Massachusetts court rules Black men fleeing the police is reasonable

[Denny Crane]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/suspect_classification

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

In Americanjurisprudence, a suspect classification is any classification of groups meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when an Equal Protection claim alleging unconstitutional discrimination is asserted against a law, regulation, or other government action.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

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.

I'm going to go ahead and presume that by continuing to refer to a "protected class" as a class of people rather than a class of characteristic, you are simply being intentionally obtuse at this point.

As soon as you want to acknowledge and/or address this major folly in your reasoning and arguments, we can continue. Until then, we are at an impasse.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

I never knew that these checkpoints were actually legal. If the Supreme Court finds these legal how could RUNNING from the police not be worth at least a question or two from the old 5.0?

(edit, the video is pretty much all the same thing except for the very last one, skip to that one)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi00OTf3q7PAhURxmMKHXz2AnIQFgglMAE&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte&usg=AFQjCNHSJ2hSUmlLzKdgy1v1be1ze_Gq9g

 

[dviss1]

All this outrage for nothing.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

All this outrage for nothing.

Why? I guess I don't get it. I'm 100 percent cool with them having no reason to stop him in the first place. I'm still 100 percent cool with anyone they have no reason to stop telling them to fuck off and die a painful death. If they search someone illegally and find something I'm cool with them being set free even if they have 50 dead bodies in their house.

I guess I'll have to claim ignorance like I just realized I was about immigration checkpoints IN this country. I was sure they were unconstitutional and then I found out that they were not dating back to the 70's. I don't like it but the Supreme Court ruled that they were legal. I feel better about just saying yes I'm an American and going on my way.

I guess that logically it isn't any different than a guy telling the cops to fuck off, but I wonder how this will work in reality.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm going to go ahead and presume that by continuing to refer to a "protected class" as a class of people rather than a class of characteristic, you are simply being intentionally obtuse at this point.

As soon as you want to acknowledge and/or address this major folly in your reasoning and arguments, we can continue. Until then, we are at an impasse.

You missed the post about suspect classes.

That's odd because you posted this right after taht post.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

You missed the post about suspect classes.

That's odd because you posted this right after taht post.

No, i didn't miss it. Suspect classifications are a different concept than protected classes.

As I said, until you can acknowledge that the term "protected class" as it applies to the 14th amendment refers to characteristics and not to people, we can go no further.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, i didn't miss it. Suspect classifications are a different concept than protected classes.

As I said, until you can acknowledge that the term "protected class" as it applies to the 14th amendment refers to characteristics and not to people, we can go no further.

They're related.

I agree I misspoke, but the concept is still valid.

White people are not given the same kinds of protections under the 14th as black people. My original point still stands.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

They're related.

I agree I misspoke, but the concept is still valid.

White people are not given the same kinds of protections under the 14th as black people. My original point still stands.

Not at all. The protections are the same. Your posted definition regarding suspect classifications specifically states that those "classes receive closer scrutiny by courts" in discrimination cases--as in, they'll get more attention because the likelihood of their case having validity is higher--not that they receive protections not afforded to those not in a suspect classification.

You've given no support to your "original point"; I fail to see how you can claim it still stands.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not at all. The protections are the same. Your posted definition regarding suspect classifications specifically states that those "classes receive closer scrutiny by courts" in discrimination cases--as in, they'll get more attention because the likelihood of their case having validity is higher--not that they receive protections not afforded to those not in a suspect classification.

You've given no support to your "original point"; I fail to see how you can claim it still stands.

The closer scrutiny is exactly what the court did, in writing about the right of black people to flee the cops.

The significance is that the cops, by the results of how they operate, are discriminating against black people, who have special protection.

 

[blue32]

The closer scrutiny is exactly what the court did, in writing about the right of black people to flee the cops.

The significance is that the cops, by the results of how they operate, are discriminating against black people, who have special protection.

So the result of this is to let the supposed racist police keep their jobs, but allow for the black folk to run when the cops come?
What in the actual fuck is going on there.

This is both kinds of crazy.

 

[Denny Crane]

So the result of this is to let the supposed racist police keep their jobs, but allow for the black folk to run when the cops come?
What in the actual fuck is going on there.

This is both kinds of crazy.

Until the situation with the police is fixed so there is no harm/discrimination done to black people as a group, this is the court's remedy.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The closer scrutiny is exactly what the court did, in writing about the right of black people to flee the cops.

The significance is that the cops, by the results of how they operate, are discriminating against black people, who have special protection.

No. You're conflating this case (a 4th amendment argument) with an equal protection claim. Again, as per your quote/link, the "closer scrutiny" for cases involving "suspect classifications" pertains to 14th amendment challenges to laws or actions that are perceived as discriminatory.

Further, the term "scrutiny" has a pretty specific legal definition in regard to equal protection challenges as well, differentiating between "rational basis" (for a potentially discriminatory law), "intermediate scrutiny", and "strict scrutiny" (the criteria under which race-based legal challenges are considered). This, again, is from your link:

To satisfy the strict scrutiny, suspect classifications such as race, alienage, or national origin must be necessary to promote a compelling state interest when there is no less restrictive alternative method available to accomplish the government (state's) interest.

The practical result of this legal doctrine is that government sponsored discrimination on the account of a citizen's race, skincolor, ethnicity, religion, or national origin is almost always unconstitutional
...
When intermediate scrutiny is involved, the courts are more likely to oppose the discriminatory law when compared to a rational basis review particularly if a law is based on gender.
...
When rational basis review is used, it means that the classification is one that overwhelmingly tends to be rational, e.g. distinguishing criminals from non-criminals.

You're completely misdefining the term in order to fit it into your argument, but it doesn't mean what you claim it means.

 

[Denny Crane]

No. You're conflating this case (a 4th amendment argument) with an equal protection claim. Again, as per your quote/link, the "closer scrutiny" for cases involving "suspect classifications" pertains to 14th amendment challenges to laws or actions that are perceived as discriminatory.

Further, the term "scrutiny" has a pretty specific legal definition in regard to equal protection challenges as well, differentiating between "rational basis" (for a potentially discriminatory law), "intermediate scrutiny", and "strict scrutiny" (the criteria under which race-based legal challenges are considered). This, again, is from your link:



You're completely misdefining the term in order to fit it into your argument, but it doesn't mean what you claim it means.

You are the one who brought up equal protection, which is a clause in the 14th amendment. I've been talking about the 14th since you raised it. Though due process also requires equal treatment.

I am not misdefining the term. The court's decision is in line with protecting blacks from discriminatory police practices. When it comes to race, strict scrutiny is to be used.

The state didn't show that not allowing blacks to flee serves some compelling interest.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

You are the one who brought up equal protection, which is a clause in the 14th amendment. I've been talking about the 14th since you raised it. Though due process also requires equal treatment.

I am not misdefining the term. The court's decision is in line with protecting blacks from discriminatory police practices. When it comes to race, strict scrutiny is to be used.

The state didn't show that not allowing blacks to flee serves some compelling interest.

And when I brought up the 14th, I brought it up in relation to my prediction of a future case referencing this one. You disputed the idea that it would be relevant because "equal protection does not apply equally", claiming (incorrectly) that blacks are a protected class, and that this case's decision is an example thereof.

Now that we're through that recap, I will reiterate that you've failed to give any example of equal protection not applying equally, of blacks being a protected class, or of any evidence or reasonable argument to my suggestion that this ruling will more than likely end up being extended to all races, rather than being limited only to blacks.

 

[Denny Crane]

And when I brought up the 14th, I brought it up in relation to my prediction of a future case referencing this one. You disputed the idea that it would be relevant because "equal protection does not apply equally", claiming (incorrectly) that blacks are a protected class, and that this case's decision is an example thereof.

Now that we're through that recap, I will reiterate that you've failed to give any example of equal protection not applying equally, of blacks being a protected class, or of any evidence or reasonable argument to my suggestion that this ruling will more than likely end up being extended to all races, rather than being limited only to blacks.

Equal protection doesn't apply equally.

The decision talked about black people's rights to flee.

"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."

Not "anyone" or "any person" or "white people, too"

 

[MarAzul]

umm, I fail to see the significance here. Fleeing has never made you guilty of any crime you were suspected of committing. I does make you guilty of the new crime, resisting arrest.