First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Massachusetts Supreme Court Says It’s Perfectly Legitimate for Black Men to Flee Police
18746 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 9/23/16 , edited 9/24/16
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/23/16 , edited 9/24/16
This is where political correctness ties hands, a cop attempts to talk to someone who then clutches there pocket and runs. Can you think of a situation where it would not be suspicious for a person to see you and grab their pocket and run? Scared of police is BS excuse as well, the amount of people stupid enough to think running from police is going to enhance their treatment of you is a dwindling pool largely composed of family members of Darwin Award winners.

The guy acted suspiciously and it turns out he committed a crime, that's not exactly a coincidence.
172 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / MI
Offline
Posted 9/23/16 , edited 9/24/16

Punk_Mela wrote:

This is where political correctness ties hands, a cop attempts to talk to someone who then clutches there pocket and runs. Can you think of a situation where it would not be suspicious for a person to see you and grab their pocket and run? Scared of police is BS excuse as well, the amount of people stupid enough to think running from police is going to enhance their treatment of you is a dwindling pool largely composed of family members of Darwin Award winners.

The guy acted suspiciously and it turns out he committed a crime, that's not exactly a coincidence.



I agree completely. PC is a rather large issue. It's just finding the balance of not too PC and sort of PC.
620 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/23/16 , edited 9/24/16

FuruBoks wrote:


Punk_Mela wrote:

This is where political correctness ties hands, a cop attempts to talk to someone who then clutches there pocket and runs. Can you think of a situation where it would not be suspicious for a person to see you and grab their pocket and run? Scared of police is BS excuse as well, the amount of people stupid enough to think running from police is going to enhance their treatment of you is a dwindling pool largely composed of family members of Darwin Award winners.

The guy acted suspiciously and it turns out he committed a crime, that's not exactly a coincidence.



I agree completely. PC is a rather large issue. It's just finding the balance of not too PC and sort of PC.


There shall never be balance with the PC teeter totter. There will always be another fat kid wanting a turn.
172 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / MI
Offline
Posted 9/23/16

EichiXIII wrote:


FuruBoks wrote:


Punk_Mela wrote:

This is where political correctness ties hands, a cop attempts to talk to someone who then clutches there pocket and runs. Can you think of a situation where it would not be suspicious for a person to see you and grab their pocket and run? Scared of police is BS excuse as well, the amount of people stupid enough to think running from police is going to enhance their treatment of you is a dwindling pool largely composed of family members of Darwin Award winners.

The guy acted suspiciously and it turns out he committed a crime, that's not exactly a coincidence.



I agree completely. PC is a rather large issue. It's just finding the balance of not too PC and sort of PC.


There shall never be balance with the PC teeter totter. There will always be another fat kid wanting a turn.



I suppose that is unstoppable. FeelsBadMan.
10646 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 9/23/16 , edited 9/24/16
This is what you get when you have bad judges on your Supreme Court.
5019 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 9/23/16 , edited 9/24/16
Massachusetts fucked up
Emtro 
1563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/23/16 , edited 9/24/16

gornotck wrote:

This is what you get when you have bad judges on your Supreme Court.


The severity of the stupidity of this case is just one example. Yet I keep hearing from never-trump advocates that it's not worth voting for Hillary's opponent to prevent 4 more judges like this being appointed to the US Supreme Court.
19849 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
69 / M / Limbo
Offline
Posted 9/23/16 , edited 9/24/16
seems legit
runec 
28306 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 9/23/16 , edited 9/24/16
Before you all get the circle jerk going again perhaps you should actually read the ruling instead of the clickbait headline. Given that it is based on 30 years worth of case law and concerns your guys rights as well. The crux of this ruling is the threshold of reasonable suspicion, not whether or not black people can run away from cops.

TLDR: You have the right to avoid contact with the police unless you are under reasonable suspicion of a crime. The mere act of avoiding a cop is not reasonable suspicion in and by itself. By acting without reasonable suspicion the officer invalidated any evidence collected. Thats how the law works. You know, because you have rights.

This has literally nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with police procedure vs civil rights. Had the supreme court ruled the other way this would have impacted your rights as well regardless of melanin levels.
10646 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 9/23/16
61159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 9/23/16

Based on those facts alone, the officers would not have reasonable suspicion to tie Warren to the crime. Warren would have been well within his rights to tell the officer that he didn’t want to speak to him and to walk away. Yet that is not what Warren did.

Instead, Warren made eye contact with the officer and then hightailed it out of there, grabbing for his right pants pocket in the process. Would that be enough to justify an investigatory stop? Not according to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which stated, “Where a suspect is under no obligation to respond to a police officer’s inquiry, we are of the view that flight to avoid that contact should be given little, if any, weight as a factor probative of reasonable suspicion.”


This part directly contradicts the facts posted earlier in the article.


Anjos decided to conduct a “field interrogation observation” (FIO), police jargon for a consensual encounter in which the officer asks someone what they are up to, and the person remains free to leave at any time. Anjos asked the two males to “wait a minute,” and they made eye contact with him before jogging away into a park.

Anjos radioed what happened to his station and was overheard by two other officers in the neighborhood, who saw the two men coming out of the other side of the park. One of the officers said, “Hey fellas,” and one of the two men—Warren—ran back into the park. The officer observed Warren clutching the right side of his pants (consistent with carrying a gun in his pocket) as he ignored repeated requests to stop.


Apparently, Anjos never saw Warren reaching for his pocket. Either the author relayed the facts wrong or he misinterpreted the facts when drawing his conclusion. Either way, this article doesn't seem like a very reliable source of information.
4721 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/24/16 , edited 9/24/16
That's hilarious lol. Probably a false article, though. But still, just thinking it's real is hilarious.
709 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Kansas, USA
Offline
Posted 9/24/16

staphen wrote:


Based on those facts alone, the officers would not have reasonable suspicion to tie Warren to the crime. Warren would have been well within his rights to tell the officer that he didn’t want to speak to him and to walk away. Yet that is not what Warren did.

Instead, Warren made eye contact with the officer and then hightailed it out of there, grabbing for his right pants pocket in the process. Would that be enough to justify an investigatory stop? Not according to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which stated, “Where a suspect is under no obligation to respond to a police officer’s inquiry, we are of the view that flight to avoid that contact should be given little, if any, weight as a factor probative of reasonable suspicion.”


This part directly contradicts the facts posted earlier in the article.


Anjos decided to conduct a “field interrogation observation” (FIO), police jargon for a consensual encounter in which the officer asks someone what they are up to, and the person remains free to leave at any time. Anjos asked the two males to “wait a minute,” and they made eye contact with him before jogging away into a park.

Anjos radioed what happened to his station and was overheard by two other officers in the neighborhood, who saw the two men coming out of the other side of the park. One of the officers said, “Hey fellas,” and one of the two men—Warren—ran back into the park. The officer observed Warren clutching the right side of his pants (consistent with carrying a gun in his pocket) as he ignored repeated requests to stop.


Apparently, Anjos never saw Warren reaching for his pocket. Either the author relayed the facts wrong or he misinterpreted the facts when drawing his conclusion. Either way, this article doesn't seem like a very reliable source of information.


The last sentence in the second snippet. The first says Warren made eye contact with "the officer" but not necessarily Anjos, while the second says one of "two other officers in the neighborhood [...] observed Warren clutching the right side of his pants"

Regardless, the ruling is a bit dumb. Fleeing without confrontation is a cause for reasonable suspicion; it can't really be played off as "fear of the police." The defense that keeps popping up from black individuals who are detained "Niggas gettin' shot, and I ain't getting shot" is a complete cop out.
61159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 9/24/16

PandAndy wrote:

The last sentence in the second snippet. The first says Warren made eye contact with "the officer" but not necessarily Anjos, while the second says one of "two other officers in the neighborhood [...] observed Warren clutching the right side of his pants"

Regardless, the ruling is a bit dumb. Fleeing without confrontation is a cause for reasonable suspicion; it can't really be played off as "fear of the police." The defense that keeps popping up from black individuals who are detained "Niggas gettin' shot, and I ain't getting shot" is a complete cop out.


Just for you, I looked up the information in the ruling.


Carr was closer to the two males, approximately fifteen
yards away. When he uttered the words, "Hey fellas," the
defendant turned and ran up a hill back into the park. His
companion stood still. Carr ordered the defendant to stop
running. After the command to stop, Carr observed the defendant
clutching the right side of his pants, a motion Carr described
as consistent with carrying a gun without a holster.

--- Footnote ---
The Commonwealth persists in claiming that the police
observed the defendant clutching the right side of his pants
before the command to stop. As did the Appeals Court, see
Commonwealth v. Warren, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 476, 479 n.7 (2015),
we reject this view of the facts where the judge explicitly
found that "[t]his observation was after a verbal command to
stop."



The defendant challenges the judge's denial of
the motion to suppress, claiming error in the judge's ruling
that at the time of the stop on Dale Street, the police had a
sufficient factual basis for reasonable suspicion that the
defendant had committed the breaking and entering. In sum, he
argues that the police pursued him with the intent of
questioning him, while lacking any basis for doing so.
Accordingly, he claims that any behavior observed during the
pursuit and any contraband found thereafter must be suppressed.

--- Footnote ---
Although the defendant argues in his brief that a stop
occurred "when Officer[s] Anjos and Carr approached the
defendant . . . with the intent of questioning the defendant,"
we assume that this was a typographical error because it is
undisputed that Anjos never left his vehicle. Rather, it was
Officers Santosuosso and Carr who approached the defendant and
his companion as they exited the park. Therefore, we do not
address whether the first encounter, when Anjos called out to
the defendant from his cruiser, was an investigatory stop.


You are correct that the stop that is in dispute is the one where the other two officers approached Warren on his way out of the park, not when Anjos first approached Warren just outside the park. One particularly important discrepancy is a difference in views between the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court regarding whether the command to stop was given by Carr before he observed Warren clutching at his pants.


According to the judge's ruling, the following information
established reasonable suspicion for the investigatory stop:
the defendant and his companion "matched" the description of two
of the three individuals being sought by the police; they were
stopped in close proximity in location (one mile) and time
(approximately twenty-five minutes) to the crime; they were the
only persons observed on the street on a cold winter night as
police canvassed the area; and they evaded contact with the
police, first when both men jogged away into the park, and later
when the defendant fled from Carr after being approached on the
other side of the park.

--- Footnote ---
The judge also cited her finding that the police observed
the defendant engaging in behavior suggestive of the presence of
a firearm. That finding must be discounted in the reasonable
suspicion analysis, however, as the judge explicitly found that
this conduct occurred after the police commanded the defendant
to stop.


Had the court not found that Carr ordered Warren to stop before observing Warren clutching for his pants, the court would have been able to use it in their analysis of reasonable suspicion.


Flight. We recognize that the defendant's evasive
conduct during his successive encounters with police is a factor
properly considered in the reasonable suspicion analysis.
Commonwealth v. Stoute, 422 Mass. 782, 791 (1996) (failure to
stop combined with accelerated pace contributed to officer's
reasonable suspicion). But evasive conduct in the absence of
any other information tending toward an individualized suspicion
that the defendant was involved in the crime is insufficient to
support reasonable suspicion.
Commonwealth v. Mercado, 422
Mass. 367, 371 (1996) ("Neither evasive behavior, proximity to a
crime scene, nor matching a general description is alone
sufficient to support . . . reasonable suspicion"); Commonwealth
v. Thibeau, 384 Mass. 762, 764 (1981) (quick maneuver to avoid
contact with police insufficient to establish reasonable
suspicion). "Were the rule otherwise, the police could turn a
hunch into a reasonable suspicion by inducing the [flight]
justifying the suspicion
." Stoute, supra at 789, quoting
Thibeau, supra.


Basically, the court doesn't consider the suspect's flight in and of itself sufficient to support reasonable suspicion.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.