WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH MASSACHUSETTS

I'd like to see them outrun a bullet

>Blacks are above the law

Yeah but the ruling was specifically racially charged. That black men are reasonable in running whereas others are not.

(((They're))) flat out acknowledging that blacks aren't capable of living in western society.

And (((they're))) perfectly okay with it.

so glad i moved out of MA to based texas

>woops, he got away, let's head back to the shop xDD

>right to flee the police
Isn't this a terrible idea, though? It would make things much more difficult. Please tell me there's still a small punishment or something.

watch yourself

This is what the ruling boils down to.

These legislators are fucking insane.

Yeah and half of them are in fucking Brockton

Why was I born and raised in that shithole

>nigger thinks it's okay to run from cops
>runs
>gets shot
>??????????
>profit

Fucking source link

Massivetwoshits is arguably even worse than California. They banned all semi auto weapons a few months ago.

DEPOLICE THE DINDUS
BUILD WALLS AROUND THEIR ZOOS

youtube.com/watch?v=8fNkVBDjtGU

youtube.com/watch?v=Tc_AsiZB1H4

Keep them in their zoos with walls and armed guards.

>tfw 978
LET ME OWN GUNS YOU KEKS REEEEEEEEEE

mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/reporter-of-decisions/new-opinions/11956.pdf

That is false, famalam. We got an AR ban, that's it. And it's likely to be overturned. Remington and Glock are both suing the AG over it.

watch yourself

Assault weapons bar the m1a and other similar actions. That said it's still a load of horse shit and they did it completely out of the blue.

Because you're a dumb, poor Irishman?

>black guys kills black guy over sneakers
>cops show up to arrest him
>he flees and claims he didndu nuffin
>law allows him to flee
>cops don't chase because that's racist
>that black guy continues to kill other blacks over shiny things
Why not?

>but the ruling was specifically racially charged
No, no it wasn't. Read the actual ruling. Race is brought up in one of two side notes after the ruling already established that the police had fuck all right to stop them just for running. It's used as an example of why the law allows for running from police only. It's not saying you can ONLY run from the police if you're black.

> 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.

>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. Otherwise, our long-standing jurisprudence establishing the boundary between consensual and obligatory police encounters will be seriously undermined.

>Unless reasonable suspicion for a threshold inquiry already exists, our law guards a person's freedom to speak or not to speak to a police officer. A person also may choose to walk away, avoiding altogether any contact with police.

Yeah our leadership is cucked, and nobody can get in who isn't liberal as fuck because our liberals are, and repeat after me:

R I C H A S F U C K

Yeah it's awful.

A majority of semi-auto rifles. Banning semi-autos would be lunacy, that would ban handguns.

Hi Jimmy

This

We're cucked beyond believe.
Save yourselves, anything in western Mass is basically gone already.

>Unless reasonable suspicion
The whole thing hinges on what constitutes this.

ayy lmao whats up I'm from Dorchester (the nice part).

>be state supreme court judge
>read ridiculous case
>hear ridiculous arguments
>go home
>can't sleep
>know my ruling will not be received well
>get up
>head down to dark kitchen for a snack
>turn on lights
>shit fucking scurries everywhere
>have an epiphany

Abhishek that apartment is shit and you know it.

I hate my state so fucking much

New Englanders don't associate with niggers and therefore don't know their ways.

Source: Born in MA, grew up in CT. Thought blacks were just like us but oppressed until I was like 24, because the only ones I ever had contact with were either from nice families in the suburbs or went to college with me. Then I moved to NYC and Oakland and I learned what they really are.

>Dorchester
>nice part

They keep moving to NH

Fuck off, We're full.

>be black
>bix nood
>rob a liquor store
>get accosted by police
>run because its legal and BLM and Democrats will defend it.
My fucking sides.

I'm abandoning this state as soon as possible, but it isn't as bad as its portrayed. Basically Boston and Amherst are the liberal areas, and the state leadership is complete bullshit.

>someone from Brockton posts on Cred Forums
Something about this is hilarious to me

We are run by liberal scum who live in the shitty urban areas that dominate the Eastern part of the state.

>Rather, the finding that black males in
Boston are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO 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.

978 reporting

>The whole thing hinges on what constitutes this.
Right, and if you read a detailed breakdown you'll see why the cops had no reasonable fucking suspicion.

The police had a 12 square mile search radius and the only description they matched the suspects against was black male with dark clothing.

What's so funny about it? I'm white, if that helps. In fact growing up as a white in a google infested shithole is probably what drove me here.

All this means is more livestreams of niggers trying to outrun helicopters and getting run over or shot at the end

All the white people in MA are either redditor atheists or catholicucks. Hopefully the state makes more sense to you now.

Just surprising. Got my drivers license there.

>only 8.1% black
That is WAY too many niggers.

Time to go 4th reich people.

There's no excuse to allow Schlomo to cuck our societies like this anymore.

I really hope there's some sort of underground nat soc resistance that isn't full of skinhead morons.

Yeah how tired are you of seeing people act like you're not a man because you don't own guns.

As if it's worth uprooting your entire life just to move somewhere that the chief of police of your single town doesn't have authority greater than that of the entire Federal government when it comes to your firearm ownership.

Sometimes I think about getting some NFA papers and a firearms trust so that all I have to do is go through the Colonel of State Police and the ATF in Boston.

That is a lot.

Is this shit true? If its its funny af, kinda sad too.

Dear god I fucking despise my state not even Vermont is that cucked thank Christ I moved

>Basically Boston and Amherst are the liberal areas
Don't forget shitholes like Spicfield, Spicopee, and Holyoke.

I am so sorry you had to deal with our RMV

Heh. In Taunton I keep hearing variations on, "Lucky we have no public transport, or we'd turn into fucking Brockton."

Not sure if true, but it's a popular sentiment of late.

That's around how many we have in Toronto and it's 100% too many.

we're gonna build a wall around lawrence
we're gonna build one around boston
we're gonna build one around amherst

>Although flight is relevant to the reasonable suspicion analysis in appropriate circumstances, we add two cautionary notes regarding the weight to be given this factor.
It is exclusively provided as an example as to why people can avoid the police in general. The ruling had already established nonracial case law stating avoidance of police is legal. It only brings up race as a possible reason for flight other than consciousness of guilt. It doesn't say it's the only one.

>using a child as a meat shield
Snipers should take him out desu, no parent who loves their child would never EVER take them to this kind of event

Heartwarming and thought provoking picture???
I THINK NOT!!!!!

I live right by JFK the fuck do u mean. I only live around Italians/Arabs.

Worcester has 5-6 Colleges/Universities, it's a liberal hive of mixbreed shitskins and the neighboring town's whites who think blacks are just like them but oppressed.

so when can whites start keeping blacks out of our businesses and neighborhoods because they rob them?

Walls should be built around Brockton, Fall River, New Bedford, Springfield and Chelsea as well.

Watch it all burn

>Italians/Arabs
>nice part

we're fucked, it's true.
at least the goddamn tolltakers are gonna be out of a job come oct 28

Next place to fight this battle would be in the state's Legislature. A bill just needs to state that, with the recent ruling in mind, the Legislature intends to "clarify" that the law which makes fleeing the police illegal does in fact apply to black people.

Massholes, call and/or write your representatives, expressing your serious concern that the Supreme Court is undermining law, order, and peace with this ruling.

We now trust nignogs more than our own police officers, collectively speaking. Let that sink in.

It's legal to keep someone that's robbed you out of your business already.

It's called blacklisting.

I dunno

Wait, I'm a spic. Can I run away? Is this only for niggers? How did this even happened?

It's not the only one but it's a pretty important one and basically the only reason this was even dealt with at all.

Oh god, I forgot about Worcester.
Western/Central Mass is just generally shit.
413 and 508/774 suck ass.

collapsing the bourne bridge is a good idea too

why is there a sheriff's star on top of that wall

>explain yourselves

Okay.

Actually it was dealt with at all because the cops even admitted that they were only going to go for a voluntary stop before the guys ran, implying they didn't have grounds for a forced stop and search before they ran.

And since running didn't change the calculus the search afterwards tanked their case.

>The police had a 12 square mile search radius and the only description they matched the suspects against was black male with dark clothing.

OK, so you look for suspicious looking peeps that match that description, and hope one of them does something stupid to give away their guilt, like run away when the police pull up to them. You typically are not going to get a description that narrows it down anymore than that.

>running is not reasonable suspicion for a stop and search in and of itself
>nothing else about them was suspicious looking because black male in dark clothes is a crap description

They can't stop black people from being how they are, so they change the law, and one more brick in the failing institution crumbles. The bar lowers one more inch. The Great Experiment and its consequences.

LEAVE 413 ALONE REEE

We have small communities of white towns that are getting hit because we border Springfield and Holyoke big shitholes. That's not our fault the fucking liberals imported them.

We want our state back.

Northampton is planning on taking in refugees believe me I won't let that happen. Cred Forumsacks will make an appearance on welcoming day

Western mass is better than you eastern mass cucks. Enjoy your fucking diversity, boston trash

>all those whites killing whites
why are white people such savage niggers

amen bro western mass SECESSION NOW

only a small section is the nice part, u can literally walk 5 minutes and theres nignogs left and right stealing macdonald big macs

bostonians love to shit on the rest of the state, but when they needed money for the big nig, we were good enough for em. Fuck boston, i hope they get bombed again

me too man fuck them. all upper class whiney liberal trash and niggers to live on the outliers to prop up their democratic stronghold voter base.

fucking pisses me off how gerrymandered the system is. our voices are silenced in the western half othe state because of teir control over population.

51st state when?

Well if this is the case then I have the right to flee police as well.

True, but it still seems unnecessary and stupid. An important legal reform initiated on account of misinterpreted statistics?

Northborough fag here, feels good being an upper middle class town no one has ever heard of.

hahaha isn't it still like six bucks to get from western MA to boston?

ive got pals out in stow, maynard, and boxborough.

weird part of the state honestly.

I met a drifter from Northborough when I when to college in Worcester. He was a cool dude.

Honestly, part of me wants to see Clinton win, and see the Left reach its absolute peak of idiocy.

We need you, Donald

As a Libertarian who follows the law closely (and before you jump down my throat, I vote independently and am voting Trump) this article/description is kind of misleading.

If an officer is walking down the street, and a black or white person takes off running, that should not be probable cause for the officer to pursue and effect an arrest. Is it suspicious? Duh. Is it probable cause? Not according to this court.

If a black man suspected of a crime starts fleeing from police, obviously the police still have every right to pursue and arrest the culprit. This article makes it seem like this practice will be stopped by this ruling, and that is not true.

tl;dr fleeing at the sight of an officer in itself is not a crime and not sufficient reason to effect an arrest and I applaud the court's decision.

For real? Man I thought New Hampshire was starting to become really based. I wanted to get out of shithole California and go to graduate school in New England. But this seems cucky. At least it's whiter than California

we have a liberal stronghold in boston and the shitholes surrounding it but most of the state is pro-gun.

theres laws on the books they simply dont enforce because they'd start a revolt and they know it.

look up what happened to Healey when she opened her fat cunt mouth.

i live right down the road from a gun range nobody gives a shit out in western MA.

No Brazil, that's not how it works in the first world

This is what militias are for. When the law fails.

Lived in Boxborough for 2 years, and agreed the whole 495 line south of Lowell and north of Franklin is...strange. It's Democrat but not Liberal.

Went to Worcester for college myself. WSU is decent unless you ever want to park or take a math course, QCC's math department is surprisingly top notch, WPI and Clark are crime-ridden rapefests that charges too much.

they're democrat but dont want to turn into the shithole ghettos. trust me i know, the voter base here is fucking retarded.

hopefully we get a big showing for Trump and I honestly think we might. i live in Western MA i see very few hillarystickers and TONS of Trump ones. In my town theres trump signs all over the place.

Load of horseshit in my opinion
Running from the police is grounds for reasonable suspicion your feelings be damned.

>turn your back for a second and discover your property is missing
>see someone running away
What conclusion will a reasonable person come to in this situation?

Even in eastern MA I have only seen ONE Hillary sticker. Trump stickers and signs are relatively common. It's going to be an interesting election for sure. I don't expect MA to go red of course, but I don't expect it'll be a blowout for Hillary here.

I feel like this violates equal protection under the law 8===>----

>niggers fear police because they commit most of the crime
>court rules that niggers have a right to fear the police because they commit most of the crime

liberals are fucking cancer

idk man you never know. im sure the nigger vote and the liberal scum vote will silence us per usual though but we need to make a show of force showing at the polls.

gives us more ground to SECEDE AND BECOME THE 51ST STATE

>What the fuck is wrong with Massachusetts
Other than the micks and the vicars who suck young boys' pricks?

>discover your property is missing

You are making assumptions here, friend. If a person just runs away from the police because they are a nigger, and they aren't otherwise acting suspicious or engaging in illegal activity, where is the probable cause? They can follow and question and perhaps even detain the guy with reasonable suspicion, but the ruling says fleeing in itself is neither and an arrest CANNOT be made.

see

yeah, but honestly, i can count on my hands how many times ive been to boston, and ive lived in this state for 27/ of the 28 years ive been alive
this senpai

I'm ready to roll my man. Let's Make Massachusetts Great Again!!

>Almost 1 out of 10
>Concentration higher in Brockton and Boston
This shit is an offence to Western legal systems and Law Enforcement.

tons of Cred Forumsacks in hampden county
we're gonna fuck with the refugees when they come to northampton too, upset the smug fucking liberals day.

they all live in shitty ghettos and have for fucking ever. the myth that niggers can advance given the opprotunity still remains a myth.

This is my same deal with California; I've lived in Southern California my whole life but I've probably only been maybe 10 times. Even then, I've never been to downtown. Just LA County like Pasadena. I avoid LA like the plague. Hilariously enough, LA is starting to lose its appeal, and it's not as fun/cool to be from LA/live in LA anymore. All the shithead millennials are moving up to the Bay Area and now San Francisco, Berkeley, and Santa Cruz are suddenly the hot spots in California. People are now opting to go to SF or even San Diego way down south before they go to LA. LA has lost its appeal somehow.

Been to LA* maybe 10 times.

Because it's a prison for mudslimes.

Parently u aint no dis but...

WE

it wasn't the legislature, it was a fucking court

"legislating from the bench"

sickening

>now criminal behavior is more accessible
>black crime goes up

what has this done, that's beneficial, beyond emotional appeasement?

Suspicious =/= reasonable suspicion. All the court has done is rule that while some people may deem fleeing to be suspicious it is not reasonable suspicion or cause to effect an arrest. This isn't hard. If the suspect is believed to have engaged in an illegal activity, than of course the officer has a right to effect an arrest. Obviously niggers are skittish about the "POH-LEASE" and many are fleeing at the sight of them. Because they are niggers. Not necessarily because they have committed a crime.

>black people can run from police.
Not just black people, all people.

The court is essentially challenging the U.S Supreme Court decision of Illinois v. Wardlow. Illinois had a similar stance, saying flight alone from a high crime area is not cause for reasonable suspicion, much less stop and frisk. However, it will be challenged in court, and if the precedent doesn't hold (it was only 5v4 in the Illinois case) running from the popo will become legal.

first world, top fucking kek.

>They can follow and question and perhaps even detain the guy with reasonable suspicion, but the ruling says fleeing in itself is neither and an arrest CANNOT be made.
>see
Except the ruling says that it's insufficient justification to STOP not just to arrest.

>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.
>Ignoring the command to stop, the defendant continued to run and eventually turned onto Wakullah Street. Carr lost sight of the defendant for a few seconds before catching
up with him in the rear yard of a house on Wakullah Street.
>Carr drew his firearm, pointed it at the defendant, and yelled several verbal commands for the defendant to show his hands and to "get down, get down, get down."
>The defendant moved slowly, conduct that
Carr interpreted as an intention not to comply with his commands.
>After a brief struggle, Carr arrested and searched the defendant
but found no contraband on his person. >Minutes after the arrest, police recovered
a Walther .22 caliber firearm inside the front yard fence of the Wakullah Street
house

In what way are these actions by the police unreasonable?

>tfw masshole
>tfw your state will never be red, even for Trump
FEELS
BAD
MAN

God damn it I fucked up the formatting.
Stupid double spaced court document.

It's true that correlation doesn't equal causation, but it often merits further investigation.

Attending a private uni in Boston here, it's so liberal. I'm dead inside here. I feel like fucking shooting myself, it's impossible to have rational debate about politics or ANYTHING

Daily reminder Massachusetts voted for GEORGE MCGOVERN in 72

REEEEEEEEE WHY IS THIS STATE SO FUCKING LIBERAL HELP ME

>a motion Carr described as consistent with carrying a gun without a holster.
You keep interjecting situations beyond the scope of this law. If Carr had just been running, then that according to this court is not illegal, not reasonably suspicious either.

see

Being a nigger should be a fucking crime.

if that's how it is interpreted and applied, it makes perfect sense and never fucking mind this bs thread

So an officer observing something and making a decision based off his training and experience is beyond the scope of the law? You liberals are fucked in the head.

The Illinois case relied on a totality of circumstance argument stating that flight+high crime area=valid stop. This doesn't challenge that precedent because this wasn't a high crime area. By the time the ruling gets to the issue of flight, all other elements of the circumstance pointing to reasonable suspicion had been torn to shreds. Even the Illinois case saw the state concede that flight alone isn't enough to justify a stop.

Nigger that's literally the case that inspired this ruling.

nigger that matches the suspect description and takes off running upon confrontation by police = reasonable suspicion to anyone that isn't a goddamn kike defense attorney

>b-but it's a vague description
and all officer did was ask to talk to him not draw his gun and arrest him at gunpoint.
"Vague" description + running away = +10 description pts.

>In what way are these actions by the police unreasonable?
On what grounds was he stopped and searched?

Okay, then follow the guy. But unless you can come up with a reason to detain or arrest him, then you shouldn't be arresting him.

I mean...this is what cops do already. If it is 1 a.m. and some seedy run down car has a tail light out, the cop obviously has reason to pull you over. If you are acting scared, he probably has a reasonable suspicion to ask you to step out and detain you. Once he detains you and either gets your permission (if you're retarded) or has probable cause to search your vehicle and find your weed, then you will be arrested.

A lot of people are interpreting this decision as a nigger committing a crime, then running from police and the court saying that officers should not pursue the fleeing person. This is not a true characterization. All the court says is that if an officer shows up for an unrelated reason and an unrelated black man runs off, this is not a just cause for running after and arresting him.

If the officer sees something else - a gun, evidence of drugs, etc., the decision no longer applies.

After this year, I don't disagree

See above. If the officer has training to see a gun or a weapon, then the officer can effect an arrest. If you decide to walk in the opposite direction of a group of cops, and they decide that's suspicious and arrest you and THEN find a baggie of pot in your backpack, you'd be fucking pissed. There was no other reason that you should have been stopped for.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. If he is a suspect and matches a description, then the police have a right to effect an arrest. If all a person does is flee from police, they should not. You continually interject situations that do not meet the scope of this decision.

Literally the future they have in store for us.

Again, all they are saying is fleeing ALONE does not merit suspicion. I can't grasp why you cannot understand that. Just because he is black and the other suspect is black doesn't grant the cop reasonable suspicion.

AYO HOL UP! I SAYZ HOL UP!!!

YOU BE SAYIN WE DINDU NUFFIN WRONG?

>You continually interject situations that do not meet the scope of this decision.
I LITERALLY JUST CITED THE CASE THAT LED TO THIS DECISION.

THEY HAD A DESCRIPTION
HE MATCHED IT
HE RAN

>"Vague" description + running away = +10 description pts.
That's not how the law works. Vague descriptions are worth jack shit.

And the description was 3 black males 2 with dark clothes, 1 with a red hoodie, and 1 with a backpack.

This was 2 black males with dark clothes. That's it. That's all the description they matched. No third guy, not red hoodie, no backpack.

The decision is that he obviously did not meet the description just on the merit of "being black" and so the only other reason for the cops to detain and arrest was that he ran away. Thus what you have left is black man fleeing = well he must be the guy we are after. And that should be illegal. I applaud the court's decision. No one here is arguing that black people suspected of a crime should be let go and free to just run off. I don't believe in that.

Suspicious activity, as in booking it when a police officer talks to you, moving in a way consistent with someone carrying a gun like a cheap ass nigger, refusing to respond to verbal commands, and only stopping when you've left the officer's sight and had time to ditch whatever you had on you.

So what they're saying is suspicious activity doesn't count as a reason to investigate the most crime-prone demographic in the country anymore, and that a trained officer's judgment is worth no more than Joe Dipshit's.

>THEY HAD A DESCRIPTION
Black male with dark clothes.

So like half of black men. More after labor day.

Is this some kind of low-tier shitposting or something?
They didn't stop him because he was black.
They stopped him because he was black and wearing dark clothes, WHICH WAS THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SUSPECT THEY WERE AFTER.

>hurr durr that's not specific enough
What the fuck else do you want? Brand names and the receipts from the store the suspect bought the clothes?

Now how bout them crime stats?:^)

Not quite. What they are saying is if all you have got is fleeing, it doesn't merit detention or arrest.

Now lets look at what normally happens. Someone fleeing from the cops is probably doing so because they could be carrying, or because they are under the influence, etc. So most cops are going to notice "hey that guy has a gun" or "hey that guy has on gang colors and matches the description of a bank robber" and at THAT CRITICAL POINT this aforementioned court's decision no longer applies.

>Suspicious activity, as in booking it when a police officer talks to you
Not grounds for a search on its own.
>moving in a way consistent with someone carrying a gun like a cheap ass nigger
Not grounds for a search at all, you actually have to see a gun. Heavy pockets aren't reasonable suspicion.
>refusing to respond to verbal commands
The officer had no legal grounds to give commands until he had evidence to perform a stop and search. You're putting the cart before the horse.
>and only stopping when you've left the officer's sight and had time to ditch whatever you had on you.
When he stops is his own damn business until there is legal grounds for him to be stopped.

The courts are not law enforcement. We have separation of judicial, executive, and legislative branches. This is now up to the legislature to fix the judicial fuckup.

holy kek

Can you not read? The court obviously disregarded the cause for arrest in the description. They are saying it doesn't rise to the level of where a black guy wearing dark clothes could match a description. Gonna need a little more than that. And what you have left is "well, he must have been a match, why else would he have run?" which is like something out of Idiocracy and should not be reasonable suspicion or probable cause in our legal system. Should not be allowed and it should be struck down in every state.

That went from meme to reality too quickly.

>That's not how the law works
Then the law is fucked.

>Can't tell if the suspect is wearing dark grey, or faded black, so you describe his clothes as dark?
>LOL NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR JUDGE SHEKLEBERG YOU NEED TO MENTION THE SUSPECTS EXACT CLOTHING SIZE TOO CASE DISMISSED

:^)

how the fuck are they going to determine who is "black" enough to use this law?

It's a poor interpretation of the court case, which you can read for yourself instead of some "journalist"'s interpretation.

It's consistent with prior rulings and the fourth amendment.

That said, we'll see what happens if a white person flees and tries to use this defense.

Cause your mother enjoys the BBC. Are your daddy isn't black?

>grey and black are the only dark clothing
Kay.

Dark clothing isn't a distinguishing feature. A lot of fucking people wear dark clothing.

>Gonna need a little more than that
Yeah like the specific fiber the suspects clothes are made of too apparently.

Anything to get niggers off in other words.

>Dark clothing isn't a distinguishing feature.
Yes it is.
If it weren't then the victim wouldn't have mentioned it in the description would he?
Next you're going to claim red clothing isn't a distinguishing feature, because hey there's lots of different shades of red right? Lot's of people wear red clothing!

>black male in dark clothing

Because now running from police has now been legitimized by a court? Still not seeing the problem?

Hopefully the black dude that gets pulled over and speeds off crashing into your vehicle making you lose your legs gets off with a light sentence since he had a legitimate reason to fear the police.

You're either a clever troll or you don't understand the ruling you keep referencing.

The officer said vague description + fleeing = reasonable suspicion/cause for an arrest. The court is only ruling that fleeing in itself is not a crime. They are not addressing or giving merit to the officer's claim that the perp matched a vague description. It is now a moot point.

Why can't you grasp that?

Plus this is good for our legal system. We should not be allowing officers to arrest people just because they deem them to "look suspicious" Most cops I've met were high school football stars who took a few too many hits to the head and dropped out of community college. You sure you want them to be able to detain anyone they want?

My God, you're an idiot. There are scales of reasonable cause for suspicion, and some guy hauling ass at the first sign of the law, even running through yards to do it, says to anyone with a brain that there's reasonable cause. Stop defending niggers acting like niggers.

Now they have a reason to shoot. This is a good ruling for Massa Chusettes.

fuck off back to copblock nigger lover

>If it weren't then the victim wouldn't have mentioned it in the description would he?
So if the victim had just said it was a human being, because a human being had been mentioned in the description, any human being in the area, not even the immediate area, would have been under reasonable suspicion for a stop and search by police?

Reasonable suspicion requires a specific enough description that the person in question would stand out.

Black male with dark clothing wouldn't stand out in Montana let alone Massachusetts.

epically underrated post

Sounds like a good plan to train the cops to shoot better on the cheap to me!

>Black male with dark clothing wouldn't stand out in Montana
It would and you know it.

The only laws they follow are the laws of /fa/

the courts called under the Department of Justice. the courts suck asshole though. State police will get what they deserve (something good, for once) and hopefully SCOTUS can overturn this autistic specimen of a ruling.

>london metro police.jpg

Excuse me for believing any interpretation of the law which results in me being pulled over and my car searched for making a turn after a cop pulls up behind me because I was fleeing at over 20 miles an hour might just be a little unconstitutional.

>Commit a crime
>Flee and elude from police
>user thinks that courts will now say "LOL YOU FREE TO GO SINCE YOU RAN AND RAN ISN'T CRIME

Do you really think this? Do you not see how retarded your claim is? Fleeing ALONE is not a crime. That is all they ruled on. The description BS the other user is pushing is irrelevant and he knows it. The court only ruled definitively on the fleeing as not being an admission of guilt.

You're joking right? You're acting like a fucking bootlicker saying that any cop can detain any person for any made up reason they perceive or just because they run away. Thats retarded and you know it.

But whatever dude, I think you are over simplifying a multifaceted situation that resulted in a multifaceted ruling. There are obvious exceptions. I don't agree with your interpretation of this decision, and don't agree with your opinion that fleeing = reason to detain or arrest. If it were the other way around and some nigger officer detained and arrested me just for walking away from him and because I fit the description of a perp just by being, lets say "tall and white" I'd be pretty fucking pissed off. And I bet I'd get stopped alot, too.

This decision should be applauded by everyone that values civil liberties. There was an author that grew up in the Japanese Internment camps and watched the "Red Scare" withhunts of the 50s and 60s and warned that once government restricts the rights of a few, the rights of EVERYONE are at risk. And I am not okay with this.

>black man wearing dark clothing = "any human being"
Seriously just fuck off.

There is no way this could possibly backfire.

I wouldn't take the author of the articles opinion on what the ruling means. Maybe it was just a bogus case and the cops were found wrong in chasing down an innocent person.

>hurr bootlicker
I genuinely can't wait until we put kikes like you in camps.

The argument was that because it was mentioned in the description it constitutes reasonable suspicion.

I maintained the argument structure to create a demonstrably false counter example. I was not equating the two beyond the fact that both are descriptions.

Learn to argue or fuck off.

"oh shit a police officer, I'm going to run from him"

"but I'm innocent, police brutality"

you are suffering from a severe cause of autism. why else would they fucking run from police on sight? do they have drugs? did they just commit a crime and get ID'd by a witness, and think you're going to recognize the description? but no, running from police after doing nothing but seeing them is totally unsuspicious.

>no reason
>they're running from the police

Pick one

Then maybe you shouldn't flee like a stupid nigger? You have a 4th amendment right to deny search and seizure without a warrant, and he has a a good enough reason to get one because of your idiocy.

Thanks for confirming you're a troll!

And its ironic - usually *I* am being called a bootlicker in most threads. However I see morons like you either misinterpreting court decisions or in your latter posts, blatantly advocating for a police state, and I worry about the civil rights that I enjoy.

That is, if I haven't committed a crime, I should not be detained or arrested.

>actually wanting cops to be able to arrest and search you for "looking suspicious"
>being too stupid to realize why this is not a good idea
i bet youre an edgy nat-soc who wants these things because youre too stupid to see how these laws could apply to you

Source
>The Grio

This.

The legal details are irrelevant to what this will be seen as. Media make it a title as though, if you're black you can run from the cops because you were right all along.

If so and a case like that goes to court, where the legal details actually matter, and the dindu is convicted?
Enjoy your burned down town.

>You have a 4th amendment right to deny search and seizure without a warrant
FUCKING EXACTLY.

That's why this case was thrown the fuck out. Avoiding cops at any speed IS NOT GROUNDS FOR LOSING YOUR 4th AMENDMENT RIGHTS YOU STUPID PRICK.

Wrong.
The argument was that if the police confront someone that matches a description of a suspect, and that person runs away upon confrontation a reasonable person would consider that grounds for pursuit and detention, and a kike would pretend otherwise.

Option B

Id leg it with my arms in the air and run into a crowded place if I was black and your trigger happy cops pulled me over

This could also be interpreted as de facto clearance to shoot black men if they attempt to flee.

They didn't arrest or search him for "looking suspicious". Try again asshole.

You need to go read my other posts, user. Suspicious =/= reasonable suspicion. If you walked away from an officer just because you didn't want to deal with a group of them talking to some homeless dude, and because of your action some officer decided that was "suspicious" and detained you...and then illegally searched your backpack because you ran away...and found some pot...would you be pissed off? I would be. There are like 5 civil rights violations in what you have referenced.

Either you're a troll or you're retarded. Fleeing shouldn't be a crime, and according to our laws and Constitution, isn't. Now if you see a gun in his pants or he reasonably fits the description of a suspect? Go crazy.

This, so much this.

No, but the court basically threw out the cop's opinion that he matched the description, and what they were left with was fleeing =/= a crime. I already told you this silly, why are you bringing it up with other anons?

But it IS grounds for the cops wanting to stop you, and you can't just fucking leave whenever when they finally do because that's evasion and it actually IS grounds for arresting your stupid ass. Then they get the warrant, then they search your shitbox and find your boyfriend's weed.

> Avoiding cops at any speed IS NOT GROUNDS FOR LOSING YOUR 4th AMENDMENT RIGHTS YOU STUPID PRICK.

>Hey that guy's speeding, can we stop him?
>Nope. The Jew courts ruled that "avoiding cops at any speed is not legal justification for a stop".

The idiot here is you.

>nigga walking down the street
>cop pulls up and starts asking questions
>nigga runs away for whatever reason
>if the cops somehow managed stop him they cannot legally arrest him for running

Its really that simple. Basically you cant go to jail for evading police.

>First, and perhaps most important, because the victim had given a very general description of the perpetrator and his accomplices, the police did not know whom they were looking for that evening, except that the suspects were three black males: two black males wearing the ubiquitous and nondescriptive "dark clothing," and one black male wearing a "red hoodie." 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.

>With only this vague description, it was simply not possible for the police reasonably and rationally to target the defendant or any other black male wearing dark clothing as a suspect in the crime. If anything, the victim's description tended to exclude the defendant as a suspect: he was one of two men, not three; he was not wearing a red "hoodie"; and, neither he nor his companion was carrying a backpack. Based solely on this description, Anjos had nothing more than a hunch that the defendant might have been involved in the crime. He acknowledged as much when he explained that the purpose of the stop was "to figure out who they were and where they were coming from and possibly do an FIO." As noted, an FIO is a consensual encounter between an individual and a police officer. Therefore, the defendant was not a "suspect" subject to the intrusion of a threshold inquiry. Unless the police were able to fortify the bare-bones description of the perpetrators with other facts probative of reasonable suspicion, the defendant was entitled to proceed uninhibited as he walked through the streets of Roxbury that evening.

>NYC run by cuck mayor
>Massachusetts law enforcement cucking themselves
>Philadelphia/Baltimore/DC is we dindu nuffin dem haven
>Canada being cucked hard by trudeau
>Michigan forever screwed by Detroit
>Ohio infested with heroin/hard drugs
>OP is in upstate ny, west of capitol region near New cuckland

I feel comfortable living here now, but damn all we got is western PA, we are like the Arizona of northeast

>Carr arrested and searched
the defendant but found no contraband on his person.
>he had
a hunch that they might have been involved in the breaking and
entering. He based his hunch on the time of night, the
proximity to the breaking and entering, and the fit of the males
to the "general description" provided by the victim.
thats exactly what happened.

>but the court basically threw out the cop's opinion that he matched the description

and they were wrong to do so kike

>if you don't stop for police, police have grounds to stop you
You're an idiot.

This is funny Because this will make the Googles run from the cop and the police will chase them more...

>>More googles in jail

that's twice the size of our largest minority

They can detain him at the scene long enough to see if they can get a warrant on him, fleeing the police gives them enough cause to do that much.

You're breaking a law for speeding, so they have a right to pull you over. Or maybe your tail light is out. Both are reasonable causes to pull you over. If you are driving down the road and a cop says "huh, I think I'll pull you over" well...he's not getting a warrant, and even if he smells pot, well he fucked up because any lawyer is going to get that thrown out because, again, its an illegal stop.

Not a Jew and that's your personal opinion. For me? I don't think I disagree. But the court ruled the way it did, and the result is fleeing =/= a crime. I agree with this STRONGLY. The rest to me is irrelevant.

Couldn't this be a problem if courts start throwing out any description that hinges upon a suspects race, unwilling to consider it even when it is informative and relevant?

No they weren't. Black male with dark clothes isn't a good enough description to stop jack shit.

No, not at all. They stopped police pursuits here because kids kept crashing and killing themselves then black kids figured they could just drive faster and get away from every carjacking and home invasion and suddenly we had an epidemic and the police looked like faggots. It wasn't until the public started vigilante groups out of zero confidence and the whole system was cracking up that the police announced they would no longer be telling the public what their pursuit policies were.

But of course it won't happen like that in Mass and niggers will be law abiding citizens and perhaps you won't even need the police.

In fairness, it's kinda stupid that cops will run you down and arrest you if you run away from them.

And I mean like you run from them on sight. You haven't committed a crime and they didn't suspect you of anything. You just happen across them and run on principle.

If you happen to be running in a direction opposite of police officers then this is somehow a crime.

Soon those Syrian refugees will be the majority.

If you flee at the sight of police, they have reason to follow up on any suspicions. If you don't act like a stupid nigger and just answer their questions it won't come to anything more than speaking. Why don't niggers understand the benefit of not digging a deeper hole?

Oh my lord do kids actually believe this? Holy shit our country is fucked. A cop just can't indiscriminately pull over people. In your scenario, the stop would have never been effected son. Because there is no law being broken. No cop would pull over someone who isn't speeding or hasn't committed another traffic infraction. And if they do, its an illegal stop.

I worry about that, I do, but I don't think the decision impacts this at all. The decision only addresses that fleeing is not in itself a crime.

Ok run your warrant search but when it comes back negative you gotta let him go even if he made your fat ass run 10 blocks. Thats assuming you can ID him without an illegal search.

>Whites are killed just as much by blacks as by other whites despite white being 60 % of the population and blacks being 13%

Where the fuck is the new KKK when you need them?

Fuck...

The description wasn't thrown out because it referenced race. The description was thrown out because it only referenced 6 things and the people in question only matched 3 of them. Fucking Obama matches the description at that point.

>lacking any information about skin tone
>the suspects were three black males

The courts apparently believe that if the cops can't provide an exact pantone number for the suspect they have to let them get away.

>not a jew
Sure....

Can't think ahead. Tell your dog not to eat the bacon you dropped on the floor and you'll make him a big juicy bacon sandwich for being good and see what happens. Same thing.

>If you don't act like a stupid nigger and just answer their questions it won't come to anything more than speaking.
Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to talk to or hang around police.

In fact, I strongly recommend not doing that. Time spend around police directly correlates to number of criminal charges.

Intelligent people?

...

Well, what can i say. White people like to hunt.

>Proud of ONLY have a MILLION niggers
There's more in that fucking state than my entire country.

Cops dont ask questions like how are you today. They ask shit they know can lead them to a search so its best not to answer. That includes walking away from them and if you think youre fast enough then run.

According to my recent DNA analysis, I am .01% Ashkenazi Jewish. From before the 1500s. I'm pretty sure they just throw that in there, though.

The rest of me has been Northern and Western European and American (since 1680). But good try. Not an argument, newfriend.

and if Obama was wandering the neighborhood at night he should have been stopped too.

>police are looking for black male in dark clothing
>OH SHIT THERE'S ONE NOW
>"hey you, mind if we talk to you for a minute?"
>"What seems to be the problem officer?"
>"Oh never mind it's just President Obama."

>police roll around the corner
>you walk inside and close your door
>police now have reasonable suspicion to arrest and search you
what part of this seems like a good idea to you?

Southborough > Northborough > Westborough >>> Marlborough

Amen. Not to mention all the shit they would find during this warrantless, illegal search. The fact that people are willingly supporting the idea of a police state and handing over their freedoms scares me shitless.

Are you retarded? They can't detain you if they just randomly come up to you, but if you run away immediately that gives them REASONABLE FUCKING CAUSE, where they can detain you long enough to question you and get a warrant or not. Running away like a guilty idiot nigger makes you look bad and tells any human with a brain cell there's something up.

Well, when you spend all of your time committing crimes as an idiot it's bound to turn out that way.

That might be the case with your cartel-run police force, but the two times I've been engaged by a police officer started with "How are you today?" followed by "Can I ask you a few questions?" I answered them like a normal human being that doesn't want to mess with someone doing their job and can fuck my day up, and being innocent of any wrongdoing they sent me on my way.

So if blacks can resist arrest/flee from police without repercussions, under Equal Protection Clause therefore everybody can resist arrest/flee from police without repercussions? Great time to be a criminal!

>blacks resist arrest and get shot
>its okay for blacks to resist arrest because they get shot
>more blacks resist arrest and more get shot

I like this cycle.

IF YOURE NOT A NIGGER WHY YOU CLOSE YOUR DOOR YOU PROBABLY SMOKING THAT KUSH HUH YOU FUCKING CRIMINAL

It's not the same thing because dogs can't speak english.

>According to my recent DNA analysis, I am .01% Ashkenazi Jewish.
Fucking called it

>I'm not Jewish!
>Ok I'm only .01% Ashkenazi, but not a drop more I swear goy!
>Hehe fine, fine, I put the decimal place in the wrong spot what are you going to do sue me?

>not knowing what first world means

It's a little amazing that people would equate going indoors with fleeing the police.

This is a violation of the constitution

You can't have laws for just one group of people.

No way this sticks.

its legally the same thing you fucking mong. avoiding the police is not a crime.

>and if Obama was wandering the neighborhood at night he should have been stopped too.
The ruling addresses that too. They weren't in significant proximity to the crime in question.

A description of black men in dark clothing doesn't give the cops license to stop and search every black male in dark clothing in the 12 square miles around the crime scene that someone on foot could have been at that point.

Suspicious and reasonable suspicion are not the same thing. Kek. And according to this decision, and many others fleeing = suspicious but fleeing =/= reasonable suspicion in itself. I can't make it any simpler for you.

How am I Jewish? Religion isn't whats in your blood, its a part of your culture. Even if I had some ancestor in 1480 that was a Jew doesn't make me Jewish. Pretty sure the Juden frown upon atheism

Lmao why are white americans so naive. Im talking about my experience with LA sherriffs and police. Ive never ever been pulled over by mexican police. But ive had guns drawn on me more than once in America. I know I know youre gonna say some racist shit like "you probably deserve it paco". Why are you guys so predictable.

>closing your door is the same as running away
lol

Amazing how you people have such granular thinking when it comes to what constitutes a valid description of a suspect but are unable to differentiate between literally running away and closing your bedroom blinds.

And no, it is .01. Still doesn't invalidate the fact that you misinterpreted a court decision nor my argument against your weird desire for a police state. You have got to be a troll.

the law pertains to everyone. the article just spins it to gain clicks. shocking, i know.

I'd just like you to know that you pitched this perfectly but I'm not going to swing at it.

My dog understands English better than most of the woolies here.

>How am I Jewish?
From the way you argue, and the way you think.

>Literally running away
>Crime

Keep on moving the goal posts! I sure hope you are a troll. If I go to bed believing there are people as moronic as you, I might not wake up.

> being this retarded

do you even know where the terms First and Third world came from?

>Logic
>Jewish
>Bad
>Thus I avoid logic/facts.

Oh lord hahahahahaha. I literally spit up half my drink. Only a truly retarded or truly young person would post something so moronic.

LA hasn't lost any appeal. Just no good jobs there compared to San Diego, sf.

Too hard to find great job in burbank and LA.Hey this would be true if the area of Oakland and Chicago had the same crime rates as Newport Beach and Santa Barbara.

But crime isn't equal everywhere hence your shit post is useless

And running the fuck away goes beyond avoiding. It's one thing to not want to talk to the cops, but it's another entirely to make a significant effort to get away.

Did you?

not understanding sarcastic criticism of the failed social and economic state of the usa. keep up the good work burger, at least you have that obamacare and common core now :) and remember black lives matter.

No one has said it was crime.
It is however grounds for reasonable suspicion to anyone that isn't a kike.
:^)

Black people running from police, for any reason, not committing a crime as the words you've put in my mouth, and causing damage followed by getting off with a reduced sentence for claiming they were scared by the police IS now a possibility courts will rule. Or did you miss the OP image where a court ruled that black men may have legitimate reason to flee the police you fucking idiot chimp?

I ate the bacon

avoiding the police is avoiding the police, regardless of how you do it. its not illegal to run from the police unless youre being detained, just like its not illegal to hide in your home unless youre being detained. if the ruling was the opposite it would LITERALLY allow the police to search you for avoiding them IN ANY WAY. what part of this is too hard for you niggers to comprehend?

Hairsplitting is the opposite of logic.
Pilpul is unmistakable once you gain an eye for it.

Why you close your door bruh. What you hiding? Come out man we just want to talk.
>open door
Ok hands behind your back now.
>arrest you
Anything illegal in your house? No? Why you hide behind the door then? What was that you threw?
>proceed to walk in your home since you left the door open when they arrested you

I can see this happening in any American city because ive seen so many similar scenarios play out like that. Especially with cars. Thats why cops keep your doors open when they ask you to exit your car. All he has to do then is peak and say he saw a baggie of something

No, it isn't kek. Oh my lord. I take back the post where I called you a "clever troll" you're clearly a retarded troll if you actually believe that.

>Cop sees me go inside my home
>I don't see cop
>TOO BAD GOY, COP SEES YOU
>THAT'S SUSPICIOUS
>THERFOR I HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION
>Kicks down door

Do you really think that is legal?

Correctly interpreting the court's decision and untangling it from your retarded opinion is not splitting hairs.

boston is like 50% black and 20% of those are illegal hatian cab drivers

He's right though. If you seek a society governed by law, and you should, he's right.

Toronto import MSP cops too
cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-police-get-help-from-2-minneapolis-officers-1.2914317

The worst idea ever was to take ultra violent sand people and let them out of Somalia. We should have done what the Kenyan's did and put them in containment camps, refusing them citizenship.

Just the stay the fuck in Mexico Paco.

Obviously no you dumbass. Stop licking boots youre worse than a sjw.

reasonable suspicion mans something else. you sure beat that strawman good

I seek a society governed by law not Talmudism.
He is wrong.
I repeat, only a kike using pilpul would argue running away upon confrontation is not reasonable grounds for suspicion.

>its not illegal to run from the police unless you're being detained
But it IS suspicious, and ignoring repeated verbal commands is also suspicious, as is fleeing through private property, and running as though you're concealing a handgun then not having one once the cops lost sight of you is extra suspicious. A large amount of suspicious activity is a good enough reason to hold someone long enough to get the means to search them legally.

No, you seek a society where only an elite few make up the law as they deem fit and only to benefit themselves. I seek a society where the law benefits all citizens equally. Ironically, only an actual Jew would argue against this.

It pains me that I have to live in the same country as you. You are quite literally arguing for one race (the one that has the highest concentration of criminals) to be able to evade arrest. Sure, if you're completely clean and don't have a warrant out for your arrest and you feeling like running away from random cops for fun, I don't think anyone would want to stop you other than animal control. But who has ever done that? Show me at least 5 times when this has happened and the cop was not at least investigated and I'll try to consider your point. But as a rational person, I can think of zero reasons to run from the cops if I have broken zero laws.

quads don't lie

>and ignoring repeated verbal commands is also suspicious
that never happened and actually IS illegal

> as is fleeing through private property, and running as though you're concealing a handgun then not having one once the cops lost sight of you is extra suspicious.
sure

>A large amount of suspicious activity is a good enough reason to hold someone long enough to get the means to search them legally.
sure, detain them LEGALLY until you find actual evidence, if any even exists. DO NOT illegally search and arrest them.

Get a load of this fucking c.uck

Brockton is literally the detroit of MA, I live in a nearly all white town and the last murder was in 1979, gun crime is non-existent, drugs are a bit of a problem, robberies don't happen almost ever, we can keep our doors unlocked, bikes out in the yard, kids can walk alone to the store, It's a great neighborhood but with the section 8 housing they just put up, things are declining a little.

>a society where only an elite few make up the law as they deem fit and only to benefit themselves.
Which is exactly what you are arguing for when you support this court ruling.

>To evade an arrest

No? I'm saying you can't pull an arrest out of thin air. And you are right, but correlation doesn't always equal causation. I guess I want the same thing as you, but I see it differently. I see courts and cops cracking down on civil liberties in order to correct a problem that is mostly due to niggers. And I worry because the actions of those niggers now effects MY civil liberties. That isn't fair, is it?

>You shouldn't fear the cops if you have nothing to hide!

Biggest gateway to a totalitarian government. If that is truly what you seek, then I want you out of my country. Venezuela or North Korea might be a better fit.

Suspicious of what? What crime am I being suspicious of when I ignore police questions.

>that never happened
In this particular case, it did.

wew

The only cucks here are the bootlickers

How? And if you can only come back with "b-but it allows niggers to be above the law!" then you haven't learned anything from this thread and need to die. You've moved the goal posts enough to know thats not true. You know better.

By the way, fortunately our justice system and rights are not predicated on your weakass strawmen arguments

I don't know, but people don't just run away for no reason. I know Mexicans are barely human but I can't see why you don't understand basic reasoning.

>Biggest gateway to a totalitarian government. If that is truly what you seek, then I want you out of my country.
Fucking this.

>If that is truly what you seek, then I want you out of my country

Then you've got yourself in a bit of a catch-22 there buddy because at this point it increasingly looks like the only way to save this country is bring in a totalitarian government to cut out all the dead wood.

Don't you have a wall to be building Pedro? Let the adults talk in peace

So how does this work exactly? Does everyone get to run away or just blacks? What if you're half black, are you only allowed to jog away?

and its easily argued that it couldnt have been heard. the officer shouldve been a little smarter and detained the niggers before they had the chance to run.

I doubt some are even bootlickers. They are just young. And the polarization that always comes out in an American election season makes them disregard basic freedoms and laws in favor of what they perceive to be law and order.

If you're a lowly educated nigger or young and all you see on the news is how cops are killing off your race (which, btw I don't even believe in - I rage every time the media defends people like the nigger shot in Charlotte. Don't want to die? Drop your gun.) you might run. Doesn't mean you deserve to be detained or arrested. Suspicious =/= reasonable suspicion and thats the third time I've told you that.

Again, thanks for letting everyone know where you really stand. Its not a catch-22. We have a great legal system that works out the kinks but always provides for civil liberties. I seriously hope you off yourself if you truly believe this.

in mass you cant own pepperspray, certain knives or a taser without a license.

when i was there some drunk guy tried to start a fight, so later i looked up buying a weapon for self-defense since i have no muscle mass.

literally everything requires a license. its a nightmare.

>suspicious =/= suspicious
And it's been stupid all three times

I have not once moved the goalposts in this argument kike.
How you ask me?
This elite and liberal court that clearly has a bias in support of black males has raised the standards of evidence FOR A SIMPLE STOP to an unreasonable and unattainable level stemming from the obvious motivation of decreasing the "disproportionate" targeting of black males for FIO encounters.

You'd be afraid of them too martshart

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YsZr8Y5y6ug

seriously, this violates the equal protection clause.

>I don't understand how basic judicial concepts work.
>That means its stupid!

Go to bed, you have school tomorrow.

It doesn't. The headline is misleading clickbait.

MA attorney here...

this article is a bit misleading. The court ruled that ANYONE, not just blacks, have the right to walk away from police if the cop wants to question you without probable cause.

And there it is, and yes you have. You're a shit troll and you know it. No one can be this fucking stupid. You've gone from refusing to believe the courts didn't rule on the description to acknowledging it but still shilling your stupid totalitarian opinion. I'm done with you. I've called you out for what you are, and I'm good.

So where am I wrong, how is excessive suspicious activity not reasonable cause for suspicion?

Will this work if you identify as a nigger? If i rob a kfc and then run from police and get tazered then say im actually a black queer transvegan unicorn do i win a prize?

>We have a great legal system that works out the kinks but always provides for civil liberties.
LOL
Reminder that we live under a judicial system that believes expecting black people to pay $15 for a voter id is an unconstitutional burden that serves as an obstacle to practicing their civil rights, but the $350 fee for a non-refundable "may issue" residential only temporary NYC pistol permit is perfectly reasonable and "there's no evidence" that it has ever served as an obstacle to people exercising their civil rights.

Get fucked kike, your kind have twisted our judicial system into an inscrutable Gordian knot and it's only a matter of time until Alexander comes along to solve the problem once and for all.

You dont know? So you can specify what law is broken but you demand a search of a person and their property? I see you dont have any real arguments so you resort to racism. Sucks that Cred Forums has created a generation of kids that dont use arguements they just meme racism instead.

>You've gone from refusing to believe the courts didn't rule on the description

Link to the post where I supposedly did this kike.

The court ruled that running away or walking away from an officer was not an admission of a crime nor was it suspicious without any other metric (reaching for something in a waistband, tossing shit out of pockets, appearing under the influence) etc. You are trying to inject situations that aren't pertinent to this ruling.

>das raciss!
Do you know where you are ?

you faggots are full of shit

this part of the actual court ruling

> 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."

it's literally telling judges to do more for black men than for anybody else

>I called someone a kike in a post, it invalidates their entire argument!

Go to bed you totalitarian little freak. You haven't been fucked over yet. And when you do, its gonna suck, but it will also open your eyes to how unfair our society can be. And you will realize the solution isn't a totalitarian society but a society based upon civil liberties and rights.

ive already pointed this out a couple times.
>expecting people to actually read the breakdown
>expecting them to even read the article written on the breakdown
honestly, we shouldve known better

Im sorry but racism is not an arguement kiddo

Nice strawman you're beating up there kike.
Now that you've worked out your aggression, why don't you link to the post where I supposedly "refused to believe the courts didn't rule on the description"?

BROKETOWN CITY'S FINEST

Neither is the accusation of racism.

Yes

>nor was it suspicious without any other metric
That's the ridiculous part. Avoiding or openly disliking the police isn't suspicious, breaking out into a full run in the opposite direction for no apparent reason is.

You know what the sad part is, these ppl are not trolls. They truly believe what theyre saying. These are type to cry socialism when Obama passes his healthcare law but lick Trumps nuts when he talks about his more socialist healthcare law cause HE A WHITE MAN WHITE POWER 1488. Youre not gonna when. Just go to sleep knowing that more sound and educated ppl run the US for now.

THat doesn't make any sense. If I run from a cop, the cop has every right to think I'm suspicious, and at very least stop me and ask me why am I running away from him.

Ive laid out my arguements without mentioning your racism. Only after all you could reply wIth was racist memes did I actually call you a racist.

That's because they're discussing points relative to the case that lead to the ruling.
>We do not eliminate flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis whenever a black male is the subject of an investigatory stop.
_do not eliminate flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis_
>However, in such circumstances, flight is not necessarily probative of a suspect's state of mind or consciousness of guilt.
it can't be the only factor and isn't indicative of anything on its own

This is the bullshit nod to muh racism:
>Rather, the finding that black males in Boston are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO encounters suggests a reason for flight totally unrelated to consciousness of guilt.
They're not saying that only niggers might have another reason to run, user.