- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
Says whites must be treated more severely than blacks.
Well, I guess it's about time.
Are all you dosshy leftists with me?
Just a few days ago, on June 9th, something very ominous happened that hardly anyone noticed. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the criminal law should officially treat people of color more leniently than it treats whites.
@jj-adams saidDo you live there? If not why care?
Says whites must be treated more severely than blacks.
Well, I guess it's about time.
Are all you dosshy leftists with me?
Just a few days ago, on June 9th, something very ominous happened that hardly anyone noticed. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the criminal law should officially treat people of color more leniently than it treats whites.
- Joined
- 01 Jun 22
- Moves
- 1132
1 edit
Obviously anything like this will get overturned in appeals court.
They can sentence you to whatever they want but if you have a case for an appeal they will change the sentence later. Long after people stopped paying attention to the case.
It's just grandstanding and posturing for pandering purposes.
GPPP
- Joined
- 01 Jun 22
- Moves
- 1132
@wildgrass saidSaid the guy who wants gun laws in places he doesn't live.
Do you live there? If not why care?
If you don't live there why care?
See how stupid your logic is?
2 edits
@jj-adams saidHey Skippy - I live in Washington State and your statement doesn't exactly ring true. The exact wording from the Supreme Court is:
Says whites must be treated more severely than blacks.
Well, I guess it's about time.
Are all you dosshy leftists with me?
Just a few days ago, on June 9th, something very ominous happened that hardly anyone noticed. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the criminal law should officially treat people of color more leniently than it treats whites.
“We have never stated that race and ethnicity cannot be relevant circumstances,” Justice Mary Yu wrote on behalf of the court in their ruling. “However, we have not explicitly held that in interactions with law enforcement, race and ethnicity matter. We do so today.”
- State of Washington vs Palla Sum a/k/a San Kim Sum
Your twisting of the court's words is dishonest and inaccurate, but hardly surprising coming from you.
https://www.courierherald.com/news/washington-supreme-court-race-ethnicity-a-factor-in-determining-police-stops/
@mott-the-hoople saidWhy don't you read the opinion from the Supreme Court I posted before rendering your verdict? - Or do you just take the word of FOX News?
WASHINGTON STATE…dumbass
@jj-adams saidNeedless to say, the Court didn't rule anything of the sort. I think our resident racist is referring to this case: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/06/10/washington-justices-race-a-factor-in-analyzing-police-stops/
Says whites must be treated more severely than blacks.
Well, I guess it's about time.
Are all you dosshy leftists with me?
Just a few days ago, on June 9th, something very ominous happened that hardly anyone noticed. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the criminal law should officially treat people of color more leniently than it treats whites.
Which says merely that when determining whether a person has been "seized", it is relevant to consider their race and ethnicity among many other factors. The unanimous decision is here: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/997306.pdf
1 edit
@jj-adams saidWhere the heck is your link for such a startling accusation?
Says whites must be treated more severely than blacks.
Well, I guess it's about time.
Are all you dosshy leftists with me?
Just a few days ago, on June 9th, something very ominous happened that hardly anyone noticed. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the criminal law should officially treat people of color more leniently than it treats whites.
Here's what @Mchill's link led us to:
Washington Supreme Court: Race, ethnicity a factor in determining police stops
Police stops... where we all know that people of color get porked due to racial profiling? c'mon dude.
@no1marauder said
Needless to say, the Court didn't rule anything of the sort. I think our resident racist is referring to this case: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/06/10/washington-justices-race-a-factor-in-analyzing-police-stops/
Which says merely that when determining whether a person has been "seized", it is relevant to consider their race and ethnicity among many other factors. The unanimous decision is here: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/997306.pdf
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/997306.pdf
As set forth in this court’s precedent, the seizure inquiry is an objective test
in which the allegedly seized person has the burden to show that a seizure
occurred. To aid courts in the application of this test, we now clarify that a person
is seized for purposes of article I, section 7 if, based on the totality of the
circumstances, an objective observer could conclude that the person was not free to
leave, to refuse a request, or to otherwise terminate the encounter due to law
enforcement’s display of authority or use of physical force. For purposes of this
analysis, an objective observer is aware that implicit, institutional, and unconscious
biases, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have resulted in disproportionate
police contacts, investigative seizures, and uses of force against Black, Indigenous,
State v. Sum, No. 99730-6
3
and other People of Color (BIPOC) in Washington. Finally, in accordance with
our precedent, if the person shows there was a seizure, then the burden shifts to the
State to prove that the seizure was lawfully justified by a warrant or an applicable
exception to the warrant requirement.