Massachusetts

Mass. High Court Rules Black Men May Have Legitimate Reasons To Run From Police

Running may "just as easily be motivated by desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by desire to hide criminal activity."

|

Paul Marotta/Sipa USA/Newscom

Citing racial disparities in law enforcement, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Wednesday that black men may have legitimate reason to flee from the police, and that shouldn't be used against them in court.

As protests and controversy continue to erupt around the country over police shootings of black men—riots broke out in Charlotte, N.C. just today over the death of Keith Lamonte Scott at the hands of police—the ruling is a notable embrace by a state supreme court of many of the fears articulated by Black Lives Matter activists.

In its ruling, the court threw out the gun conviction of Jimmy Warren. From WBUR:

Warren was arrested on Dec. 18, 2011, by police who were investigating a break-in in Roxbury. Police had been given a description of the suspects as three black men — one wearing a "red hoodie," one wearing a "black hoodie" and the other wearing "dark clothing." An officer later spotted Warren and another man (both wearing dark clothing) walking near a park. When the officer approached the men, they ran. Warren was later arrested and searched. No contraband was found on him, but police recovered an unlicensed .22 caliber firearm in a nearby yard. Warren was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and later convicted.

Citing a 2014 ACLU study that found blacks in Boston made up 63 percent of stop-and-frisk encounters with police, despite being only 24 percent of the population, the court ruled police officer's decision to stop Warren was unreasonable, and that Warren's subsequent flight shouldn't be used against him:

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.

In an interview, Matthew Segal, the legal director of the Massachusetts ACLU, called Tuesday's ruling "tremendously significant decision." The ruling he said, will no longer allow police in the state to stop citizens based on generalized descriptions of suspects. Instead, officers will have to have individualized suspicion of a crime.

"There's an enormous discussion in the country over policing, and this opinion is a reminder that courts are just as important in deciding what police behaviors are OK and not OK," Segal said. "So often, the outrage is directed at the police officer or police department, but beyond that, courts have authorized, by interpreting the word 'unreasonable,' a tremendous amount of violence. This is a court that's heading in a different direction. It's a signal to all courts that they have a role to play in these nationwide discussions over police violence."

Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans told local reporters that the ACLU report the court relied on was "heavily tainted against the police department" and "didn't take into context who was stopped and why. That report clearly shows that we were targeting the individuals that were driving violence in the city and the hot spots."

NEXT: Business and the Roberts court without Scalia

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This won’t end badly.

    1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,.,.,,

      ——————>>> http://www.4cyberworks.com

    2. Well since both the story and the ruling make zero sense expect this to be thrown out mighty fast. Social signaling from the bench? Not a good thing.

      Not saying that there aren’t good points, but unequal protection under the law isn’t a way to ‘fix’ unequal protection under the law.

      1. I’m sure that many black men have legitimate reasons for running from the popo. Many white men may also have legitimate reasons for doing so as well.

        Progs have in some school zones have made it to where black students misbehavior more acceptable and less punishable than misbehavior from kids of any other races.

        None of that makes it right.

        There was a post in a PM links thread saying that many people are tired of having SJW crap pushed in their faces 24/7. It’s gotten to the point where you can turn on a football game for a little escape from the stresses of life with out having some SJW bullshit pushed in your face. It’s culture war 24/7 brought into your living room by someone who should be passing the football or talking about someone who just passed the football.

        I agree with that wholeheartedly. The biggest problem in this country today is the fact that some people can’t pee in the bathroom with those of the opposite sex but the 20 trillion dollar debt is no big deal because Krugman says we can just mint a billion trillion dollar coin and back our currency with it.

        1. This decision does not carve out any special rights for blacks. It is a small step toward removing decades of decisions eroding the 4th amendment that have lead us to the situation we are currently in, in which the 4th amendment has been almost completely circumvented. The probable cause for this guys stop was that he was black & wearing dark clothes. Race + vague description of clothing should not = probable cause. The issue here really isnt race, it is that probable cause requires specific evidence of a crime. If this decision is enforced, it will protect people of all races, as inclusion in a racial group can be used now to generate probable cause against anyone, regardless of their color. So under this decision, if someone says “a white guy robbed me”, police will no longer have PC to detain every white guy in the area.

          Its exhausting how reflexive the bitching about “SJW” & social signaling is in this case. This is a good decision for supporters of the constitution. The US legal system is so overwhelmingly broken that libertarians & constitutionalists should embrace the small number of decisions that go against the grain & support fundamental rights to freedom of movement, regardless of what dominant political tribe gets it done. Bitching about a decision reinforcing the 4th against decades of abuses because the judge involved might be a liberal is counter-productive & symptomatic of exactly the sort of partisan social signaling you decry.

    3. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,
      http://www.trends88.com

    4. Start working at home with GOOGLE!YAHOO. ABCNEWS AND MORE GLOBAL SITES.. It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Monday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6475 this 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $98 per hour. I work through this web, Read more this web… http://goo.gl/401aiZ

  2. Can’t this logic be applied to the sex and gender of as well?

    Gender profiling is a big problem.

    1. The problem caused by tha cops.

    2. Yeah. Young males in general have a lot more to fear from the police than any other age/sex/gender group.

      I’m sure young black men have it even worse. But all young males get specially looked at by the cops.

      1. this is a good point. the male to female incarceration ratio is ~95%/5%. The last time I looked at the #s there were in fact some classes of crimes that appear to have real gender disparities … eg males are much more likely to engage in unarmed/”strongarm” robberies. However IMO the research in criminal gender disparities reeks of bias where it exists at all. There is a prevalent myth that pervades all elements of our culture that states women are fundamentally less violent than men. While it may in fact be true that women are either kess likely to engage in violence, or that women are less likely to use a weapon or significantly injure an opponent, Ive yet to see anything resembling conclusive #s bearing this out. Regardless, even if women never engage in violence ever, this would not explain the disparities in drug crime convictions when we know women are just as likely to use drugs as men. At least in this critical law enforcement area it is clear women are less likely to be searched or arrested by police and when they are arrested women are less likely to be convicted of felonies & receive lighter sentencing.

        Equality before the law – whether related to gender or race – is yet another underlying principle of the US legal system that since the founding we have been unable or unwilling to get right.

    3. Stop-n-grope.

      Works for the TSA. When’s the last time a commercial passenger jet was hijacked?

      1. See what a good job they are doing ?

        /TSA manager

        I read an Israeli security expert once who said that the difference between US and Israeli airline security is that Israel looks for bombers and the USA looks for bombs. Looking for bombers is more effective and less intrusive on everyone else. Looking for bombs mean you intrude on everyone. Looking for bombers mean you only intrude on the bombers.

  3. You know who else promised to “target the individuals that were driving violence in the city and the hot spots” ?

    1. Gangsta rap producers?

    2. Silver Surfer?

  4. “The ruling he said, will no longer allow police in the state to stop citizens based on generalized descriptions of suspects. Instead, officers will have to have individualized suspicion of a crime.”

    A lawyer’s dream.

    1. will no longer allow police in the state to stop citizens based on generalized descriptions

      But foreigners are fair game.

      1. Yeah but how do you know they’re foreigners unless you stop them? Best to stop everyone just to be safe.

        1. Hugh, you forgot diene Papiere, bitte.

          1. Look dude, those foreigners are pretty wily. Some of them are even disguising themselves as regular white people.

            1. We can’t have that. Gotta get some Certified Bavarian White badges made up. Want to get on that, Huge?

  5. Is this not basically what’s being doing in public schools? Blacks will be allowed to get away with petty crimes because the police are afraid of enforcing them?

    1. Yeah, you’re right. Best not let them darkies get away with anything.

      1. If there’s one thing you can definitely say about cops, its that they’re afraid to enforce petty laws on black people.

        1. Wasn’t the ruling today?

      2. “Yeah, you’re right. Best not let them darkies get away with anything.”

        They should be allowed to get away with crimes?

        1. Absolutely not. And as we all know, running from a cop is the #1 indication that you’re wanted for other crimes.

          That’s in addition to running from a cop being a capital offense in and of itself.

  6. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ——————>>> http://www.4cyberworks.com

  7. BLM didn’t spring out of nothing.

    Another cop problem and – especially – the middle and upper class who tolerate that police bullshit.

  8. “That report clearly shows that we were targeting the individuals that were driving violence in the city and the hot spots.””

    No, I would say it is safe to say the report shows they are targeting the people that have 1 or 2 vague commonalities in appearance and proximity to those driving violence in the city. AND that is precisely the problem. It’s safe to say if the individuals driving up violence in the city where white and wore suites and ties, that every white lawyer, accountant or salesman in the area would suddenly be stopped frisked, and ticketed for any possible reason that can be justifies. It is that double standard driven by stereotyping that is the root of the problem.

  9. It’s not particularly clear that this makes a lot of sense. I can’t help but wonder if it is a really stupid response to a bad situation that has only tangential relationship to the particular policy being implemented.

  10. Hmmm…I remember lamenting the proto-BLM movement (‘Hand’s up, don’t shoot’) as sucking all oxygen out of police xenophobia/militarization/unaccountability issue into a racial mess that will be resolved by maintaining status quo and getting a couple new Jesse Jacksons on the outrage-dole. Hate being right.

    1. I hadn’t put this together until now. I wish I had that much foresight.

  11. This seems reasonable. Except for the part about holding different races to different standards. We all have plenty to fear from the police. Avoiding them by running away shouldn’t be considered evidence of any ill intent.

    1. There are two factors that I imagine play into someone’s desire to run from the police which don’t seem to get much consideration:

      1. The constant proliferation of laws banning this and that, but especially weapons
      2. The courts constantly lowering the standards of admissibility for evidence

      I think the court reached the right decision here, but for all the wrong reasons. It shouldn’t be illegal to own a gun, period, and the gun shouldn’t have been admissible in court, anyway.

    2. Zeb says, ” Avoiding them by running away shouldn’t be considered evidence of any ill intent.”

      Agreed and it should be considered retreating from a very real threat. It was disappointing to read, “We do NOT eliminate flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis whenever a black male is the subject of an investigatory stop.”

      The rest is just bullshit minutia.

    1. Thanks for that. Now can you please interpret it for me? I think I understood about 10% of it.

        1. Whoop Whoop is the sound of a Texas Aggie on game day.

  12. My favorite local brewery now has food. I think that sounds like a good first night back in town dinner plan. I’m mostly looking forward to the beer. Love the Buxom Blonde, athough they’re all excellant.

    http://zbeers.com/beer/

    1. ^sigh. Another account taken over by the spambot.

  13. “Feets don’t fail me now!”

  14. So a court called out a specific race as having rights or reasons for particular public behavior that other races don’t?

    1. Yes. And if you don’t like it then you’re racist.

    2. The Court put the action in Affirmative Action!

  15. black men may have legitimate reason to flee from the police, and that shouldn’t be used against them in court.

    What about Hispanics? Or Asians? Or anyone else Marky Mark used to beat the shit out in Dorchester?

    Instead of carving out a mens rea exception on ethnic lines, why don’t we reform a policing culture that allows its officers to fuck with “Mondays” with impunity?

    1. This might be a step in the right direction though. Carving out legal “exceptions” has often been used by police agencies to help expand their power. First there’s an exception, then another and another until courts get used to wholesale rubber-stamping police actions. This could be the start of something more moving us in the opposite direction. If this paves the way for more legal reasons why the police aren’t justified in their assumptions and actions, then this decision is a good thing.

      1. That’s a fair point, darius.

      2. Darius AKA Darius the Patient Optimist

    2. Uh, excuse me, but there is only one race, the human race.

      -Bill Nye the Engineering Guy

    3. Instead of carving out a mens rea exception on ethnic lines, why don’t we reform a policing culture that allows its officers to fuck with “Mondays” with impunity?

      I have it on good authority that Black Lives Matter is doing wonders for promoting the right king of reform in the justice system.

    1. … so Trump is going to lose 49 states?

      Trump is Nixon, not Goldwater.

      1. Trump is going to win in a landslide.

        Goldwater only lost 44 states

        1. Trump is going to win in a landslide.

          I’ll believe the “landslide” part when I see it.

          1. More like a glandslide as during the debate all of Hillary’s glands slide out of her quivering flesh-tarp of a carcass and even her staunchest supporters then refuse to turn out to vote for a literal slimy, noisome, gut-pile.

            1. Very… uh… colorful.

  16. So what about wide-set noses? Are those in play?

  17. Can someone explain to me how you can be unarmed and shot dead by a cop, but if you’re a fucking terrorist shooting at a cop all that happens is that you end up lying down on a gurney with a fucking paper cut?

    1. if you’re a fucking terrorist shooting at a cop all that happens is that you end up lying down on a gurney with a fucking paper cut

      I heard he was hit at least twice – in the leg and the shoulder.

      Rahami had fired a shot and hit the officer in the abdomen, though the officer was spared more serious injury by a protective vest. The officer, Angel Padilla, returned fire, hitting Rahami in the shoulder and leg, Armstead said.

      Its possible that police, once they’d identified the suspect w/ fingerprints, etc., had been told to try and take the guy alive if possible. I haven’t seen any reporting on that.

      1. The cop didn’t know who he was. He was responding to a call about a guy sleeping in a doorway.

        1. nope. the bar owner who called recognized the guy from pictures in the news

          Harinder Bains, the owner of Merdie’s Tavern in Linden, New Jersey, said he spotted Rahami sleeping in the doorway of his bar Monday morning. Bains said he recognized Rahami after seeing pictures of the suspect on CNN and called police…

          1. Man, the more I hear about this guy, the more amazed I am that he managed to succeed even the little bit that he did in his bombing scheme.

            1. Meh. Big adrenaline high then crash. Probably find he did some speed or drank like 5 red bulls, too. Found a place to sit down for a minute, and fell asleep.

      2. had been told to try and take the guy alive if possible.

        Which is quite a contrast to the rest of the public, which is enthusiastically taken dead.

        1. Fact – its a lot cheaper for a city/state to settle a wrongful death claim than it is a ‘wrongful shooting’ where someone may be damaged for life.

    2. we have to take the terrorist alive so that we can torture the life out of them for meaningless information. You can’t do that to your average black guy on the street at least not yet we will have to see what Trump proposes next though he may do that.

      1. we have to take the terrorist alive so that we can torture the life out of them for meaningless information

        Actually the truth is that most of the “islamic radicals” who get caught – americans or foreigners, regardless – tend to sing like canaries as soon as they’re caught. Part of it seems to be a desire to brag, part of it seems to be a genuine desire to mitigate their own punishment, and part of it is that they’re just morons to begin with.

        the fact is that the CIA didn’t actually torture very many of the people they “rendered” over the years. if i recall from the senate report – it was something like between 5 and 10 people – and of those, only 2 ever got anything close to the “Full Buffet” of torture methods – KSM and … can’t remember the other.

        Somehow that reality has been translated over time into “they tortured everyone”.

        I’m expecting the retort to be something like, “Well, if they did it at all its still awful”. Sure. Which is the same thing the “Rape Culture” people say whenever you debunk their “1-in-5” claims or any of their other exaggerated statistics.

        1. *3, not 2 = “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zabaydah, and Abd Al Rahim al-Nashiri.”

          1. Would you consider Abu Ghraib torture?

            1. not in the sense of being “US policy”. It wasn’t trying to elicit any intelligence. it was just abuse and mistreatment by jackasses who were (rightfully) jailed for their conduct.

              1. Ok. I’ll buy that. I do think, though, that whatever “official policy” was, there was an unofficial… I’m not sure… maybe “dehumanizing” of the enemy? A certain… “we’re the good guys, these guys are just terrorists”, whether proven or not.

                1. i think Abu Gharib is a bad example because it genuinely was “Individual Misconduct” and not at all directed or approved by anyone at any higher level. And everyone associated w/ it went to jail AFAIK. It was a bunch of redneck morons running their own private circus.

                  A better example would be the ‘detention center’ @ Baghram airbase in Afghanistan

                  There, the treatment of prisoners *was* sanctioned, approved, overseen, etc.. and which was provided official cover; and which, while less sensational – because it didn’t generate lots of photo-evidence – may have produced a significantly higher body count. At least a few people died in custody, often as a consequence of abuse. See the doco: “taxi to the dark side

                  all that aside – i think the “military treatment of detainees in theater” is an entirely different subject than what we’re talking about w/ “Torturing terror suspects”. Which involves an entirely different set of official-polices and behaviors, ranging from “extraordinary rendition” (read: Kidnapping) in countries where the US isn’t even at war… “extra-legal detention” in black sites…. and “enhanced interrogation”- which is the euphemism for approved-torture.

                  1. All, again, very fair points. I’m not really prepared to have this discussion, being moderately buzzed. I’m not sure if we disagree, more that you’ve developed an actual argument, while I’m still at first impressions stage. (Which, at this late date, is probably not true; I’m just not sober enough to articulate my position)
                    I think we agree that, post 9/11, the US government veered into dangerous waters, resulting in unacceptable actions being taken, both officially and unofficially.

        2. Obama outsmarted everybody by just murdering suspected terrorists. No worries about torture or where to store them.

          1. It was certainly an incentive to murder them *instead* of capture them.

            and considering the relatively high-rate at which terrorists tended to share info…. its worth asking whether anyone thinks we’re more-moral now because we just “blow them up” (and their families) instead of capturing them and threatening them with ‘enhanced interrogation’.

            I’ve heard people say how vastly America improved its “image in the world” when obama decreed that he was “stopping torture” *(which, again, affected only a handful of people).

            You really have to wonder whether anyone in, say, Somalia, is very much impressed with that shift in policy

        3. They are proud of their jihad and want to be known as martyrs.

    3. Bullets are racist?

    4. There is a hell of a difference between shooting at a guy who isnt shooting at you and shooting at one who is.

    5. Some cops can shoot for shit, especially if no one’s shooting back at them. Lots of others can’t.

      Consider the swiss cheese the Boston environs PDs turned that backyard boat into, yet Tsarnaev ended up living through their fusillade.

      The funny thing is, if you really think he’s an Islamic terrorist, there’s a non-trivial chance the guy’s wearing a suicide bomb vest or belt, and so to stop him from detonating, you probably should do what the London Police did to Jean Charles de Menezes, i.e., empty the magazine into the guy’s head.

      It looks a lot better if the guy actually has a bomb, of course.

      1. Well, given how many of these guys have actually *not* had a suicide bomb – I’d say there’s actually a pretty trivial chance they’ve got one and so dumping a mag in a random dude’s head (as the London Police did to a random dude called Jean Charles de Menezes) is what you shouldn’t do.

    6. Because it’s different people responding in different cities under different situations. As much as we hear cases of police shootings around here, they aren’t that common in comparison to the vast numbers of police interaction every day. The odds of the guy who will shoot you dead being the guy on the call with the terrorist are slim.

  18. A major loss for gun control proponents.

    1. Bull.

      It’s a big win for criminals, and more crime is a win for gun control proponents.

  19. “Citing a 2014 ACLU study that found blacks in Boston made up 63 percent of stop-and-frisk encounters with police, despite being only 24 percent of the population”

    I thought this simple logical fallacy had been dispensed with long ago. Sad to see a supreme court pushing it.

    The important statistical relationship isn’t stopped vs. percentage of population. It’s stopped vs. percentage of those who commit crimes, per capita.

  20. “Citing a 2014 ACLU study that found blacks in Boston made up 63 percent of stop-and-frisk encounters with police, despite being only 24 percent of the population”

    I thought this simple logical fallacy had been dispensed with long ago. Sad to see a supreme court pushing it.

    The important statistical relationship isn’t stopped vs. percentage of population. It’s stopped vs. percentage of those who commit crimes, per capita.

  21. You know who else targeted a minority?

    1. James Earl Ray?

      1. Fuck you! Thought I had this one.

    2. Nope. The correct answer is Kool cigarettes.

  22. Warren was later arrested and searched. No contraband was found on him, but police recovered an unlicensed .22 caliber firearm in a nearby yard. Warren was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and later convicted.

    ……So let me see if I follow this, after being searched and found not to have any contraband, he was then arrested AND subsequently charged with possession of a firearm that he was obviously not in possession of. A fact that is all the more confusing because somehow this very non-trivial detail is both freely acknowledged and completely ignored by the arresting officers. And then their supervisors. And then the Prosecution? How the fuck does bullshit this weak get within a mile of a courtroom? And how or where in the 4 corners of Morder do you possibly find 1, much less 12 specimens of this rare caliber? Hard core, state-fellating, cum-drunk micro-cephalic fuckwits, the kind of amoral sub-moron you could count on to dutifully rubber stamp the burning alive at the stake of an entire busload of jaywalking 1st graders, while still being literate enough to read a jury summons? evidentally MASSACHUSETTS!?

    1. Hard core, state-fellating, cum-drunk micro-cephalic fuckwits, the kind of amoral sub-moron you could count on to dutifully rubber stamp the burning alive at the stake of an entire busload of jaywalking 1st graders, while still being literate enough to read a jury summons?

      Now, now, don’t be shy: tell us how you really feel.

  23. What about white men with Gadsden Flag bumper stickers?

    1. They’d be up for summary execution but the cops are afraid they *really would* have guns on them. Everybody knows an old cracker with a gun is the most dangerous motherfucker in the world.

  24. “Citing a 2014 ACLU study that found blacks in Boston made up 63 percent of stop-and-frisk encounters with police, despite being only 24 percent of the population,”

    Ignoring the illegality of general warrants, if they’re doing the stop and frisk at random, but only in high crime areas, then shouldn’t the demographic makeup of the people in those encounters be expected to reflect the makeup of those specific areas rather than the city at large? Why not just compare it to the national average while you’re at it?

  25. This is insane. They need to establish rules for it to be understood by the cops.

    1. Blacks can now run from the police with impunity.
    2. Mulattoes can jog with an occasional burst of speed.
    3. People with 1/4 black blood can jog IF they are darker than Lisa Bonet was in Cosby but must only gallop if lighter.
    4. White people can run but only if being chased by a black cop since that pretty much assures they’ll get caught.
    5. Asians so infrequently interact with police they are exempt from the rule.
    6. Hispanics aren’t even allowed to exit the car they broke down in if approached by the police.
    And 7. Middle easterners are free to do what they want unless they’re carrying crockery.

    1. Good, you’ve worked it all out.
      All those in favor? Against? Motion carries.

  26. “‘Motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled’ — Yeah, *that’s* the ticket!”

    1. I’ll give it to them. I’m no sjw, but I fully acknowledge that, as a middle age white guy, the cops kinda ignore me. Not so much when I was a kid… but still, white kid in suburbia.
      My vote: I’ll say fair judgement for one particular subclass of cases.

  27. Citing a 2014 ACLU study that found blacks in Boston made up 63 percent of stop-and-frisk encounters with police, despite being only 24 percent of the population. Yet they commit 83 percent of the crime.

    STOP treating blacks as special and this will disappear.

  28. Most stupid ruling ever. It will get a lot of people killed. When you are stopped by the police, you say yes sir and do whatever they tell you. If it is illegal, you do not get mad, you sue them later.

  29. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK???? >> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  30. til I looked at the receipt which said $4688 , I accept that my mother in law had been truley earning money part-time at their laptop. . there mums best friend started doing this 4 only 21 months and a short time ago paid for the loans on there apartment and bought a new Aston Martin DB5 . read the article…

    CLICK THIS LINK=??????=>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.