Freddie Gray dies a week after being injured during arrest

[Nice Squirrel]

Not because he was running, because he was running from them. In a high crime area. We are not talking about police stopping joggers just because they are running.

Not probable cause but reasonable suspicion. Probable cause was (supposedly) given when they found the knife.
See Illinois vs. Wardlow. I tend to agree with the ruling. If you run when you see the police, they have reasonable suspicion to stop and search you.

And how do we know that Freddie Gray was running "from them"? Maybe he was late for breakfast.

Or by "running" turned around at a brisk pace not wanting to face the hassle of a possible search and arrest? Also, did he do something in the arrest that made the officers decide to give him a rough ride? Many unknowns.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sources: Baltimore police investigation doesn't support some of prosecution's charges

I said it was politically motivated overcharging. Looks like I was right.

 

[RavenSky]

I bet the victim would be saying the exact same thing if he weren't dead and all.

Goodness, your emotion has pretty much suffocated rational thought.

Quite the opposite. We have far too many dead citizens because the cops who killed them did not take their time to get it right, chose to rush things when there was no need to do so, made no effort to do a reasonable inquiry before KILLING people.

Did the prosecutor rush to charge? I don't think so. Time will tell. But even if she did, THEY ARE STILL ALIVE.

Which did you think is better? Dead or alive?

 

[Trausti]

Which is why emotion must be removed the equation. Emotion creates a high chance of error. If someone is to face the peril of trial and punishment, that consequence should not result from how emotional people feel about the alleged accused or victim.

God bless America!!!

Heh. I. Am. Bemused. Cases like this one give an opportunity for liberals, progressives, left-thinking people, or whatever, to demonstrate that they actually uphold the ideas of justice which they often shout. Many of the protections we have for the accused resulted from agitation of civil rights lawyers or the decisions of progressive jurists. Miranda rights? Guilty until proven innocent? Right to counsel? Ethical standards for prosecutors? But when the accused is a person who does not fit into a perceived hierarchy of the oppressed, then there's a retreat from these principles and a regression to mob mentality. That the accused here are (former?) cops does not allot them less rights; they have the same rights against the misuse of state power as anyone else.

 

[arkirk]

Sources: Baltimore police investigation doesn't support some of prosecution's charges

I said it was politically motivated overcharging. Looks like I was right.

Apparently you think its okay to kill somebody for having a knife that is merely approx 2.5" long. As far as I am concerned this arrest is not only illegal, it also should be considered a murder. No doubt the charging was politically prompted. So what? These guys are real thugs.

 

[Trausti]

This is why you don't rush things. Take your time to get it right. It hints that little effort was made to do a reasonable inquiry before filing charges. Teachable moment here.

What makes you think she didn't? Some teachable moments conclude with the message "the law is unclear" or "it depends on how the courts interpret this phrase", or "different courts have issued different rulings, but this one supports our position so we can use it as a basis to build our case".

My suspicion was first aroused when she announced the charges before the police investigation was completed. Then there's the issue that she has yet to establish how Gray sustained his injury. Plus failing to consult with the municipal code on the legality of the knife. And if the message is that "the law is unclear," but charges filed nonetheless, the prosecutor has made date with the state ethics committee.

- - - Updated - - -

I said it was politically motivated overcharging. Looks like I was right.

Apparently you think its okay to kill somebody for having a knife that is merely approx 2.5" long. As far as I am concerned this arrest is not only illegal, it also should be considered a murder. No doubt the charging was politically prompted. So what? These guys are real thugs.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

What makes you think she didn't? Some teachable moments conclude with the message "the law is unclear" or "it depends on how the courts interpret this phrase", or "different courts have issued different rulings, but this one supports our position so we can use it as a basis to build our case".

My suspicion was first aroused when she announced the charges before the police investigation was completed.

Which is a valid suspicion. (But the police are also denying the autopsy conclusion that it is a homicide. -- Doesn't that raise an eyebrow?)

Then there's the issue that she has yet to establish how Gray sustained his injury.

As neither side is releasing specific information at this time how do you know that they haven't already established it? There could be further evidence we do not know about since they are not talking.

Plus failing to consult with the municipal code on the legality of the knife.

How do you know this? They aren't talking and they could have fully consulted it. And you didn't respond to earlier observation that the municipal code describes a switchblade and explicitly calls the illegal knife a switchblade. Have you read the municipal code?

And then their is the make and model of the knife. We do not know the make an model of the knife. It could be a folding knife with leaf spring lock. They may not have to consult with the municipal code.

My point you are making assertions we cannot possibly know at this time.

- - - Updated - - -

But aren't you doing the same thing with the prosecutor's office?

 

[whichphilosophy]

The facts are to be weighed to enable the jury to determine whether the accused broke the law. For instance did the actions of the accused break the law etc. hence a verdict of guilty etc.

It's about the elements of the crime. If there is insufficient evidence to support an element, there is no need for a jury. The court can just dismiss it. Should the court decide that the knife was illegal per Baltimore ordinance, that's that.

The whole purpose of the court including the Jury is to establish whether a crime existed. If the case has no merit then it is unlikely that the prosecutor will introduce this. There has to be sufficient evidence to commence a case. In this case, whether or not she is right I think the prosecutor may have acted too hastily.


Further doesn't matter whether the knife was legal or not. The police can use probable cause to stop someone in the street. If the police find nothing then that does not always mean the police were wrong to have stopped that person. The key word is probable.

 

[Trausti]

But aren't you doing the same thing with the prosecutor's office?

How? I'm saying everyone should be treated equally. That someone is a cop, a witch, or a thug (arkirk's word) should not permit a relaxation in standards.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

God bless America!!!

Heh. I. Am. Bemused. Cases like this one give an opportunity for liberals, progressives, left-thinking people, or whatever, to demonstrate that they actually uphold the ideas of justice which they often shout.

I know. It is a perfect time for right-wingers to lob strawmen about how liberals don't actually uphold the ideals of justice!

Many of the protections we have for the accused resulted from agitation of civil rights lawyers or the decisions of progressive jurists. Miranda rights? Guilty until proven innocent? Right to counsel? Ethical standards for prosecutors? But when the accused is a person who does not fit into a perceived hierarchy of the oppressed, then there's a retreat from these principles and a regression to mob mentality. That the accused here are (former?) cops does not allot them less rights; they have the same rights against the misuse of state power as anyone else.

Nice strawman! Right on cue!

 

[Trausti]

It's about the elements of the crime. If there is insufficient evidence to support an element, there is no need for a jury. The court can just dismiss it. Should the court decide that the knife was illegal per Baltimore ordinance, that's that.

The whole purpose of the court including the Jury is to establish whether a crime existed. If the case has no merit then it is unlikely that the prosecutor will introduce this. There has to be sufficient evidence to commence a case. In this case, whether or not she is right I think the prosecutor may have acted too hastily.


Further doesn't matter whether the knife was legal or not. The police can use probable cause to stop someone in the street. If the police find nothing then that does not always mean the police were wrong to have stopped that person. The key word is probable.

Okay. I'm just pointing out that criminal and civil cases are dismissed by courts all the time before the cases can reach a jury. The defendant goes to the court and says that the plaintiff or prosecutor doesn't have the evidence to support an allegation. The plaintiff or prosecutor responds. The court makes a ruling. Whether the knife was illegal would be one such circumstance.

- - - Updated - - -

Heh. I. Am. Bemused. Cases like this one give an opportunity for liberals, progressives, left-thinking people, or whatever, to demonstrate that they actually uphold the ideas of justice which they often shout.

I know. It is a perfect time for right-wingers to lob strawmen about how liberals don't actually uphold the ideals of justice!

Many of the protections we have for the accused resulted from agitation of civil rights lawyers or the decisions of progressive jurists. Miranda rights? Guilty until proven innocent? Right to counsel? Ethical standards for prosecutors? But when the accused is a person who does not fit into a perceived hierarchy of the oppressed, then there's a retreat from these principles and a regression to mob mentality. That the accused here are (former?) cops does not allot them less rights; they have the same rights against the misuse of state power as anyone else.

Nice strawman! Right on cue!

'K. You're the one who feels that emotion should play a role here.

 

[Derec]

And how do we know that Freddie Gray was running "from them"? Maybe he was late for breakfast.

And him seeing the 'pigs' reminded him that he was hungry for some bacon? Sure, it's possible (albeit unlikely) but the law speaks of a reasonable suspicion, not certainty to the exclusion of every other possibility, so these alternate scenarios are not very relevant.

 

[RavenSky]

And how do we know that Freddie Gray was running "from them"? Maybe he was late for breakfast.

And him seeing the 'pigs' reminded him that he was hungry for some bacon? Sure, it's possible (albeit unlikely) but the law speaks of a reasonable suspicion, not certainty to the exclusion of every other possibility, so these alternate scenarios are not very relevant.

Do you have a video of him calling the police "pigs"? In any case, I see that you have not actually answered my question...

And how do we know that Freddie Gray was running "from them"?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Heh. I. Am. Bemused. Cases like this one give an opportunity for liberals, progressives, left-thinking people, or whatever, to demonstrate that they actually uphold the ideas of justice which they often shout.

I know. It is a perfect time for right-wingers to lob strawmen about how liberals don't actually uphold the ideals of justice!

Many of the protections we have for the accused resulted from agitation of civil rights lawyers or the decisions of progressive jurists. Miranda rights? Guilty until proven innocent? Right to counsel? Ethical standards for prosecutors? But when the accused is a person who does not fit into a perceived hierarchy of the oppressed, then there's a retreat from these principles and a regression to mob mentality. That the accused here are (former?) cops does not allot them less rights; they have the same rights against the misuse of state power as anyone else.

Nice strawman! Right on cue!

'K. You're the one who feels that emotion should play a role here.

That'd be another strawman. You'll be hard pressed to find anything in this thread to support that.

 

[arkirk]

It's about the elements of the crime. If there is insufficient evidence to support an element, there is no need for a jury. The court can just dismiss it. Should the court decide that the knife was illegal per Baltimore ordinance, that's that.

The whole purpose of the court including the Jury is to establish whether a crime existed. If the case has no merit then it is unlikely that the prosecutor will introduce this. There has to be sufficient evidence to commence a case. In this case, whether or not she is right I think the prosecutor may have acted too hastily.


Further doesn't matter whether the knife was legal or not. The police can use probable cause to stop someone in the street. If the police find nothing then that does not always mean the police were wrong to have stopped that person. The key word is probable.

What about the cops? Wasn't it a little hasty killing this guy? The right to stop the person was according to THEIR POLICY was "suspicion," not probable cause. We don't know whether his neck was broken before or after the "evidence" was "found" (possibly in one of the cop's pockets). This man was not a super human. He was a man with asthma. It is doubtful he could have put up enough of a fight in resisting arrest to warrant severing his spine. This case stinks to high heaven and it is so ridiculous to assume a "police investigation" would be anything but a cover-up. Look at the facts on the ground. The cops used lethal force on this guy...and expect to get away with it...the usual case in Baltimore.

 

[arkirk]

What makes you think she didn't? Some teachable moments conclude with the message "the law is unclear" or "it depends on how the courts interpret this phrase", or "different courts have issued different rulings, but this one supports our position so we can use it as a basis to build our case".

My suspicion was first aroused when she announced the charges before the police investigation was completed. Then there's the issue that she has yet to establish how Gray sustained his injury. Plus failing to consult with the municipal code on the legality of the knife. And if the message is that "the law is unclear," but charges filed nonetheless, the prosecutor has made date with the state ethics committee.

- - - Updated - - -

I said it was politically motivated overcharging. Looks like I was right.

Apparently you think its okay to kill somebody for having a knife that is merely approx 2.5" long. As far as I am concerned this arrest is not only illegal, it also should be considered a murder. No doubt the charging was politically prompted. So what? These guys are real thugs.

It is obvious they exercised more powers than the laws authorizing their actions...the kind of power thugs use...brute force. Now I did not suggest we kill them. Is that honestly what YOU WOULD DO IF IT WERE ABSOLUTELY PROVEN THEY COMMITTED MURDER? That is YOUR mind at work, not mine! I think they should be arrested and charged, and tried in a court of law.

 

[laughing dog]

I am really dizzy from the all spinning from the "law and order" goosesteppers and the "any dead negro had it coming" crowd.

 

[Arctish]

God bless America!!!

Heh. I. Am. Bemused. Cases like this one give an opportunity for liberals, progressives, left-thinking people, or whatever, to demonstrate that they actually uphold the ideas of justice which they often shout. Many of the protections we have for the accused resulted from agitation of civil rights lawyers or the decisions of progressive jurists. Miranda rights? Guilty until proven innocent? Right to counsel? Ethical standards for prosecutors? But when the accused is a person who does not fit into a perceived hierarchy of the oppressed, then there's a retreat from these principles and a regression to mob mentality. That the accused here are (former?) cops does not allot them less rights; they have the same rights against the misuse of state power as anyone else.

Well, of course they have the same rights to due process and a fair trial as everyone else. They also have special rights such as the right to detain citizens for questioning, and are given a lot of leeway by the courts. But police officers don't have a special right to cause fatal injuries, either through action or inaction, unless their lives or the lives of others are in peril. That was not the case here.

The knife argument is a sideshow. The attorneys representing two of the officers appear to be arguing that if one of the charges against them proves to be unsupportable, then all the charges must be thrown out. That's nonsense. Their failure to secure Gray with a seatbelt, failure to summon medical assistance when he asked for it, and failure to respond appropriately when he was found to be unresponsive, are offenses for which they can and should be charged. Even if the charge of false imprisonment is thrown out, there's still assault and misconduct in office. The evidence for the former might or might not be related to whether or not the knife is legal, but the latter is not.

 

[Arctish]

And how do we know that Freddie Gray was running "from them"? Maybe he was late for breakfast.

And him seeing the 'pigs' reminded him that he was hungry for some bacon? Sure, it's possible (albeit unlikely) but the law speaks of a reasonable suspicion, not certainty to the exclusion of every other possibility, so these alternate scenarios are not very relevant.

Did Freddie Gray call police officers 'pigs' or is that what you call them?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I said it was politically motivated overcharging. Looks like I was right.

Apparently you think its okay to kill somebody for having a knife that is merely approx 2.5" long. As far as I am concerned this arrest is not only illegal, it also should be considered a murder. No doubt the charging was politically prompted. So what? These guys are real thugs.

I did not say it was ok to kill him.

English 101: overcharging: Charging to too high a level. That implies there is a lower, correct level of charging.