It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Massachusetts Court Rules Black Men May Have Good Reason To Flee Police

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   

The Boston Police Department’s record of bias against black men means that innocent black men may have legitimate reasons to flee from officers, according to a Tuesday ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

In other words, if a black man flees an approaching police officer that wouldn’t necessarily be enough to justify “reasonable suspicion” in stopping and interrogating him, as first reported by WBUR News. Under the U.S. Constitution, “reasonable suspicion” is the minimum standard that allows law enforcement officers to conduct brief stops and detentions.


While I understand that this ruling is to help curb profiling, it is my opinion that some form of profiling is necessary for law enforcement to do their jobs. I also wonder how much this ruling may effect them being able to disrupt potential illegal activity in progress. For instance, if upon arrival at a potential drug deal all the suspects flee, does law enforcement have enough reason to give chase.

www.huffingtonpost.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Source




posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: JDHellraiser
Opens up a can of worms.
Can white people flee a police officer too, without raising suspicion?

If a guy is one quarter black and looks white, and a police officer shoots him, can he sue because he is black? (this one shows just how crazy our world is getting)

Just for starters.

edit on b000000302016-09-23T11:36:52-05:0011America/ChicagoFri, 23 Sep 2016 11:36:52 -05001100000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: JDHellraiser

If you seen some of the Boston Cops rest assured they will not be chasing anyone nor could they if they tried...let's just say moderation is not their vocabulary when it comes to snacks..



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
One in four "23%" boston cops are black.
How does that fit in with the conclusion the court came up with?

67% white
23% black
8% hispanic
2% asian

Does the 1/3 minority police force handle minorities differently?

I'm curious.

en.m.wikipedia.org...#
edit on 23-9-2016 by Bluntone22 because: link



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
We are really quickly going to get to a point where the Ghetto's are going to be self governed and cops will just remain on the outskirts to make sure whatever happens inside, doesn't spill over. That would lead to a whole new movement where BLM wonders why nobody comes to the rescue when they call 911.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
One way to look at it is, "I run because I am afraid of a policeman" after all, police have been known to shoot people because a person had a scary look in the eye.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
We are really quickly going to get to a point where the Ghetto's are going to be self governed and cops will just remain on the outskirts to make sure whatever happens inside, doesn't spill over. That would lead to a whole new movement where BLM wonders why nobody comes to the rescue when they call 911.



Police should stop.

Let the neighborhoods police themselves.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: JDHellraiser

Everyday there are news articles showing this to be true, just about everywhere. It is to the point where, "If you see Godzilla you should probably flee." is as true as, "If you are a black man and a police officer pulls you over or stops you, you should probably flee (and then go to a crowded, well lit place)."



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Since the odds are greater that a black man is going to kill a white man then a cop of any color will kill a black man.

Does that mean that white people should just start running away from black men?



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
So the corollary of this is that if someone flees from a black man they shouldn't be accused of being racist given statistical record of criminal behavior? What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

Just trying to understand the logic.

So 5000 black men die every year at the hands of other black men. Let's just say 10 "innocent" black men die every year from police shootings. I think the official number if like 150 black police shootings but we know that the majority of those are in the commission of a crime, so for simplicity sake I am going to say 10. but I think the number is more like 3 or 5 at most, but whatever...

So as a black guy, I am going to run from the cops but on the other hand I am not going to fear my brothers...

I can't even continue typing without laughing at the psuedo intellectual bullsh*t being put forth by the SJW anymore. Just wow...



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
This is in my backyard. I can tell you unequivocally, this ruling does NOT single out black men only. It applies equally to ALL people. Anyone can run from the police out of fear, without the police using it as a cause for suspicion. Seems the OP added the "black men" to generate division and racial hate.

Not good form for an ATS member IMO.




posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: JDHellraiser

just cause a cop comes down the street and people flee doesnt mean there was any potential illegal activities going down. i dont like cops myself, when i see one i go a different route if possible, im not up to anything bad, its just that cops are not the same as they were 40 years ago when i was a kid. i use to have much respect for law enforcement. cops are trained to abuse your rights these days instead of protect them. atleast in every instance i had dealings with them in last 20 years its seemed like it.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

I'm glad to see that the ruling will be applied equally. I didn't add black into my title. It was the title of the article. No offense towards any person was intended.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: luke1212
I tend to take another direction when I see a cop as well. I'm not doing anything illegal, but police tend to look at you for every small thing that might be wrong with anything you're doing, (if they're in the revenue agent state of mind at the moment). This is America 2016, if you're not a criminal, wait 10 minutes.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: JDHellraiser
a reply to: Krakatoa

I'm glad to see that the ruling will be applied equally. I didn't add black into my title. It was the title of the article. No offense towards any person was intended.


Good to know. Thanks for clarifying. I rescind my distaste...and transfer it to the article's author.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: JDHellraiser

I'm in favor of the new rule. When I taught law school research/writing I used just such a fact situation for one of the briefs: can the police stop someone who does nothing other than engage in "furtive gestures" (that's the jargon) including turning and running at the sight of a police car.

My students were often surprised to find out that just turning and quickly walking "away" from a police cruiser was enough suspicion for the police to do a stop and frisk (ignoring the question of how does the copper actually *know* the person "saw" the cruiser before turning, how does the copper actually *know* the person turned *because* they saw the cruiser and not for some other reason, e.g., heading to the store, etc.).

Personally I don't believe the police should have the right to stop someone unless they witness actual criminal conduct or have a verified report of criminal conduct and a good, timely description of the suspect. The alternative is judges are constantly engaged in this guessing game, "was this or that a furtive gesture, reasonable suspicion" etc.

Nothing in the Constitution says we the people have to make the police's job easier for them by laying down and turning our bellies up to them.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
This is in my backyard. I can tell you unequivocally, this ruling does NOT single out black men only. It applies equally to ALL people. Anyone can run from the police out of fear, without the police using it as a cause for suspicion. Seems the OP added the "black men" to generate division and racial hate.

Not good form for an ATS member IMO.



I think the media is adding "black" to the headlines too, I thought it was black only until I read your post (disclaimer: I usually read the actual court opinions in situations like this but what the heck, it's a simple issue).



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Just as a side note. They didn't need a court ruling for this. It is common sense and practice in most departments.

When I was a cop, the only times I would chase someone who ran from the sight of me were:

1) I just witnessed them committing a crime

2) I have a warrant for them (and reasonably identified them)

&

3) they matched the description of someone we (pd) were looking for

Otherwise, there is no reason for me to waste my energy on someone who just wants to run. Now if they committed a crime that I'm not aware of and are running because they think I know. Guess what . . . I don't know, so he's just getting excercise for all I know or care.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Maybe if they would follow police instructions they wouldn't get shot? NAH!!!!

Well there it is folks, the cops can no longer police criminals just so long as the criminals RUN.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
So would this also cover police chases in automobiles????



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join