Protected classes" refer to classes of differentiators (color, ethnicity, religion, orientation) which apply to everyone. Even I, as a "non-protected" straight, white, Christian, male, cannot be fired or discriminated against for any of those identifiers.

 

[Denny Crane]

"Protected classes" refer to classes of differentiators (color, ethnicity, religion, orientation) which apply to everyone. Even I, as a "non-protected" straight, white, Christian, male, cannot be fired or discriminated against for any of those identifiers.

Still, equal protection isn't equal.

Why would it not be legit for a white person to flee?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Still, equal protection isn't equal.

Why would it not be legit for a white person to flee?

Your assertion of unequal application of the equal protection clause wouldn't really invalidate a legal challenge invoking it.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at with that question.

 

[Denny Crane]

Your assertion of unequal application of the equal protection clause wouldn't really invalidate a legal challenge invoking it.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at with that question.

You assume the court's ruling will be overturned by some white guy asserting equal protection. I suggested this mythical white guy would be afforded the same protection (not overturn), or the court would rule the black folk who are fleeing the police are protected class.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

You assume the court's ruling will be overturned by some white guy asserting equal protection. I suggested this mythical white guy would be afforded the same protection (not overturn), or the court would rule the black folk who are fleeing the police are protected class.

Actually, I predicted that the court's ruling will be extended (rather than overturned) based on a white person challenging a conviction to which this ruling could apply.

Aside from people over 40 being protected from workplace age discrimination, can you provide me an example of a specific segment of the population being legally identified as a "protected class" in the manner you're suggesting?

 

[Denny Crane]

Actually, I predicted that the court's ruling will be extended (rather than overturned) based on a white person challenging a conviction to which this ruling could apply.

Aside from people over 40 being protected from workplace age discrimination, can you provide me an example of a specific segment of the population being legally identified as a "protected class" in the manner you're suggesting?

Black people are a protected class for the purposes of interpreting the 14th amendment. The equal protection clause is there. Gay people were not protected, so the government was able pass all sorts of awful laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

In United States federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.[1] The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal law:

• Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
• Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission includes discrimination based on gender presentation and sexual orientation as protected beneath the class of 'sex'[2]
• Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
• Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
• Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
• Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
• Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
• Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Black people are a protected class for the purposes of interpreting the 14th amendment. The equal protection clause is there. Gay people were not protected, so the government was able pass all sorts of awful laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

In United States federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.[1] The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal law:

• Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
• Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission includes discrimination based on gender presentation and sexual orientation as protected beneath the class of 'sex'[2]
• Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
• Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
• Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
• Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
• Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
• Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

And, as I stated, those anti-discrimination policies apply to all people, not just certain members of the populace. Just like black people cannot be discriminated against for being black, white people can also not be discriminated against for being white. Black people are not any more protected from discrimination than white people are.

As your quote states (font color changed for your convenience), the term "class" does not mean "class of people", but "class of characteristic". Claiming black people are a "protected class" is a misinterpretation of the term.

 

[Denny Crane]

And, as I stated, those anti-discrimination policies apply to all people, not just certain members of the populace. Just like black people cannot be discriminated against for being black, white people can also not be discriminated against for being white. Black people are not any more protected from discrimination than white people are.

As your quote states (font color changed for your convenience), the term "class" does not mean "class of people", but "class of characteristic". Claiming black people are a "protected class" is a misinterpretation of the term.

The Supreme Court, in its deliberations, and the laws passed by congress specify what a protected class is.

Blacks, as a protected class, might have special rules for their concerns. If a workplace hires only whites, they could claim it to be random luck. "We hired 8, and because so few blacks applied, none qualified." It is typical of employment or school admissions, and housing.

The blacks fleeing cops is exactly this sort of thing.

As I wrote before, gays were never considered a protected class in numerous decisions. So not everyone is a member of a protected class.