Freddie Gray dies a week after being injured during arrest

[bilby]

When a person is in police custody, the police ARE responsible for anything that happens to them.

A free person is responsible for himself. By denying a person his freedom, the police take on responsibility for his protection - as he is no longer free to protect himself.

Insofar as the system does not reflect this reality, the system is broken, and need to be changed - regardless of whatever current law might have to say about it.

Of course, it really should be no surprise to anyone that the US justice system is badly broken, and in serious need of significant change.

 

[laughing dog]

According to you, there are no due process right between the Miranda warning and conviction. Got it.

If you feel he was denied due process, then what? There is no evidence that the police officers killed him. None. Zero. Ziltch. Nada. It's obvious you're trying to twist the meaning of due process for hyperbole, but nothing has been put forth showing that any right owed to him by law was denied.

Please indicate which sentence(s) you don't understand.
1) Due process protects citizens from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.
2) Freddie Gray died while in custody of the gov't either due in part or entirely to the negligence of the gov't.
3) That looks like arbitrary denial of life outside the sanction of law. Hence it is a violation of due process.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you feel he was denied due process, then what? There is no evidence that the police officers killed him. None. Zero. Ziltch. Nada. It's obvious you're trying to twist the meaning of due process for hyperbole, but nothing has been put forth showing that any right owed to him by law was denied.

Please indicate which sentence(s) you don't understand.
1) Due process protects citizens from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.
2) Freddie Gray died while in custody of the gov't either due in part or entirely to the negligence of the gov't.
3) That looks like arbitrary denial of life outside the sanction of law. Hence it is a violation of due process.

The idea you can kill someone in custody not violating that person's rights has got to be the dumbest, most ignorant mutherfucking thing I've read.

Hair splitting for experts 401.

 

[Trausti]

Please indicate which sentence(s) you don't understand.
1) Due process protects citizens from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.
2) Freddie Gray died while in custody of the gov't either due in part or entirely to the negligence of the gov't.
3) That looks like arbitrary denial of life outside the sanction of law. Hence it is a violation of due process.

The idea you can kill someone in custody not violating that person's rights has got to be the dumbest, most ignorant mutherfucking thing I've read.

Hair splitting for experts 401.

You and laughing dog are mired in the confusion between criminal and civil law. Violation of civil rights is a civil action; not a criminal one. I'm sure that's been mention before in this thread.

 

[Trausti]

doublepost

 

[laughing dog]

The idea you can kill someone in custody not violating that person's rights has got to be the dumbest, most ignorant mutherfucking thing I've read.

Hair splitting for experts 401.

You and laughing dog are mired in the confusion between criminal and civil law. Violation of civil rights is a civil action; not a criminal one. I'm sure that's been mention before in this thread.

I realize that focusing on the issue is hard for you, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue whether he was denied due process.

 

[Trausti]

You and laughing dog are mired in the confusion between criminal and civil law. Violation of civil rights is a civil action; not a criminal one. I'm sure that's been mention before in this thread.

I realize that focusing on the issue is hard for you, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue whether he was denied due process.

 

[laughing dog]

I realize that focusing on the issue is hard for you, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue whether he was denied due process.

I was wrong and I apologize for my mistake. I realize that focusing on the issue is hard impossible for you, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue whether he was denied due process.

 

[Trausti]

I was wrong and I apologize for my mistake. I realize that focusing on the issue is hard impossible for you, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue whether he was denied due process.

It seems in every thread you result to insults. Like you're deliberately contrarian. I'm just basing my understanding of due process on my schooling and years of legal practice. It just does not mean what you think it means. Really. It really does not. Otherwise, issues of due process would arise in every instance where a suspect dies in custody. But it doesn't. There's a reason for that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I was wrong and I apologize for my mistake. I realize that focusing on the issue is hard impossible for you, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue whether he was denied due process.

It seems in every thread you result to insults. Like you're deliberately contrarian. I'm just basing my understanding of due process on my schooling and years of legal practice. It just does not mean what you think it means. Really. It really does not. Otherwise, issues of due process would arise in every instance where a suspect dies in custody. But it doesn't. There's a reason for that.

Yeah, so arguing infinitesimal details over the whole minor killed while in police custody issue.

 

[laughing dog]

I was wrong and I apologize for my mistake. I realize that focusing on the issue is hard impossible for you, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue whether he was denied due process.

It seems in every thread you result to insults. Like you're deliberately contrarian. I'm just basing my understanding of due process on my schooling and years of legal practice. It just does not mean what you think it means. Really. It really does not. Otherwise, issues of due process would arise in every instance where a suspect dies in custody. But it doesn't. There's a reason for that.

Up to this point all you have done is said "You don't what it means" and resorted to juvenile and content free posts. On the other hand, I actually have a post that laid out the argument which included what due process meant (http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4729-Freddie-Gray-dies-a-week-after-being-injured-during-arrest&p=312658&viewfull=1#post312658). To date, you have yet to address any of its substance. This last response is "You don't know what it means because I said so." So prove me wrong and actually address the issue of due process beyond "Cuz I said so".

 

[coloradoatheist]

It seems in every thread you result to insults. Like you're deliberately contrarian. I'm just basing my understanding of due process on my schooling and years of legal practice. It just does not mean what you think it means. Really. It really does not. Otherwise, issues of due process would arise in every instance where a suspect dies in custody. But it doesn't. There's a reason for that.

Up to this point all you have done is said "You don't what it means" and resorted to juvenile and content free posts. On the other hand, I actually have a post that laid out the argument which included what due process meant (http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4729-Freddie-Gray-dies-a-week-after-being-injured-during-arrest&p=312658&viewfull=1#post312658). To date, you have yet to address any of its substance. This last response is "You don't know what it means because I said so." So prove me wrong and actually address the issue of due process beyond "Cuz I said so".

And I gave cases where taking away due process doesn't lead to any criminal charges. There is no due process crime. Violating due process could be nothing, it could be a civil issue or it could be a criminal issue.

If the cops are taking someone to the station and someone runs a red light and hits the squad car and kills the prisoner would you consider that a due process violation?

 

[Derec]

Please indicate which sentence(s) you don't understand.
1) Due process protects citizens from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.
2) Freddie Gray died while in custody of the gov't either due in part or entirely to the negligence of the gov't.
3) That looks like arbitrary denial of life outside the sanction of law. Hence it is a violation of due process.

Nobody is saying that Freddie Gray's death in custody should not have been investigated. But decision to charge or not, whom to charge, and with what crime(s) should be based on evidence and outcome of the investigation. Instead Marilyn Mosby based her decision on public sentiment and her own political ambitions.

 

[ksen]

Up to this point all you have done is said "You don't what it means" and resorted to juvenile and content free posts. On the other hand, I actually have a post that laid out the argument which included what due process meant (http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4729-Freddie-Gray-dies-a-week-after-being-injured-during-arrest&p=312658&viewfull=1#post312658). To date, you have yet to address any of its substance. This last response is "You don't know what it means because I said so." So prove me wrong and actually address the issue of due process beyond "Cuz I said so".

And I gave cases where taking away due process doesn't lead to any criminal charges. There is no due process crime. Violating due process could be nothing, it could be a civil issue or it could be a criminal issue.

If the cops are taking someone to the station and someone runs a red light and hits the squad car and kills the prisoner would you consider that a due process violation?

No, but that's not what happened in the Freddie Gray case and that possible scenario doesn't mean there are never any valid cases of the police civilly/criminally taking away someone's due process rights.

 

[Derec]

When a person is in police custody, the police ARE responsible for anything that happens to them.

Even if they deliberately injure themselves, as apparently Freddie was want to do?

There is also another disgusting issue here. Even if his death was a result of a crime by police officers, does Freddie Gray, grifter and drug dealer, really deserve to be glorified with murals and such?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When a person is in police custody, the police ARE responsible for anything that happens to them.

Even if they deliberately injure themselves, as apparently Freddie was want to do?

There is also another disgusting issue here. Even if his death was a result of a crime by police officers, does Freddie Gray, grifter and drug dealer, really deserve to be glorified with murals and such?

Today on shifting goalposts we discuss Democrat President Barack Obama and his accomplishments. And then even after conceding that even if they were good and notable, we ask, should he really be held in such high regard as a saint?

Your post reads like an anti-evolutionist. Evolution can't explain the big bang! You are arguing against something that isn't being argued. 'OK, so what if he was murdered by police, should he really have a mural on a wall?' The whole death in police custody is the issue, the sole issue, and the only issue!

 

[coloradoatheist]

And I gave cases where taking away due process doesn't lead to any criminal charges. There is no due process crime. Violating due process could be nothing, it could be a civil issue or it could be a criminal issue.

If the cops are taking someone to the station and someone runs a red light and hits the squad car and kills the prisoner would you consider that a due process violation?

No, but that's not what happened in the Freddie Gray case and that possible scenario doesn't mean there are never any valid cases of the police civilly/criminally taking away someone's due process rights.

Yes. If the officers had handcuffed him and then brought out their revolvers and shot him then it would be murder, but even in that cases, the charge against them would be murder not due process violation. Due process violation is either nothing or a civil charge in extreme circumstances.

 

[ksen]

When a person is in police custody, the police ARE responsible for anything that happens to them.

Even if they deliberately injure themselves, as apparently Freddie was want to do?

Yes.

Does this really need to be explained to you?

There is also another disgusting issue here. Even if his death was a result of a crime by police officers, does Freddie Gray, grifter and drug dealer, really deserve to be glorified with murals and such?

I agree that there is another disgusting issue here but I'm pretty sure it's not the one you are currently worked up about.

 

[Derec]

Your post reads like an anti-evolutionist. Evolution can't explain the big bang!

Not at all!

You are arguing against something that isn't being argued. 'OK, so what if he was murdered by police, should he really have a mural on a wall?' The whole death in police custody is the issue, the sole issue, and the only issue!

Both these things, the criminal case (which failed) and the glorification of Freddie Gray within the #BLM movement, while being separate issues, are clearly related to Freddie Gray and thus on topic here.
Perhaps you have problems holding more than one strand of conversation in your mind at a time, but others are not thus handicapped.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Please indicate which sentence(s) you don't understand.
1) Due process protects citizens from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.
2) Freddie Gray died while in custody of the gov't either due in part or entirely to the negligence of the gov't.
3) That looks like arbitrary denial of life outside the sanction of law. Hence it is a violation of due process.

Nobody is saying that Freddie Gray's death in custody should not have been investigated. But decision to charge or not, whom to charge, and with what crime(s) should be based on evidence and outcome of the investigation. Instead Marilyn Mosby based her decision on public sentiment and her own political ambitions.

This is a bullshit claim. While it is definitely very possible that the prosecutor has the mayorship in her eyes, you have pretty much whined about any level of punishment towards an officer.

You complained about this case which involved several cases going to trial after a man was effectively killed while in police custody.

You complained when an officer was suspended after the Ferrell shooting (in fact, you went as far to say the victim who was in a car accident was drunk and on drugs, both claims were false).

You generally don't think anything is needed unless there is video proof, much like your other pet subject.