Big example, given the recent incidents involving law enforcement....there is this seminal Supreme Court decision involving Illinois' police and its citizens which has had enormous precedent vis-a-vis blacks and the police (sorry I can't remember the name off the top of my head).
Generally, police must have probable cause in order to place in custody/arrest people who leave (or run away) when they arrive anywhere. In that Illinois case, the police were in a "high crime" area in which they saw an individual flee upon seeing the police. The police gave chase, seized and arrested him, and found drugs/weapons on the individual's person. Naturally, the individual retained counsel and tried to have all of what they found on him excluded from evidence in the trial against him. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and the Court established the precedent that a police can chase after people in a "high crime" area who flee upon their arrival, provided they have probable cause. Here's the kicker though: if a police already has "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is involved in illegal activity/is armed in that "high crime" area, and that individual flees upon the police's arrival, the Court has determined that the individual's flight from police presence elevates their "reasonable suspicion" to the requisite probable cause for them to give chase.
Moreover, when you combine that precedent with the fact that police are allowed to use deadly force if they have sufficient reason to believe that the fleeing individual is a danger to the officer or the general public, it can only mean trouble. So, with people in "high crime" areas (vague definition and can cynically be read to mean predominantly black areas
), if you flee the scene when you see the police, it can be open season on your ass. And the unfortunate unspoken truth is to the police, blacks are inherently suspicious. :SoDemonicHillary:
Take that precedent and apply it to the Walter Scott situation in Charleston, South Carolina (a "high crime" area). As we know, Mr. Scott was shot in his back as he was running AWAY from the police (Michael Slager). According to Slager, Scott was a danger to his safety/the public's safety as he was supposedly running away from him with his taser. Keep in mind that before the fatal shooting, Slager chased Scott (who ran from his car) to a lot, where they were involved in a physical altercation (more than enough probable cause for Scott to be arrested). After the altercation, Scott started running away. Slager then shot 8 rounds into his back. What was the first thing Slager reported on his walkie-talkie when he called for assistance? "
He took my taser!"
Hence, reconciling this situation with the Supreme Court decision from Illinois (and general police rights), Slager was legally justified in shooting Scott (according to his version of events) because: 1. Scott was in a "high crime" area, 2. he fled from his car when he was stopped for a broken tail light
(reasonable suspicion-->probable cause-->he could be chased), 3. they were involved in an altercation (more than enough reason to arrest Scott), 4. Scott ran away again allegedly with Slager's taser, and 5. Scott supposedly presented a danger to him and the generally public when he was supposedly fleeing with the taser.
This is why it will not surprise me one iota if Slager gets to walk (even though he's been indicted).
And notice that Zimmerman, who wasn't even an officer by the way, described Trayvon Martin as "suspicious" before he gave chase and gunned him down. If Zimmerman could be found not guilty, what do you think will happen with police when they gun blacks down and claim that they initially chased them because they seemed "suspicious"?
This is just ONE example of how the law can screw people over.
The law as it applies to black people is something else.:GhostfaceStare: Know your rights. Know the law.
