Massachusetts court rules Black men fleeing the police is reasonable

Until the situation with the police is fixed so there is no harm/discrimination done to black people as a group, this is the court's remedy.

 

No. You're conflating this case (a 4th amendment argument) with an equal protection claim. Again, as per your quote/link, the "closer scrutiny" for cases involving "suspect classifications" pertains to 14th amendment challenges to laws or actions that are perceived as discriminatory.

Further, the term "scrutiny" has a pretty specific legal definition in regard to equal protection challenges as well, differentiating between "rational basis" (for a potentially discriminatory law), "intermediate scrutiny", and "strict scrutiny" (the criteria under which race-based legal challenges are considered). This, again, is from your link:

You're completely misdefining the term in order to fit it into your argument, but it doesn't mean what you claim it means.

 

You are the one who brought up equal protection, which is a clause in the 14th amendment. I've been talking about the 14th since you raised it. Though due process also requires equal treatment.

I am not misdefining the term. The court's decision is in line with protecting blacks from discriminatory police practices. When it comes to race, strict scrutiny is to be used.

The state didn't show that not allowing blacks to flee serves some compelling interest.

 

And when I brought up the 14th, I brought it up in relation to my prediction of a future case referencing this one. You disputed the idea that it would be relevant because "equal protection does not apply equally", claiming (incorrectly) that blacks are a protected class, and that this case's decision is an example thereof.

Now that we're through that recap, I will reiterate that you've failed to give any example of equal protection not applying equally, of blacks being a protected class, or of any evidence or reasonable argument to my suggestion that this ruling will more than likely end up being extended to all races, rather than being limited only to blacks.

 

Equal protection doesn't apply equally.

The decision talked about black people's rights to flee.

"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."

Not "anyone" or "any person" or "white people, too"