• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Freddie Gray dies a week after being injured during arrest

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.

And that it was a rough ride is also speculation at this point.
 
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.

And that it was a rough ride is also speculation at this point.

Yes. The most likely explanation, but not necessarily the correct one.
 
According to the lefties blacks need to be given more leeway. Is that what you mean?

No, and I've never heard anyone say that, but I have heard that more black people are arrested for crimes that white people are not. There are studies and statistics that argee with this. It would appear that whites get more leeway.
 
According to Snopes Freddie was probably being profiled as low-level street dealer who they had a hard time getting convictions on. This would explain his not wanting to stick around cops.
 
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.

If a murderer is not charged with murder, he is being UNDERCHARGED.
 
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.

If a murderer is not charged with murder, he is being UNDERCHARGED.

Except we have different charges for what the intent was. Normally for murder you would have to show that their intent was to kill the person where if it was a rough ride the intent would be to hurt or scare the person.
 
If a murderer is not charged with murder, he is being UNDERCHARGED.

Except we have different charges for what the intent was. Normally for murder you would have to show that their intent was to kill the person where if it was a rough ride the intent would be to hurt or scare the person.

If it ever gets that far.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/08/us/freddie-gray-case-dismissal-motion/index.html

I am amazed, amazed, how modern technology makes even court documents readily available and accessible. Amazed: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2075530-baltimore-cops-motion-to-dismiss.html

ETA - another motion must have been filed. Post if ya find.
 
Last edited:
Except we have different charges for what the intent was. Normally for murder you would have to show that their intent was to kill the person where if it was a rough ride the intent would be to hurt or scare the person.

If it ever gets that far.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/08/us/freddie-gray-case-dismissal-motion/index.html

I think she should step away from the case and let another office take the case, but we'll see. And they need to drop the false arrest charges and they need some solid proof against the two officers that they knowingly handed him off to the other cops with the intent for a rough ride.
 

I think she should step away from the case and let another office take the case, but we'll see. And they need to drop the false arrest charges and they need some solid proof against the two officers that they knowingly handed him off to the other cops with the intent for a rough ride.

I think that's what she's concerned about. If this is handed to another prosecutor, that prosecutor may drop a number of the charges. Wouldn't reflect well on her.
 
Do Baltimore police have a history of taking people on "rough rides"?
Yes, in fact, they do. The Baltimore police have paid out millions in claims to multiple people for exactly that.

Two more men allege 'rough rides' in Baltimore police van

Two more people came forward Friday and said Baltimore police gave them "rough rides," purposefully tossing them around in the back of a transport van, causing them injuries....

...At least five other people or their families have alleged they were harmed in the back of a police van since 1997, with several winning judgments or settling with police. Three were paralyzed by the ride, according to a recent review by The Baltimore Sun.

In one case, a 43-year-old plumber arrested for public urination was handcuffed and put in a van in good health but emerged a quadriplegic. He told his doctor he was not buckled into his seat and after a sharp turn he was "violently thrown around the back of the vehicle as [police officers] drove in an aggressive fashion," according to a lawsuit.

The man died two weeks later of pneumonia caused by his paralysis, and his family initially won a $7.4 million award after a jury agreed three officers were negligent. It was reduced to $219,000 by Maryland's Court of Special Appeals because state law caps such payouts.
 
If a murderer is not charged with murder, he is being UNDERCHARGED.

Murder requires intent. At most this is manslaughter.

What is 'depraved heart murder?

Depraved-heart murder — the most serious charge leveled against a Baltimore police officer for the death of Freddie Gray — allows prosecutors to charge a person with murder without having to prove that he intended to kill.

In an ordinary murder case, prosecutors have to prove not only that a person was killed, but that the person charged with the crime intended for someone to die. In a depraved-heart murder case, prosecutors must prove instead that the suspect knowingly did something that was likely to kill, and that he showed "extreme indifference" to the possible harm....

...In Maryland, depraved-heart murder is a type of second-degree murder.

Depraved heart murder = manslaughter.
 
In an ordinary murder case, prosecutors have to prove not only that a person was killed, but that the person charged with the crime intended for someone to die. In a depraved-heart murder case, prosecutors must prove instead that the suspect knowingly did something that was likely to kill, and that he showed "extreme indifference" to the possible harm....
I do not think the prosecution has any chance of proving this. Shooting a firearm into a crowd, or even shooting a specific person (like the Maryland case posted upthread) would fulfill it but how does giving somebody a "rough ride" translate into "likely to kill"?
The rookie prosecutor made serious mistakes with the charges she made.
 

Standard procedure motion to dismiss. Will we have a kitchen sink defense?

- - - Updated - - -

In an ordinary murder case, prosecutors have to prove not only that a person was killed, but that the person charged with the crime intended for someone to die. In a depraved-heart murder case, prosecutors must prove instead that the suspect knowingly did something that was likely to kill, and that he showed "extreme indifference" to the possible harm....
I do not think the prosecution has any chance of proving this. Shooting a firearm into a crowd, or even shooting a specific person (like the Maryland case posted upthread) would fulfill it but how does giving somebody a "rough ride" translate into "likely to kill"?
The rookie prosecutor made serious mistakes with the charges she made.

I posted back in the thread about the legal definition in Maryland over depraved heart murder, and it does not need to be "likely to kill".
 
I posted back in the thread about the legal definition in Maryland over depraved heart murder, and it does not need to be "likely to kill".
Care to post it again? The only thing I remember posted is a case that upheld a "depraved heart" conviction but that involved a woman shooting a man, obviously fulfilling the "likely to kill" criterion. I very much doubt an action that has a "remote chance of killing" would pass judicial review, unless you can show otherwise.
 
I posted back in the thread about the legal definition in Maryland over depraved heart murder, and it does not need to be "likely to kill".
Care to post it again? The only thing I remember posted is a case that upheld a "depraved heart" conviction but that involved a woman shooting a man, obviously fulfilling the "likely to kill" criterion. I very much doubt an action that has a "remote chance of killing" would pass judicial review, unless you can show otherwise.

I am on my way out the door on a long hike, but it has to do with the reckless nature of the action. (And if it was a rough ride: the intent to do harm figures in. a.k.a. as for a hypothetical defendant stating "I didn't mean to kill him, only beat him to a bloody pulp with this tire iron.")
 
Back
Top Bottom