Massachusetts court rules black men may have legitimate reason to run from police

I'm surprised a court actually made this finding, but it's refreshing and I'm glad they did.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

I am not surprised, but greatly dismayed by this finding.

It illustrates how easily courts can be fooled by statistics wielding “experts”:.

The vast majority of young black men who are shot or killed are shot or killed by other young black men. I googled “Chicago shooting” and up came a Chicago Tribune article entitled “Summer violence continues into October: 46 shot in Chicago over weekend”. None of them were shot by the police, by the way. This was the weekend ending October 2. Black Lives Matter seems indifferent to this slaughter.

In his Chronicle column some time ago Willie Brown asked “Do black lives matter?” He answered “it’s too bad a lot of black people don’t think so”. Black on black violence far eclipses any police on black violence.

Police are in lower class black neighborhoods because that is where the crime is as evidenced by calls to 911 for police assistance. Statistics about how blacks are targeted by police 57% (or whatever the percentage is) even tho they only make up 13% of the population is meaningful ONLY if the level of violence is the same across different communities. It is not. Street violence is overwhelmingly a black on black problem in lower class communities.

Findings such as this court made will only exacerbate the true problem.

I just finished reading the ruling from which the out-of-context quotes came from, and find it unfortunate that the many important points that the ruling contains (what is reasonable suspicion? can vague descriptions of a person be construed as enough to suspect and stop? what evidence is reasonable to suppress and what is not? etc.), might go ignored for the sake of yellow journalism.

The quote was an observation, among many other observations, that running away from police and culpability should not be formally bundled. We all know that. Nothing new here. I did not see anything in the ruling that said something to the affect that "therefore, police should let people running away alone."

Yes, the carnage in predominantly black neighborhoods due to resident-on-resident aggression pales in comparison with police aggression (or at least that is what published statistics show). Sure, anyone shooting anyone in the back better have an overwhelming cause for doing so (say, shooting someone who is in the middle of trying to kill a child might fall into the overwhelming cause category). But, good grief! the war on reason that is going on these days is baffling! It's like the Old West, everybody shoots first and asks questions later.

Did I mention the talk by a police representative I recently heard in an event I attended? The picture he painted amounted to an Old West scenario. No laws (especially self-serving ones) are going to help remedy the mess. Too many people, including politicians, with too much time on their hands resorting to crime, dumb laws, mass rallies, and yellow journalism.

Oh well, speaking of time on one's hands, I better go back to my work.

Marcy

Les,

  Virtually nobody says it's okay that ordinary people are murdering each other, and it's not being done with our tax dollars. For those two very good reasons, it's not a matter of public policy debate. If it was being done with our tax dollars, and people like yourself were defending it (instead of only defending murders committed by police officers on the job), then I have little doubt that groups like Black Lives Matter would be making it a political focus as well.

  If Jimmy Warren had been accosted by a group of non-uniformed neighborhood thugs, he might well have run in that situation too, and presumably few people if anyone would have blamed him for doing so. Even if more killings of blacks are committed by non-police officers, the number of police officers in society is also far lower (fortunately!) than the number of non-officers. When you compare killing rates of blacks by non-police-officer blacks to killing rates of blacks by police officers, the statistical risk for a black person encountering a police officer is higher than the statistical risk of him or her encountering another black person. The court appears to have implicitly recognized this fact.

  The true problem is that there are too many people willing to commit violence for no legitimate reason. But it seems to me that the highest priority is trying to make sure that the people who are paid well at taxpayer expense to protect public safety are not significantly contributing to that problem.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

I think the court's point was that someone in Jimmy Warren's position should not face any penalties for running from police, unless he is otherwise guilty of an actual crime. That, if I'm not mistaken, has not been the current standard.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

All I was indicating is that the running away issue was only one of several. And that particular point was made in my view to make clear that automatic culpability should not be assumed when someone runs from police. I think we know that already.

But, I admit that the judge's remark about the need to keep police encounters with the public "voluntary" was baffling to me. Lunatic would be my choice of words to describe that remark, but I am trying to be impartial.

Marcy

May I point out that the root of the problem is victimless crimes? The people selling drugs and sex are branded as outlaws.They cannot help or be helped by the police force. Bank transactions are not private, forcing these trades to deal with largeamounts of cash. To protect themselves from robbery, people employ the armed thugs who would otherwise be robbing them.Association by family and friendship puts most everybody in the community on the "wrong side of the law" one way or another.Of course the people taking these high-risk jobs in victimless crime are somewhat ambitious. However, ambition should beconsidered a virtue, and they should have educational opportunities to succeed in other fields. If the victimless crime careerswere not available, the community would pursue other ventures and policing it would not be a problem.

Harland HarrisonLP of San Mateo County CA

I am not in favor of taxpayer-funded "free" education, except maybe K through 8th, in bare bones reading, writing and arithmetic. So "giving" anyone "educational opportunities" within the current educational system would be problematic for me.

Absolutely ambition is a good thing. And each one of us chooses how to pursue ambition hopefully cognizant of collateral consequences of our choices.

My guess would be that today, in this time and place, choosing careers in drug dealing or sex trading comes with risks. But so do careers in, say, banking given the latest news. We choose, we deal.

Marcy

Going back to the idea of educational opportunities, a very important topic. I jumped to the conclusion that those opportunities were limited to taxpayer-funded education, but of course they are not. Should Libertarians be encouraging and campaigning in favor of the return of trade guilds and real internships, where young people can learn specialized trade or businesses? Should Libertarians be encouraging and campaigning for the return of "company towns," where large businesses create cities where workers learn, work and live?

My concern is that Libertarians might be speaking like Establishment folk in divisive "us vs them" -- police vs blacks, poor vs rich, etc., when maybe we could be thinking about non-Establishment solutions.

Marcy

Here’s a good one….all the ways you can comply and still die during an encounter with police.

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/all_the_ways_you_can_comply_and_still_die_during_an_encounter_with_police_s
Mike

Started this email a while back and forgot to send it...

  Marcy, your statement below in which you say you aren't in favor of "free" (i.e. taxpayer-funded) education, but then go on to say maybe you are in favor of it, if it offers the kind of content you want taught ("bare bones reading, writing and arithmetic"), seems inconsistent/contradictory.

  When is it okay in your view for government to coercively fund education, and what makes it okay in those cases and not other cases? In other words, what is the philosophical justification for drawing the line in that particular place?

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))