Massachusetts court rules Black men fleeing the police is reasonable

Rather than overturning the ruling, what will more likely happen is that a white person who is convicted after a fleeing-based search will appeal the conviction based on the equal protection clause, saying that if it's OK for blacks to flee the police, then it must consequently be OK for everyone to do so.

 

Equal protection, ironically, does not apply equally. See "protected classes."

 

"Protected classes" refer to classes of differentiators (color, ethnicity, religion, orientation) which apply to everyone. Even I, as a "non-protected" straight, white, Christian, male, cannot be fired or discriminated against for any of those identifiers.

 

Still, equal protection isn't equal.

Why would it not be legit for a white person to flee?

 

Your assertion of unequal application of the equal protection clause wouldn't really invalidate a legal challenge invoking it.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at with that question.

 

You assume the court's ruling will be overturned by some white guy asserting equal protection. I suggested this mythical white guy would be afforded the same protection (not overturn), or the court would rule the black folk who are fleeing the police are protected class.

 

Actually, I predicted that the court's ruling will be extended (rather than overturned) based on a white person challenging a conviction to which this ruling could apply.

Aside from people over 40 being protected from workplace age discrimination, can you provide me an example of a specific segment of the population being legally identified as a "protected class" in the manner you're suggesting?

 

Black people are a protected class for the purposes of interpreting the 14th amendment. The equal protection clause is there. Gay people were not protected, so the government was able pass all sorts of awful laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

In United States federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.[1] The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal law:

• Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
• Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission includes discrimination based on gender presentation and sexual orientation as protected beneath the class of 'sex'[2]
• Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
• Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
• Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
• Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
• Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
• Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

 

And, as I stated, those anti-discrimination policies apply to all people, not just certain members of the populace. Just like black people cannot be discriminated against for being black, white people can also not be discriminated against for being white. Black people are not any more protected from discrimination than white people are.

As your quote states (font color changed for your convenience), the term "class" does not mean "class of people", but "class of characteristic". Claiming black people are a "protected class" is a misinterpretation of the term.

 

The Supreme Court, in its deliberations, and the laws passed by congress specify what a protected class is.

Blacks, as a protected class, might have special rules for their concerns. If a workplace hires only whites, they could claim it to be random luck. "We hired 8, and because so few blacks applied, none qualified." It is typical of employment or school admissions, and housing.

The blacks fleeing cops is exactly this sort of thing.

As I wrote before, gays were never considered a protected class in numerous decisions. So not everyone is a member of a protected class.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/suspect_classification

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

In Americanjurisprudence, a suspect classification is any classification of groups meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when an Equal Protection claim alleging unconstitutional discrimination is asserted against a law, regulation, or other government action.

 

I'm going to go ahead and presume that by continuing to refer to a "protected class" as a class of people rather than a class of characteristic, you are simply being intentionally obtuse at this point.

As soon as you want to acknowledge and/or address this major folly in your reasoning and arguments, we can continue. Until then, we are at an impasse.

 

You missed the post about suspect classes.

That's odd because you posted this right after taht post.

 

No, i didn't miss it. Suspect classifications are a different concept than protected classes.

As I said, until you can acknowledge that the term "protected class" as it applies to the 14th amendment refers to characteristics and not to people, we can go no further.

 

They're related.

I agree I misspoke, but the concept is still valid.

White people are not given the same kinds of protections under the 14th as black people. My original point still stands.

 

Not at all. The protections are the same. Your posted definition regarding suspect classifications specifically states that those "classes receive closer scrutiny by courts" in discrimination cases--as in, they'll get more attention because the likelihood of their case having validity is higher--not that they receive protections not afforded to those not in a suspect classification.

You've given no support to your "original point"; I fail to see how you can claim it still stands.

 

The closer scrutiny is exactly what the court did, in writing about the right of black people to flee the cops.

The significance is that the cops, by the results of how they operate, are discriminating against black people, who have special protection.