-
Features
Court in MA says running from cops not a sign of guilt because of police discrimination
- Thread starter Jaecp
- Start date
zorq
Veteran Member
Running from police has never been a sign of guilt. Ever see the movie "The Fugitive"? Innocent people don't want to get involved with police just as much as guilty ones.
Sea of red
Member
Yeah, but everyone knows blacks are far more likely to commit crime, so it's OK to shoot them!
Just ignore the family violence stats on police families.
Just ignore the family violence stats on police families.
Valjean
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,349
- Location
- Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
- Basic Beliefs
- Vedanta. Many worlds physics, Environmentalism, Socialism.
I thought avoidance or fleeing was the rule, like removing your hat indoors or keeping your elbows off the table. It's the socially correct thing to do.
I've always avoided cops on the prowl or looking for confrontation. It has nothing to do with weather or not you're breaking the law, it's just what's done.
I remember crawling out an attic window of a two story house one evening when the cops came to our door, and spending the night flattened against the roof -- no contact.
I've always avoided cops on the prowl or looking for confrontation. It has nothing to do with weather or not you're breaking the law, it's just what's done.
I remember crawling out an attic window of a two story house one evening when the cops came to our door, and spending the night flattened against the roof -- no contact.
Wait... does this mean that if white people run from police then it IS a sign of guilt according to this court?
While I agree with zorq that running from police has never been a sign of guilt, having a direct state supreme court ruling like this is huge.
fast
Contributor
Avoidance is reasonable. An officer might argue that it's not since if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. The problem is that we don't always know if we're doing something wrong, and while it might be a better learning experience to not avoid them, it can unforgivingly bring other unnecessary consequences if we are unknowingly doing something wrong.
Fleeing is stupid. It's a gamble and some will take chances and get lucky while others will get caught and suffer greater consequences. Fleeing is not socially acceptable.
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
Whether the suspects ran away or allowed themselves to be detained is pointless without evidence to support the charges.
Going by what the report stated, the persons who were arrested after a robbery based on a very vague description had no stolen goods on them.
A gun was found nearby but that was no proof of possession.
The article states QUOTE:
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." END OF QUOTE.
This seems to have been a waste of time in prosecuting persons without a proper case.
Going by what the report stated, the persons who were arrested after a robbery based on a very vague description had no stolen goods on them.
A gun was found nearby but that was no proof of possession.
The article states QUOTE:
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." END OF QUOTE.
This seems to have been a waste of time in prosecuting persons without a proper case.
Will Wiley
Veteran Member
Thankfully we had a similar ruling in Australia.
Supreme Court rules person is entitled to do runner if not under arrest
Supreme Court rules person is entitled to do runner if not under arrest
Derec
Contributor
That is pretty insane. WTF Massachusetts. These idiot racist judges just gave black criminals (and only black criminals) license to run from police, making it more likely they they get away with their crimes.
Total PC bullshit!
Can one recall judges in Massachusetts because these idiots are ripe for being recalled?
- - - Updated - - -
Why thankfully? It's a completely insane decision.
GenesisNemesis
Let's Go Dark Brandon!
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,976
- Location
- California
- Basic Beliefs
- Secular Humanist, Scientific Skepticism, Strong Atheism
There are no cases whatsoever where a citizen may have a legitimate reason to flee police. Cops are always 100% right and trustworthy.
Derec
Contributor
Since Dr. Kimble is not black or member of another preferred demographic this ruling would not help him anyway. Apparently only black robbers who have illegal guns on them are entitled to flee from police in Massachusetts.
- - - Updated - - -
There may be, but being a legitimate suspect in a crime should not be one of them.
Do you think for example, Tyre King, who committed armed robbery, was entitled to run? Or how about Walter Scott? While his shooting was not justified, do you also think he also had the right to flee a legitimate traffic stop just because he was black?
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
What part of the decision says that it applies only to blacks, Derec? Where did the judge say that you have to be black to be able to run away from the cops?
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
It really appears to me that the court was saying these men were NOT legitimate suspects for the crime. They only tangentially matched the vague description given which did not give the cops grounds to stop them.
What is your beef with the actual decision, rather than your impression of the headline?
Well he had a right to not be shot dead for it. Definitely that.
And to not have a gun planted on his body to blame him. We _all_ had a right to a cop that didn't lie.
James Madison
Senior Member
True, but the U.S. Supreme Court has held unprovoked flight from the sight of police is reasonable suspicion.
James Madison
Senior Member
The court's ruling was more nuanced and narrow than what is reported at the link.
"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."
The court specifically stated they were not eliminating flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis when a black subject is stopped on the basis of fleeing. The court is explicitly stating flight is still a factor in determining reasonable suspicion and this is applicable to blacks. The court's ruling instructs lower courts to consider another factor in addition to flight in regards to blacks.
James Madison
Senior Member
The court unequivocally announced they were not dispensing with flight from police as a basis for establishing reasonable suspicion in regards to blacks. So, the court was not abandoning the legal status quo with its ruling but instead adhered to the long ago announced principle that flight from police may/does provide reasonable suspicion. However, while the court did not abandon the legal status quo, the court stated the lower courts need to consider an additional factor in assessing whether flight is reasonable suspicion when blacks are involved.
James Madison
Senior Member
This remark misses entirely the reasonable suspicion analysis and legal framework first announced in Terry v. Ohio and developed over the many years. Entirely innocent and seemingly lawful behavior may still result in reasonable suspicion justifying what is commonly recognized as a "Terry Stop."
James Madison
Senior Member
Not really...the court explicitly announced they were not dispensing with the notion of flight from police may constitute as reasonable suspicion. The court says they are keeping flight from police as a factor in assessing whether reasonable suspicion exists. They have merely added an additional factor to also be considered, along with flight from police.