'Motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled'

run_from_police

In a decision certain to influence the debate over police interactions with black suspects, the Massachusetts Supreme Court dismissed the gun conviction of a black man arrested by Boston police, ruling his fleeing from officers can be considered legitimate given black males’ fear of being racially profiled.

Jimmy Warren was arrested Dec. 18, 2011, by police who were investigating a break-in in nearby Roxbury. According to the victim, the suspects were three black men, one of whom was wearing a red hoodie, another a black hoodie and the third non-descript dark clothing. Warren was latter spotted with a second man, both wearing dark clothing, by officers.

Both men fled when approached by an officer seeking to question them. When Warren was later apprehended, he was accused of possession of an unlicensed .22-caliber pistol that police said he threw away during pursuit. While no items from the burglary were found in his possession, he was charged and convicted of unlawful possession of the weapon. Warren appealed.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court based it’s decision to overturn the conviction on two arguments. The witness description of the suspected burglars was too vague, the judges ruled, and there was no cause to question the pair just because they fit the “ubiquitous” clothing description or because the officer had a “hunch,” reported WBUR News.

“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,” the decision read.

Secondly, the court cited an American Civil Liberties Report charging the Boston Police Department with “a pattern of racial profiling of black males” to say blacks who flee police are not necessarily indicating guilt but may be reasonably seeking to avoid the “indignity” of discrimination.

According to the ACLU report, 63 percent of interactions between Boston police and civilians between 2007 and 2010 were with blacks, even though they accounted for just 24 percent of the population.

The judges wrote: “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.”

Massachusetts law does not require citizens to talk to police or to not walk away if they are not being charged.

The decision was hailed by the ACLU of Massachusetts as a “powerful ruling” confirming “for people of color … their lives matter.”

“The reason that’s significant is that all the time in police-civilian encounters there are disputes about what is suspicious and what is not suspicious,” said Matthew Segal, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. “So this is an opinion that looks at those encounters through the eyes of a black man who might justifiably be concerned that he will be the victim of profiling.”

That view was not shared by Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans, who criticized the court for depending so heavily on an ACLU report that was “clearly way out of context” and “heavily tainted against the police department.”

Retired federal Judge Nancy Gertner told Radio Boston the court’s decision will “contribute substantially to the national debate” by forcing courts to “put in context” reasons black defendants might legitimately flee, and to not automatically view running from police as evidence of guilt.

Accusing police of frequently “pushing the envelope” to “see what this kid will do,” Gertner laid the blame for much of the problem between police and black citizens on law enforcement who will now need to adapt to the decision or risk having evidence they want to obtain ruled inadmissible.

“Maybe it will force officers to pause before they begin one of these encounters, understanding what the atmosphere is. … Police will just have to develop other investigative tools,” she said.

Video: Suspect sought after shots fired at cop cruiser near Boston
Gertner was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in 1993 by President Bill Clinton and served until 2011. She is currently a professor at Harvard Law School.

Prosecutors have asked for a rehearing.


http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/massachusetts-supremes-give-blacks-green...

Views: 573

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

when a judge or one of their relatives is a crime victim then I hope that they enjoy the experience

can't wait to see how this unfolds   sheer stupidity for all to see

If you've done nothing wrong, why run?  Running constitutes resisting arrest and my advice to cops is shoot them in the back.

The law is very clear on this point; a fleeing felon does not, necessarily, become an immediate threat to the community, or the public at large, and, therefore, using deadly force is not authorized except under extreme circumstances, i.e., if the perp uses a weapon against the pursuing officer or anyone else during the pursuit.

So if the officer had of approached a white guy just to ask if had saw anyone matching the description of the perps and he had broke and ran from the police and was found possessing an unlicensed firearm, do you think he would have got a pass? Not hardly!

It's prep for anarchy.

TRUMP! MUST WIN!

We're nearing a point where no one will want to be in law enforcement. As the current generations retire, I bet we'll be seeing a shortage of candidates in the not so distant future.

We already are...   Chicago has a HUGE deficit in detectives in the past 2 years.

`

The wrong headed analysis by these supposed "supreme" court justices will force yet again one more legal proposition on the black community resulting in fewer arrests of violent felons and thereby INCREASING VIOLENCE in general, in those communities.

The murder rate in black communities will definitely go up, not down.

The change in any real life scenario between black thugs and the police will result in even MORE black men shot and killed by police as they attempt to flee.

What a bunch of dumb asses.

`

We're now living in Bizzaro world folks...........

So, if a black person is stopped by an officer and starts to run, the officer is just supposed to let him go. He's probably just running to his 'safe space'. If I'm stopped by an officer and I start to run, I catch a bullet. Seems perfectly fair and non-racial to me. Because, you know, only whites discriminate.

I would have to agree with the judgement in that fleeing doesn't mean that one is guilty but could, in this case, be fleeing because a second amendment freedom was being exercised but knowing that a gun would surely be a prison sentence it was seen as better to flee... notice they said he threw away a .22.

In a black neighborhood, as well as here where I live having drug addicts, there is reason we carry and exercise our 2nd amendment right! I am not so quick to side with... everyone who carries is a criminal.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Chip BokPolitical Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Joe Biden Vows: Give Taxpayer-Funded Obamacare To All Illegal Aliens In U.S.

Former Vice President and 2020 Democrat presidential primary candidate Joe Biden is vowing to give Obamacare, funded by American taxpayers, to all 11 to 22 million illegal aliens living in the United States.

During an interview with Telemundo’s Jose Diaz-Balart, Biden forgot that Obamacare technically bans illegal aliens from enrolling in healthcare plans — although illegal aliens are still able to obtain subsidized and free healthcare at Americans’ expense — and promised that under his plan, all 11 to 22 million illegal aliens would be able to get Obamacare.

The exchange went as follows:

DIAZ-BALART: When I … NBC moderated that first debate with you, I didn’t … I don’t recall a clear answer, under your plan should … would the 11, 12 million undocumented immigrants that live in the United States, that have been here many for generations, would they have access …

BIDEN: Yes.

DIAZ-BALART: — to health insurance.

BIDEN: Yes, they … if they can buy into the system like everybody else.

DIAZ-BALART: Because you know, in [Obamacare] they can’t.

BIDEN: Yeah. Yeah, I know. Well they can, that’s my point. They continue to be able to do that.

DIAN-BALART: They cannot under the ObamaCare.

BIDEN: Well and that’s my point, they will though. They will be able to buy into … [illegal aliens] would be able to buy in, just like anyone else could.

Biden joins Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg — among other 2020 Democrats — in committing to forcing American taxpayers to pay for healthcare for illegal aliens who arrive in the U.S.

Already, due to loopholes, American taxpayers are spending nearly $20 billion every year to provide illegal aliens with subsidized healthcare, emergency room visits, and other health services.

Under the 2020 Democrats’ plan to provide taxpayer-funded healthcare to all illegal aliens living in the U.S., Americans would be billed potentially $660 billion every decade just to cover the costs. Other research has found that the plan would cost Americans at least $23 billion every year.

As Breitbart News has reported, experts have said that giving taxpayer-funded healthcare to effectively all foreign nationals who can make it to America’s borders would drive “strong incentives for people with serious health problems to enter the country or remain longer than their visas allow in order to get government-funded care.”

Despite 2020 Democrats’ continued push for taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal aliens, American voters are overwhelmingly opposed to the plan. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey revealed that the healthcare-for-illegal-aliens plan is the least popular policy position, with opposition from 62 percent of U.S. voters.

Similarly, a CNN poll from July discovered that 63 percent of likely swing voters oppose providing healthcare to illegal aliens, along with nearly 6-in-10 of all likely U.S. voters and 61 percent of moderates. A Rasmussen Reports survey also found that likely voters, by a majority of 55 percent, oppose giving healthcare to even the most low-income illegal aliens.

Infantilization of Popular Culture

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service