Today’s quotable
Wednesday, Jul 31, 2024 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Sun-Times…
Lawyers for the city argue in a legal filing that Dexter Reed was pulled over for having illegally tinted windows before he was killed in a shootout with Chicago cops, contradicting the initial explanation given to police oversight officials. […]
Andrea Kersten, chief administrator of the Civilian Office of Police Accountability, previously wrote an explosive memo informing Police Supt. Larry Snelling that COPA was told Reed was stopped because he wasn’t wearing a seat belt. […]
Reed’s sister, Porscha Banks, said the court filing marks a disheartening change in tone from Mayor Brandon Johnson’s initial response to the shooting. At the time, Johnson said he was “personally devastated to see yet another young Black man lose his life during an interaction with the police.” […]
The [city’s] lawyers argued the stop targeting Reed was constitutional because his tinted windows violated state law. “An officer’s subjective reason for conducting a traffic stop — even if based on race — does not violate the Fourth Amendment,” the lawyers said.
Emphasis added.
Some legal arguments shouldn’t be used by a government. That’s one of them.
- Cubs in '16 - Wednesday, Jul 31, 24 @ 12:11 pm:
“Well, ok. We WERE profiling but that’s not illegal.” Just wow.
- @misterjayem - Wednesday, Jul 31, 24 @ 12:13 pm:
Chicago’s attorneys: Driving While Black may not be a crime, but it can still be treated like a crime.
– MrJM
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Wednesday, Jul 31, 24 @ 12:17 pm:
Well, this is obviously Lori Lightfoot’s fault.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Jul 31, 24 @ 12:36 pm:
I have big issues with the response by CPD and the city to the questions over the stop and even bigger issues with the stop itself. But we should not ever lose sight of the fact that Reed opened fire on the police. Maybe the outcome would have been the same if he had not opened fire. You cannot prove what might have or might not have happened. But he did in fact fire at the police first.
- Homebody - Wednesday, Jul 31, 24 @ 12:50 pm:
The problem is current constitutional case law is basically designed to let cops get away with everything all the time. That is the underlying problem.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 31, 24 @ 12:51 pm:
===But we should not ever lose sight of the fact that Reed opened fire on the police===
Well, yeah, but what exactly has that to do with the legal filing about race-based stops? Stay on topic.
- Henry Francis - Wednesday, Jul 31, 24 @ 12:52 pm:
The Mayor has to disavow this, no?
American Airlines fired their lawyers who raised (as a totally routine defense) that the victims should have known better when a flight attendant was secretly filming passengers in the lavatory.
- Montrose - Wednesday, Jul 31, 24 @ 1:00 pm:
“The Mayor has to disavow this, no?”
He should, but he won’t. At least I would be surprised if he does. I feel like this is yet another example of his administration saying “Hey. It’s me. Brandon. You know I am good guy, so it’s ok if we say these things.”
- Riverbender - Wednesday, Jul 31, 24 @ 1:08 pm:
If the windows were tinted to the point of illegality how would the policeman be able to observably determine race thus making the filing rather inappropriate under the circumstances wouldn’t it?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 31, 24 @ 1:11 pm:
===making the filing rather inappropriate===
And irrelevant and utterly incompetent.
- hmmm - Wednesday, Jul 31, 24 @ 1:20 pm:
If the stop was “based on the window” not race, why did they mention “even if based on race”? Doesn’t that make it look like they (cops) did it because he was Black?
- Anyone Remember - Wednesday, Jul 31, 24 @ 1:22 pm:
“American Airlines fired their lawyers who raised (as a totally routine defense) that the victims should have known better … .”
The victim was a minor.
- Excitable Boy - Wednesday, Jul 31, 24 @ 1:23 pm:
- But he did in fact fire at the police first. -
And that makes it ok for the city to argue that race based traffic stops are constitutional?
- Anon E Moose - Wednesday, Jul 31, 24 @ 1:30 pm:
These outside firms (Borkan and Taft) just bill the file into oblivion. They know these are ridiculous arguments but they don’t care. And the City keeps paying their bills.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Jul 31, 24 @ 1:59 pm:
=And that makes it ok for the city to argue that race based traffic stops are constitutional?=
Not stated or implied.
To Rich’s point on my post: apologies. And the filing is just ridiculous.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Wednesday, Jul 31, 24 @ 2:25 pm:
===utterly incompetent.===
I’m pretty sure the attorneys would respond that they’re just “being an aggressive litigator” and that your concerns are “political.” So long as people continue to believe you have to be a jerk to be a good lawyer, these things will keep happening.
- H-W - Wednesday, Jul 31, 24 @ 3:53 pm:
The fact that someone in a position of authority has decided to test whether or not race (ethnicity) is exempt from cause as long as the accused says “it was not about race (ethnicity),” is one thing, right? Of course that is an unacceptable reason to suspect someone and then surveil someone. But for another leg of that argument be a declaration that “race (ethnicity) cannot be deemed as an illegal cause for surveillance” is such an un-Godly step backwards.
- Stephanie Kollmann - Wednesday, Jul 31, 24 @ 4:38 pm:
==So long as people continue to believe you have to be a jerk to be a good lawyer==
This happens and there’s no excuse for it.
The lawyer saying those things is fully responsible for what they said.
But also, just like the city should fire police who say it’s fine for police to discriminate, it should fire lawyers who say it is fine for police to discriminate.
If you don’t want lawyers to make racist arguments, don’t keep paying them to make racist arguments.