MA Supreme Court says blacks are free to flee the police -- !!!!!!!!!

Billy Batts said:
That is not what the opinion says. The victim of the home invasion reported to the police, the invader was a Black male, the court found the witness statement to be to vague of the rest. The case was not thrown out because of Racial profiling. The suspect was already identified as Black, by the victim,who was also black, in a Black neighborhood. The race of the perpetrator was never in question. The witness was unsure about: his height, weight,and could only describe two of the men cloths as dark,and the home invader of wearing a Red Hoody (Warren was not wearing a Red Hoody). That is what led the court to declare, insufficient cause for the stop.
Click to expand...

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

In its ruling, the court made two major findings: The justices said police didn’t have the right to stop Warren in the first place, and the fact that he ran away shouldn’t be used against him.

On the first point, the court said the description of the break-in suspects’ clothing was “vague,” making it impossible for police to “reasonably and rationally” target Warren or any other black man wearing dark clothing as a suspect. The court said the “ubiquitous” clothing description and the officer’s "hunch" wasn’t enough to justify the stop.

"Lacking any information about facial features, hairstyles, skin tone, height, weight, or other physical characteristics, the victim's description 'contribute[d] nothing to the officers' ability to distinguish the defendant from any other black male' wearing dark clothes and a 'hoodie' in Roxbury."

On the second point, 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. And when it comes to black men, the BPD and ACLU reports “documenting a pattern of racial profiling of black males in the city of Boston” must be taken into consideration, the court said.

"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."
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
White didn't give up rights. The rights were taken from them by the govt. For 50 years the govt has been telling white men "you can't have this job or go to this college or get this scholarship."
Click to expand...

You are talking about set asides, quotas, and affirmative action. That was more prominent in the 70's than now, even at it's peak it did not exclude whites from any college or job. It is also a lightning rod issue, I don't want to get in to, and has nothing to do with the case that was posted.
 
domer76 said:
http://www.wbur.org/news/2016/09/20...men-may-have-legitimate-reason-to-flee-police

In its ruling, the court made two major findings: The justices said police didn’t have the right to stop Warren in the first place, and the fact that he ran away shouldn’t be used against him.

On the first point, the court said the description of the break-in suspects’ clothing was “vague,” making it impossible for police to “reasonably and rationally” target Warren or any other black man wearing dark clothing as a suspect. The court said the “ubiquitous” clothing description and the officer’s "hunch" wasn’t enough to justify the stop.

"Lacking any information about facial features, hairstyles, skin tone, height, weight, or other physical characteristics, the victim's description 'contribute[d] nothing to the officers' ability to distinguish the defendant from any other black male' wearing dark clothes and a 'hoodie' in Roxbury."

On the second point, 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. And when it comes to black men, the BPD and ACLU reports “documenting a pattern of racial profiling of black males in the city of Boston” must be taken into consideration, the court said.

"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."
Click to expand...

That is a story about the opinion, read my links to the appellate decision, as well as the Mass supreme court ruling - I previously posted. The author of that piece is over playing racial profiling. The body of the opinion goes to the Motion to dismiss being squashed. Racial profiling is only two pages of the entire decision, and should be viewed as Dicta.
 
Blacks don't even have to pay parking tickets or water bills in most major cities. Since police are backing off them.

A form of reverse racism, ignored by the media and applauded by retarded liberals.
 
i think that you should assume whatever demands the police tell you are lawful unless otherwise proven. Unless they need a special document like a subpeona or something.

If you tell people they have the right to run away and then they can get around that by questioning the right of the police to stop them in the first place later on down the road then the cops job just got so much harder. You should stop and do what he asks then if you feel it is unlawful file a complaint or case after. If the judge wants us to ignore what we think is not lawful (which normal people would have a har dtime distinguishing) then its anarchy.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
More black privilege. Only whites have to obey the law.
Click to expand...

This will get thrown out by the SCOTUS; this is just more evidence why leftist jurists should be kept out of the court system. What a moronic decision. Cops might as well stay at their desks and let chaos supplant the rule of law until the rest of the nation recovers it's sanity.
 
Althea said:
If Stand Your Ground only requires you to be afraid of the black man you choose to murder, then this rule makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

What a moronic statement; but par for the course with you. Stand your ground does not mean run from the police or confront them with your gun moron.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the right to buy guns through the mail from other states without a background check and FFL transfer
Click to expand...

That law was passed in 68 after Kennedy was assassinated (That is how Oswald purchased the riffle that he used), and it did not just effect white people.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top