That's pretty obvious. I see a lot of poor, white, male victims on this forum. They don't know the Constitution from a hole in the ground. They just get their marching orders from Limbaugh, Hannity, WND, Infowars, etc.
Quite pathetic.
MA Supreme Court says blacks are free to flee the police -- !!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
That's pretty obvious. I see a lot of poor, white, male victims on this forum. They don't know the Constitution from a hole in the ground. They just get their marching orders from Limbaugh, Hannity, WND, Infowars, etc.
Quite pathetic.
Althea
Althea told me...
This is one of the more high profile cases. He was convicted of attempted murder, only because he kept firing at a fleeing car.
He got off on the charge of murdering the kid. Of course...he 'feared for his life'.
A jury found Dunn guilty of four charges in February, commanding at least 60 years in prison, butthe jury was hung on the murder charge related to Davis' November 2012 death.
Dunn was convicted in February on one count of shooting into a vehicle and three counts of attempted second-degree murder -- one each for Davis' friends, Leland Brunson, Tommie Stornes and Tevin Thompson, who were in the Dodge Durango with Davis.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/17/justice/michael-dunn-sentencing/
You're saying the Mass. Supreme Court was just guessing on the BPD profiling?
Last edited:
Darth Omar
Russian asset
You're the self appointed JPP liberal savant. Explain how to prove whether someone was profiled.
I grow weary of all the hand holding for the willfully ignorant. I cited this before, but I'll do it again.
"Citing Boston police data and a 2014 report by the ACLU of Massachusetts that found blacks were disproportionately stopped by the city's police, the state’s highest court on Tuesday threw out the gun conviction of Jimmy Warren."
http://www.wbur.org/news/2016/09/20...men-may-have-legitimate-reason-to-flee-police
Darth Omar
Russian asset
That explains how to prove whether an individual was racially profiled? The ACLU claims that it accounted for the disproportionate violence in non-white precincts in its study [which makes a higher number of blacks being stopped a near certainty].
"The ACLU's report found that between 2007 and 2010, 63 percent of Boston police encounters were with blacks, though at that time the city's black population was just 24 percent. Notably, the report said that taking into account high-crime neighborhoods [read: black neighborhoods] did not explain the disparity." [link]
63% of encounters were with blacks---a little over half of the total. Seems to me that number isn't way out of whack given that most of the calls [at least half of them?] are going to go to 'troubled neighborhoods'.
That's the basis for their claim? Seems a little weak. Not surprising considering it's an ACLU study.
Basically, it means there may be some profiling going on, but how much is anybody's guess.
From the Boston PD report ON ITSELF:
"The study did show some racial disparities that must be addressed.
Specifically, the study showed that during the given time period, minority neighborhoods do experience higher levels of FIO activity, approximately 1% of FIO’s completed per month, when controlling for crime.
It also showed that Black subjects are 8% more likely to be stopped repeatedly and 12% more likely to be frisked and searched when controlling for other factors like Criminal History and Gang Membership in Violent Crime areas."
Darth Omar
Russian asset
So they're not perfect. Here's a clue: they never will be.
You realize that means a given black has less than a 1 in 10 chance of being a victim of racial profiling when stopped by the Boston cops, right? Those averages suck if you're trying to win on it. No wonder Obama whiffed in Beer Gate lol!
One would think that number would be much higher given the amount of wailing that goes on about it.
Another really interesting aspect would be the number of black cops racially profiling other blacks. I guess that's still racial profiling when that happens lol. You can draw any number of interpretations from a data set.
Read it again. 8% more likely to be stopped. 12% more likely to be frisked.
Deny all you want. It's BPD's own data.
There are two problems with your post.
First, you're quoting WND. Anyone with the common sense of at least a lemon and the intelligence of at least an earwig knows that WND is only ready by stupid, brainless people who don't bother to check things out for themselves and who believe only what they're told by liars, idiots, morons, and fools (such as WND writers). Which leads us to...
Second, you've proved you never bother to check facts for yourself before you post, because you're a lazy, brainless idiot. (Yeah, I'm being a real asshole to you, but I have zero respect for you, and you've earned that all on your own.
)So I checked some facts for you that not only proves that YOU are a blind follower led around by radicalized, extremist zealots who lie and hide the truth to further their agenda by finding the actual opinion, which can be found, you'll love this, right HERE.
Yes, the issue of flight is part of the ruling, but it is far from the only part, and is not primary to the dismissal.
And now that I've exposed you for the unthinking hack you are, you are dismissed, as well.
Have a nice night.
- Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S7 at 83mph
Can you spell DEFLECTION? You quote the COURT in one breath as it establishes RACE/COLOR as a primary concern and in the next declare that the suspects were deliberately targeted by the police because of their skin color when it was a documented crime by blacks they were investigating. According to that logic no blacks can be charged with a crime because the COURT declares a history of racism....void of all the documented arrest reports that demonstrates that blacks are no more targeted by profiling than whites or any other race..WHEN THE PROFILE FITS THE INVESTIGATED CRIME.
If it was a white criminal that was witnessed and the police investigated white suspects who fit the profile and they resisted by running and tossing a concealed weapon...would the court have tossed it out because the whites said they feared the police? FYI: All criminals who are about to be caught engaging in crime RED HANDED fear the police. Question? Why was the weapon tossed if it was not illegal? And did the tossing of a weapon not present the appearance to the police of the crime profile? If not why not? And if it was illegal why did the court not prosecute as established by decades of legal precedence that states while one crime is under investigation all other illegal acts can be and are subject to prosecution? What? ARE BLACKS NOW SPECIAL because of the in vogue liberal movement?
Why do LIBERALS always attempt to have their cake and eat it also? You demonstrated the point....it was the court that refused BLIND JUSTICE due to skin color. The police were simply investigating a crime by attempting to investigate individuals that fit the profile from the clothing worn, to the determined race established by witness evidence and the tossing of a concealed weapon when approached.
Here is a new word for the air headed courts to ponder.
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES:
But of course LEGAL PRECEDENT is trumped by SKIN COLOR because of ACCUSATION by those who commit crimes...according to liberal logic or the lack thereof.
Now the truth? Boston being a hot bed of liberalism and cowards FEAR the blacks just like they did in Baltimore and refused to prosecute because of the threat of BLACK RIOTING and PROTESTS in their own city. Proving what? Liberals and specifically the people of Massachusetts are chicken shit cowards.
Last edited:
Darth Omar
Russian asset
I'm not denying anything. I'm saying the numbers are lower than you would expect from 'systemic racism'.
Hype all you want.
Can you spell DEFLECTION? You quote the COURT in one breath as it establishes RACE/COLOR as a primary concern and in the next declare that the suspects were deliberately targeted by the police because of their skin color when it was a documented crime by blacks they were investigating. According to that logic no blacks can be charged with a crime because the COURT declares a history of racism....void of all the documented arrest reports that demonstrates that blacks are no more targeted by profiling than whites or any other race..WHEN THE PROFILE FITS THE INVESTIGATED CRIME.
If it was a white criminal that was witnessed and the police investigated whites suspect who fit the profile and they resisted by running and tossing a concealed weapon...would the court have tossed it out because the whites said they feared the police? FYI: All criminals who are about to be caught engaging in crime RED HANDED fear the police. Question? Why was the weapon tossed if it was not illegal? And did the tossing of weapon not present the appearance to the police of the crime profile? If not why not? And if it was illegal why did the court not prosecute as established by decades of legal precedence that states while one crime is under investigation all other illegal acts can be and are subject to prosecution? What? ARE BLACKS NOW SPECIAL because of the in vogue liberal movement?
Why do LIBERALS always attempt to have their cake and eat it also? You demonstrated the point....it was the court that refused BLIND JUSTICE due to skin color.
Here's a suggestion, asshole. Write the Massachusetts Supreme Court with your concerns. I'm sure they will give them all the consideration they deserve.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
They're probably up there with the Ninth Circus Court lol.
Text Drivers are Killers
Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
8%!!! Hell that's practically nothing.
You want to talk racial numbers let's talk about how blacks are at least 5 times as likely to be on welfare as whites.
I have a bottle of 100 identical pills. 92 are sugar pills, 8 are lethal poison. Here, take one and eat it. Guess, what? You won't, pussy. Why? Because 8% and 12% ARE significant. Just because morons like you either flunked or never took stats, doesn't change the facts.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Racial profiling is lethal? Lol.
Leonthecat
Racism Watchdog
When armed trigger happy cops do it, yes.
You fucking morons just keep validating my observation that you are the stupidest motherfuckers I've ever encountered on ANY forum. The point was, dumbshit, that 8% and 12%, numbers that you previously fucked up, ARE significant.
And yeah, shithead, look at the recent shootings. Racial profiling can be lethal.
Billy Batts
Verified User
I posted the link to the slip opinion,and the appellate court decision yesterday. It did not help, read the whole thread there are worse cases of ignorance than just the O.P.There are two problems with your post.
First, you're quoting WND. Anyone with the common sense of at least a lemon and the intelligence of at least an earwig knows that WND is only ready by stupid, brainless people who don't bother to check things out for themselves and who believe only what they're told by liars, idiots, morons, and fools (such as WND writers). Which leads us to...
Second, you've proved you never bother to check facts for yourself before you post, because you're a lazy, brainless idiot. (Yeah, I'm being a real asshole to you, but I have zero respect for you, and you've earned that all on your own.
So I checked some facts for you that not only proves that YOU are a blind follower led around by radicalized, extremist zealots who lie and hide the truth to further their agenda by finding the actual opinion, which can be found, you'll love this, right HERE.
Yes, the issue of flight is part of the ruling, but it is far from the only part, and is not primary to the dismissal.
And now that I've exposed you for the unthinking hack you are, you are dismissed, as well.
Have a nice night.