Freddie Gray dies a week after being injured during arrest

[Toni]

Why didn't you post the other opinion piece from the Baltimore Sun? The one about wanting a federal investigation?

I'm not aware of that one. Feel free to post. Was it written by a former career prosecutor like the one I posted?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...md-lynch-mikulski-hearing-20150507-story.html

 

[tupac chopra]

delete

 

[whichphilosophy]

I'm not aware of that one. Feel free to post. Was it written by a former career prosecutor like the one I posted?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...md-lynch-mikulski-hearing-20150507-story.html

The whole idea of publicized investigations by political prosecutors can already possibly prejudice the out come. In the UK it is still not so 'over the top.'

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

The legality of the knife would not be the issue, since the question is whether the police had probable cause. The prosecutor was wrong or misquoted

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Well you folks were trying real hard to demonstrate that they didn't kill him.

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

It is very likely overcharging, as the really have a high bar to show they intended death.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It is very likely overcharging, as the really have a high bar to show they intended death.

Not only that, but (race aside) would an arrest be necessary it the knife was illegal and there were no warrants?

And with race not aside?

_________

I often here people say bad neighborhoods are "war zones", but are the police overreacting to crimes that in other areas would be handled without arrest.

 

[dismal]

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.

Seriously Jimmy go back and read your posts. You're not exactly arguing facts and laws in this thread of late. And unlike some here I know you are capable of it, so you ought to be able to recognize when you're not doing it.

 

[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.

Seriously Jimmy go back and read your posts. You're not exactly arguing facts and laws in this thread of late. And unlike some here I know you are capable of it, so you ought to be able to recognize when you're not doing it.

I actually haven't been arguing anything. I have been pointing out how those pleading for sanity in the justice system for the officers were also the ones citing far right-wing blogs in a desperate attempt to indicate that the officers had done nothing wrong at all, despite the in-your-face fuckedup'dness of the case, indicating little interest in the facts.

The officers will be tried, they will have good lawyers. There will be due process. People are pleading for something that is pretty much assured. The aren't making a peep about the guy who died and call the people in Baltimore that were upset that he died "thugs" (instead just calling the looters thugs).

 

[dismal]

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.

Seriously Jimmy go back and read your posts. You're not exactly arguing facts and laws in this thread of late. And unlike some here I know you are capable of it, so you ought to be able to recognize when you're not doing it.

I actually haven't been arguing anything. I have been pointing out how those pleading for sanity in the justice system for the officers were also the ones citing far right-wing blogs in a desperate attempt to indicate that the officers had done nothing wrong at all, indicating little interest in the facts.

I don't think anyone is arguing no one did anything wrong at all. It is somewhat sad that you allege that is what people are doing because I struggle to believe you actually think it.

It is quite a leap of illogic and bad faith to claim "the prosecutor has a bad case" means "no one did anything wrong".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I actually haven't been arguing anything. I have been pointing out how those pleading for sanity in the justice system for the officers were also the ones citing far right-wing blogs in a desperate attempt to indicate that the officers had done nothing wrong at all, indicating little interest in the facts.

I don't think anyone is arguing no one did anything wrong at all.

You may want to read the first couple hundred posts in this thread. His alleged neck surgery, Indian football player broke his neck by accident. Etc...

It is somewhat sad that you allege that is what people are doing because I struggle to believe you actually think it.

Well, if you re-read the start of the thread, you'll understand how one can easily come to that conclusion. Do I have to quote the posts for you?

It is quite a leap of illogic and bad faith to claim "the prosecutor has a bad case" means "no one did anything wrong".

The argument has shifted for the right-wingers from 'This freak shit happens' to 'She'll never be able to prove that it happened'.

 

[dismal]

I don't think anyone is arguing no one did anything wrong at all.

You may want to read the first couple hundred posts in this thread. His alleged neck surgery, Indian football player broke his neck by accident. Etc...

It is somewhat sad that you allege that is what people are doing because I struggle to believe you actually think it.

Well, if you re-read the start of the thread, you'll understand how one can easily come to that conclusion. Do I have to quote the posts for you?

It is quite a leap of illogic and bad faith to claim "the prosecutor has a bad case" means "no one did anything wrong".

The argument has shifted for the right-wingers from 'This freak shit happens' to 'She'll never be able to prove that it happened'.

Whether it was an accident or whether he had some condition that contributed to the injury is a question of fact. If someone says "it could have been an accident" at a time before the facts have come out this is not the same as saying "no one did anything wrong". Other aspects of the case could have still been handled incorrectly. If you can find some quotes where someone is actually arguing "no one did anything wrong" I would be very, very, very surprised. I don't recall anyone do it.

It is actually possible to argue law and facts in cases like this. It is not necessary to demonstrate the police officers are as evil as could possibly be imagined and Mosby is a saint who never makes mistakes to think something was done wrong here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You may want to read the first couple hundred posts in this thread. His alleged neck surgery, Indian football player broke his neck by accident. Etc...

It is somewhat sad that you allege that is what people are doing because I struggle to believe you actually think it.

Well, if you re-read the start of the thread, you'll understand how one can easily come to that conclusion. Do I have to quote the posts for you?

It is quite a leap of illogic and bad faith to claim "the prosecutor has a bad case" means "no one did anything wrong".

The argument has shifted for the right-wingers from 'This freak shit happens' to 'She'll never be able to prove that it happened'.

Whether it was an accident or whether he had some condition that contributed to the injury is a question of fact.

So you are stepping back from your claim that no one (including yourself) was trying to deny police involvement.

If someone says "it could have been an accident" at a time before the facts have come out this is not the same as saying "no one did anything wrong".

Except when it is exclusively what they are saying and then their context can be understood as the police weren't at fault.

Other aspects of the case could have still been handled incorrectly. If you can find some quotes where someone is actually arguing "no one did anything wrong" I would be very, very, very surprised. I don't recall anyone do it.

You didn't look, did you? I mean, it is the third post of the thread.

I suspect that his injury was self-inflicted.

It shows that fatal freak spinal injuries can happen relatively easily if you are unlucky.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Whether it was an accident or whether he had some condition that contributed to the injury is a question of fact.

Not at this time. There is no factually reported evidence indicating a preexisting condition. Anyone saying so is simply repeating conjecture. The coroner has concluded it was a homicide, the police investigation says it is not. The police investigators have not said why they believe this is not a homicide.

 

[dismal]

Whether it was an accident or whether he had some condition that contributed to the injury is a question of fact.

Not at this time. There is no factually reported evidence indicating a preexisting condition. Anyone saying so is simply repeating conjecture. The coroner has concluded it was a homicide, the police investigation says it is not. The police investigators have not said why they believe this is not a homicide.

This does not mean it is not a question of fact. Sometimes the answer to questions of fact is "no".

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Whether it was an accident or whether he had some condition that contributed to the injury is a question of fact.

Not at this time. There is no factually reported evidence indicating a preexisting condition. Anyone saying so is simply repeating conjecture. The coroner has concluded it was a homicide, the police investigation says it is not. The police investigators have not said why they believe this is not a homicide.

Well, it's probably the same reason that my seven year old's investigation into who spilled the apple juice on the floor concluded that it definitely wasn't him.

 

[dismal]

You may want to read the first couple hundred posts in this thread. His alleged neck surgery, Indian football player broke his neck by accident. Etc...

It is somewhat sad that you allege that is what people are doing because I struggle to believe you actually think it.

Well, if you re-read the start of the thread, you'll understand how one can easily come to that conclusion. Do I have to quote the posts for you?

It is quite a leap of illogic and bad faith to claim "the prosecutor has a bad case" means "no one did anything wrong".

The argument has shifted for the right-wingers from 'This freak shit happens' to 'She'll never be able to prove that it happened'.

Whether it was an accident or whether he had some condition that contributed to the injury is a question of fact.

So you are stepping back from your claim that no one (including yourself) was trying to deny police involvement.

If someone says "it could have been an accident" at a time before the facts have come out this is not the same as saying "no one did anything wrong".

Except when it is exclusively what they are saying and then their context can be understood as the police weren't at fault.

Other aspects of the case could have still been handled incorrectly. If you can find some quotes where someone is actually arguing "no one did anything wrong" I would be very, very, very surprised. I don't recall anyone do it.

You didn't look, did you? I mean, it is the third post of the thread.

I suspect that his injury was self-inflicted.

It shows that fatal freak spinal injuries can happen relatively easily if you are unlucky.

These posts are not even slightly equivalent to "no one did anything wrong".

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Not at this time. There is no factually reported evidence indicating a preexisting condition. Anyone saying so is simply repeating conjecture. The coroner has concluded it was a homicide, the police investigation says it is not. The police investigators have not said why they believe this is not a homicide.

This does not mean it is not a question of fact. Sometimes the answer to questions of fact is "no".

If you are not questioning actual facts, but relying on a speculative belief then you are making conjectures.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You may want to read the first couple hundred posts in this thread. His alleged neck surgery, Indian football player broke his neck by accident. Etc...

It is somewhat sad that you allege that is what people are doing because I struggle to believe you actually think it.

Well, if you re-read the start of the thread, you'll understand how one can easily come to that conclusion. Do I have to quote the posts for you?

It is quite a leap of illogic and bad faith to claim "the prosecutor has a bad case" means "no one did anything wrong".

The argument has shifted for the right-wingers from 'This freak shit happens' to 'She'll never be able to prove that it happened'.

Whether it was an accident or whether he had some condition that contributed to the injury is a question of fact.

So you are stepping back from your claim that no one (including yourself) was trying to deny police involvement.

If someone says "it could have been an accident" at a time before the facts have come out this is not the same as saying "no one did anything wrong".

Except when it is exclusively what they are saying and then their context can be understood as the police weren't at fault.

Other aspects of the case could have still been handled incorrectly. If you can find some quotes where someone is actually arguing "no one did anything wrong" I would be very, very, very surprised. I don't recall anyone do it.

You didn't look, did you? I mean, it is the third post of the thread.

I suspect that his injury was self-inflicted.

It shows that fatal freak spinal injuries can happen relatively easily if you are unlucky.

These posts are not even slightly equivalent to "no one did anything wrong".

No words, should have sent a poet.

 

[dismal]

This does not mean it is not a question of fact. Sometimes the answer to questions of fact is "no".

If you are not questioning actual facts, but relying on a speculative belief then you are making conjectures.

Yes, in the absence of facts sometimes people speculate. This not equal "no one did anything wrong"

We had people speculating the police slammed his head in the door and other such things as well.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you are not questioning actual facts, but relying on a speculative belief then you are making conjectures.

Yes, in the absence of facts sometimes people speculate. This not equal "no one did anything wrong"

We had people speculating the police slammed his head in the door and other such things as well.

When someone says "it was self-inflicted", that is pretty strong conjecture towards "no one did anything wrong". In fact, I have no idea how you could think otherwise.