Is there anything more destructive towards law and order in Massachusetts than a Massachusetts judge? In one of the most insane rulings of all time, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday that if you are black you have a right to run from the police. Swear to God:
WBUR: Black men who try to avoid an encounter with Boston police by fleeing may have a legitimate reason to do so — and should not be deemed suspicious — according to a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Citing Boston police data and a 2014 report by the ACLU of Massachusetts that found blacks were disproportionately stopped by the city’s police, the state’s highest court on Tuesday threw out the gun conviction of Jimmy Warren.
Warren was arrested on Dec. 18, 2011, by police who were investigating a break-in in Roxbury. Police had been given a description of the suspects as three black men — one wearing a “red hoodie,” one wearing a “black hoodie” and the other wearing “dark clothing.” An officer later spotted Warren and another man (both wearing dark clothing) walking near a park. When the officer approached the men, they ran. Warren was later arrested and searched. No contraband was found on him, but police recovered an unlicensed .22 caliber firearm in a nearby yard. Warren was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and later convicted.
Oh good, one less unregistered gun off the streets. This is what the gun control advocates want right? Less guns on the streets? This is a good thing. Except they apparently only want criminals like Jimmy Warren to have these guns:
In its ruling, the court made two major findings: The justices said police didn’t have the right to stop Warren in the first place, and the fact that he ran away shouldn’t be used against him. On the first point, the court said the description of the break-in suspects’ clothing was “vague,” making it impossible for police to “reasonably and rationally” target Warren or any other black man wearing dark clothing as a suspect. The court said the “ubiquitous” clothing description and the officer’s “hunch” wasn’t enough to justify the stop.
“Lacking any information about facial features, hairstyles, skin tone, height, weight, or other physical characteristics, the victim’s description ‘contribute[d] nothing to the officers’ ability to distinguish the defendant from any other black male’ wearing dark clothes and a ‘hoodie’ in Roxbury.”
So let me get this straight. The cops knew the suspect’s race and color and type of their clothing. But this wasn’t enough evidence to question a criminal with an unregistered gun, because they didn’t know the criminal’s “features, hairstyles, skin tone, height, or weight, before doing so? I’m pretty sure the skin tone matched up. So I guess cops have to say how black a person is that they’re looking for now. He was also wearing a hoodie, which would seem to make it difficult for the cops to know the hairstyle of the suspect they were looking for. And perhaps they should’ve had the suspect jump on a scale before running away from the scene of a crime so they can know his exact weight first. Yea, that sounds reasonable.
On the second point, the court noted that state law gives individuals the right to not speak to police and even walk away if they aren’t charged with anything. The court said when an individual does flee, the action doesn’t necessarily mean the person is guilty. And when it comes to black men, the BPD and ACLU reports “documenting a pattern of racial profiling of black males in the city of Boston” must be taken into consideration, the court said.
Stop right there. Yes. Yes it does mean they’re guilty if they start to flee. If a cop tells you to stop running and you disobey his or her command, then by definition you are breaking the law.
“We do not eliminate flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis whenever a black male is the subject of an investigatory stop. However, in such circumstances, flight is not necessarily probative of a suspect’s state of mind or consciousness of guilt. Rather, the finding that black males in Boston are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO [Field Interrogation and Observation] encounters suggests a reason for flight totally unrelated to consciousness of guilt. Such an individual, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, a judge should, in appropriate cases, consider the report’s findings in weighing flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus.”
The SJC concluded that police lacked reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop in this case.
This is absolutely insane. This court just gave any black person the legal right to run from the cops because it would spare them the “indignity of being racially profiled.” This happened in real life. What’s even crazier is there are morons out there who seem to agree that this is a rational and logical decision:
Notice anything about these people so far? Oh yea, they’re all white. And they all live in exclusively white towns, but yet they’re still experts on the day to day experiences that black people have with police. Joshua Evans-Lowell is from the ultra-wealthy whitewashed town of Needham:
According to him, even if a black man does everything right he still has a legitimate reason to fear the police. And he would know. Sure he’s never never met a black person before, but he read a couple articles on The Atlantic and used a hashtag once on Twitter. Plus he’s got a hyphenated last name. So yea, he knows everything about the black American experience now.
White people in this country are out of control. They’ve lost their Goddamn minds. The fact that anyone would think this decision is anything except bonkers tells you everything you need to know about why our two candidates for President are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Meanwhile courts are making it impossible for police to keep our street’s safe, because the judges making these decisions don’t have to live in these neighborhoods.
This is a list of the justices on the Mass SJC Justices:
Our courts are supposed to be politically unbiased. But that’s just not the case anymore. Deval Patrick appointed four of those judges, all of whom favored this ridiculous insanity about black men being allowed to run from the cops. Ballotpedia did some interesting background research into the political leanings of each judge:
In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan ideology of state supreme court justices. They created a scoring system in which a score above 0 indicated a more conservative-leaning ideology, while scores below 0 were more liberal. The study is based on data from campaign contributions by the judges themselves, the partisan leaning of those who contributed to the judges’ campaigns, or, in the absence of elections, the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature).
Gants received a campaign finance score of -0.82, indicating a liberal ideological leaning. This is more liberal than the average score of -0.44 that justices received in Massachusetts.
Botsford received a campaign finance score of -1.15, indicating a liberal ideological leaning. This is more liberal than the average score of -0.44 that justices received in Massachusetts.
Lenk received a campaign finance score of -0.85, indicating a liberal ideological leaning. This is more liberal than the average score of -0.44 that justices received in Massachusetts.
So they actually went through and saw who these people contributed money to. Personally, I want a judge with a score of 0. Give some money to republicans and some to democrats. Or just don’t give money at all, because you’re a judge, not a politician. Gants and Lenk were twice as liberal as the average of score of all Massachusetts judges, which is one of the most liberal-dominated professions outside of college professors. Botsford was three times as left-leaning.
Meanwhile Kimbery Budd, who was appointed by Charlie Baker and is the newest member of the court, basically went on record to say that she thinks the second amendment doesn’t exist, and it’s her job as a judge to think about how punishment will affect criminals, rather than affect the victims of their crimes:
As a judge, Budd said she is able to look every defendant in the eye “to make sure they know I see them and I’ve considered the impact my decision has on their lives as persons not in positions of power.”
“Persons not in positions of power” is code word for, “people who aren’t white.” She readily admits that she judges people differently based on the color of their skin. No wonder the court reached this decision. It’s loaded up with SJW moron activists in robes. This is why cops aren’t safe in Massachusetts. Where does this end? Next thing you know they’re gonna rule that suspects have the right to shoot at the police if they’re black. Why wouldn’t they? After all, if they can conclude that suspects have the right to run from cops because it is presumed that the cops are trying to kill them, wouldn’t the next step be giving the criminals the right to defend themselves from these racist killer cops? Hopefully Charlie Baker gets his head out of his ass and starts appointing people to the SJC who don’t want to make it harder for police to protect us and do their jobs.
We urge you to support the Turtleboy Sponsors by doing business with them. Without them none of this is possible. Click on any of them to check out their sites or Facebook pages.
Wormtown Brewery, Union Tavern, Bennie’s Cafe, JJM Insurance, Smokestack Urban Barbecue, Smitty’s Tavern, Julio’s Liquors, The Gun Parlor Range, Attorney Anthony Salerno, Rotti Power Equipment in West Boylston