What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Baltimore: The Next Ferguson? (3 Viewers)

Baltimore Sun

Baltimore prosecutor asked police to target area where Freddie Gray was arrested

About three weeks before Freddie Gray was chased from a West Baltimore corner by three Baltimore police officers — the start of a fatal encounter — the office of prosecutor Marilyn Mosby asked police to target the intersection with "enhanced" drug enforcement efforts, court documents show.

"State's Attorney Mosby asked me to look into community concerns regarding drug dealing in the area of North Ave and Mount St," Joshua Rosenblatt, division chief of Mosby's Crime Strategies Unit, wrote in a March 17 email to a Western District police commander.

The email was disclosed for the first time Tuesday in a motion filed in Baltimore Circuit Court by defense attorneys for the six officers being prosecuted in Gray's arrest and death. The attorneys said Mosby's involvement in the police initiative mean that she should be removed from the case.

"Mrs. Mosby herself is now an integral part of the story and as such is a central witness," the defense attorneys argued. "This is a case where the witness and the prosecutor are one and the same."

Mosby, through spokeswoman Rochelle Ritchie, said, "Consistent with our prosecutorial obligations, we will litigate this case in the courtroom and not in the media." Mosby's office received the motion Tuesday afternoon, Ritchie said.

Mosby's office has dismissed previous defense calls for her recusal, including those based on conflict-of-interest allegations stemming from her husband's post as city councilman in the district where Gray was arrested.

In their motion Tuesday, defense attorneys said the email exchange shows that Mosby knew the area where Gray was chased was a high-crime location. They said that bolsters their argument that officers were within their rights to detain and handcuff Gray — even before finding a knife and officially arresting him.

"It must be understood that Mrs. Mosby was directing these officers to one of the highest crime intersections in Baltimore City and asking them to make arrests, conduct surveillance, and stop crime," the defense attorneys wrote. "Now, the State is apparently making the unimaginable argument that the police officers are not allowed to use handcuffs to protect their safety and prevent flight in an investigatory detention where the suspect fled in a high crime area and actually had a weapon on him."

In the March 17 email to Maj. Osborne Robinson, Rosenblatt wrote that Mosby's office wanted to build on the success in reducing crime in the West Baltimore neighborhood through the Operation Ceasefire program by "targeting that intersection for enhanced prosecutorial (and hopefully police) attention." In that program, prosecutors, police and community groups work together to persuade criminals to reform.

On March 20, Robinson forwarded Rosenblatt's email to several Western District officers, including Lt. Brian W. Rice. He was one of the three officers who arrested Gray and one of the six later charged in Gray's arrest and death.

Robinson told Rice and the other officers to begin a "daily narcotics initiative" focused on North Avenue and Mount Street, according to the email, and said he would be collecting "daily measurables" from them on their progress.

"This is effective immediately," Robinson wrote, noting that the officers should use cameras, informants and other covert policing tactics to get the job done.

Lt. Kenneth Butler, president of the Vanguard Justice Society, a group for minority and female Baltimore police officers, said that when orders such as Robinson's come down to target a specific corner, the response is consistent. "They want increased productivity, whether it be car stops, field interviews, arrests — that's what they mean by measurables," he said.

Butler, who said he has been a shift commander on and off for the past 15 years, added, "You have to use whatever tools you have — whether it be bike officers, cameras, foot officers, whatever you have — to abate that problem. So you're going to have to be aggressive."

Butler said that he has never seen such orders come from the state's attorney's office but that they come at the request of politicians and community leaders all the time.

"Once you're given an order, you have to carry it out. It's just that simple," he said.

Kinji Scott, a longtime community activist, defended Mosby's crime-fighting efforts. He said she did not order police to "put Freddie Gray in a situation where he had his spine severed. ... We cannot fault her for doing her job and being involved in the community."
 
About three weeks before Freddie Gray was chased from a West Baltimore corner by three Baltimore police officers — the start of a fatal encounter — the office of prosecutor Marilyn Mosby asked police to target the intersection with "enhanced" drug enforcement efforts, court documents show.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 
What is the States Attorney's Office doing telling cops where they should patrol? That sounds highly unusual doesn't it?

 
According to FOX News (don't shoot the messenger), the medical examiner's report has been leaked. It contains several "possibly, maybe, feasibly" reasons for Gray's death.

If true, reasonable doubt is a slam dunk, right?

I am not a lawyer.

 
According to FOX News (don't shoot the messenger), the medical examiner's report has been leaked. It contains several "possibly, maybe, feasibly" reasons for Gray's death.

If true, reasonable doubt is a slam dunk, right?

I am not a lawyer.
I wouldn't want to be Mr. Mosby tonight.
 
According to FOX News (don't shoot the messenger), the medical examiner's report has been leaked. It contains several "possibly, maybe, feasibly" reasons for Gray's death.

If true, reasonable doubt is a slam dunk, right?

I am not a lawyer.
I doubt it.

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/watch/autopsy-released-in-freddie-gray-case-470203459981

The “Baltimore Sun” has obtained a copy of the medical examiner’s autopsy report and it concludes that Freddie Gray suffered a single “high-energy injury,” most likely caused when the police van decelerated

 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/06/23/freddie-gray-baltimore-autopsy/29179697/

A black man who died in police custody in Baltimore in April died of a "high-energy injury" that likely happened when the police van in which he rode suddenly slowed down, according to an autopsy report obtained by The Baltimore Sun.

Freddie Gray, 25, suffered a severe spinal injury after being arrested after a foot chase by police officers and died a week later. Police said they chased Gray after he and another man spotted police and suddenly started running away. The incident sparked protests throughout Baltimore and throughout the country, and Gray's death followed a line of incidents involving black men or teens dying in police custody or by other citizens.

The autopsy was completed April 13 and was not made public.

The medical examiner's office could not be reached Tuesday evening, nor could State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby. But Mosby did release a statement to the Associated Press condemning the leak of the autopsy report:

"I want to make it very clear that the state's attorney's office did not release the Freddie Gray autopsy report," Mosby's statement read. "As I have repeatedly stated, I strongly condemn anyone with access to trial evidence who has leaked information prior to the resolution of this case."

In the report obtained by the Sun, the medical examiner surmised that though Gray was loaded onto the van on his belly, that he may have gotten to his feet and been thrown into the wall during a quick change in direction.

Mosby charged the six officers involved in the arrest and death, one with second-degree depraved heart murder, three more with manslaughter and the others with lesser charges.

Defense attorneys told the Associated Press they had not yet received the report and would have no comment. Mosby's office was expected to turn the report over to the defense on Friday.

The defense attorneys told the AP they believed that only Mosby's office and the medical examiner's office have copies of the report.

 
If the report is true and the jury is told that he died because the van suddenly slowed down, that will result in a guilty verdict.

 
According to FOX News (don't shoot the messenger), the medical examiner's report has been leaked. It contains several "possibly, maybe, feasibly" reasons for Gray's death.

If true, reasonable doubt is a slam dunk, right?

I am not a lawyer.
I doubt it.

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/watch/autopsy-released-in-freddie-gray-case-470203459981

The “Baltimore Sun” has obtained a copy of the medical examiner’s autopsy report and it concludes that Freddie Gray suffered a single “high-energy injury,” most likely caused when the police van decelerated
Why not link to the Sun itself?

Autopsy of Freddie Gray shows 'high-energy' impactFreddie Gray suffered a single "high-energy injury" to his neck and spine — most likely caused when the police van in which he was riding suddenly decelerated, according to a copy of the autopsy report obtained by The Baltimore Sun.

The state medical examiner's office concluded that Gray's death could not be ruled an accident, and was instead a homicide, because officers failed to follow safety procedures "through acts of omission."

Though Gray was loaded into the van on his belly, the medical examiner surmised that he may have gotten to his feet and was thrown into the wall during an abrupt change in direction. He was not belted in, but his wrists and ankles were shackled, putting him "at risk for an unsupported fall during acceleration or deceleration of the van."


The medical examiner compared Gray's injury to those seen in shallow-water diving incidents.

Gray, 25, was arrested April 12 following a foot pursuit by officers in the Gilmor Homes area, and he suffered a severe spinal injury while in police custody. His death a week later sparked protests over police brutality and unrest in the city — including looting and rioting — that drew international attention to the case.

lRelated
The Baltimore state's attorney's office charged the six officers involved in Gray's arrest and transport. Officer Caesar R. Goodson Jr. the driver of the van, is charged with second-degree depraved-heart murder, while Sgt. Alicia D. White, Officer William F. Porter and Lt. Brian W. Rice are charged with manslaughter. Officers Edward M. Nero and Garrett E. Miller face lesser charges, including second-degree assault.

All of the officers have pleaded not guilty, and a trial has been set for October.


The autopsy report was completed April 30, the day before State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby announced criminal charges against the officers. The autopsy has not been made public, and the deadline for releasing evidence in the case to defense lawyers is Friday. A copy of the autopsy was obtained and verified by sources who requested anonymity because of the high-profile nature of the case.

The chief medical examiner, Dr. David Fowler, declined to comment, as did the defense attorneys for the officers, who said they have not received the autopsy.

In a statement, Mosby denounced the release of the report. She has sought a protective order to keep evidence in the case out of public view. "I strongly condemn anyone with access to trial evidence who has leaked information prior to the resolution of this case," Mosby said.

Baltimore police union president Lt. Gene Ryan said details in the autopsy raise questions about the charges, demonstrating why the union didn't want prosecutors to "rush to a decision."

"Why not wait till all the facts are in before you make a decision?" he asked. "Let's just sit back and take a breath and let's see everything unfold. I want to see all the evidence come out, because I believe our guys have nothing to hide."

The autopsy details a chronology of the events surrounding Gray's arrest that helped inform the medical examiner's conclusion. The medical examiner relied upon witness statements, videos and an examination of the transport van.

Gray tested positive for opiates and cannabinoid when he was admitted to Maryland Shock Trauma Center, according to the autopsy. The report makes no further reference to the drugs found in his system.

The report does not note any previous injuries to Gray's spine.

In concluding his death was a homicide, Assistant Medical Examiner Carol H. Allan wrote that it was "not an unforeseen event that a vulnerable individual was injured during operation of the vehicle, and that without prompt medical attention, the injury would prove fatal."


While bystanders captured his arrest on video showing Gray moaning for help, the autopsy concluded that he suffered no injuries suggesting a neck hold or stemming from physical restraint. Allan noted that Gray could be seen bearing weight on his legs and speaking as he was loaded into the van.

Officers placed Gray on a metal bench running from front to back along the outside wall of the van. He was not belted in, which is a violation of Baltimore police policy. After the doors were closed, he could be heard yelling and banging, "causing the van to rock," the autopsy noted.

The van made several stops. The second stop occurred a few blocks away on Baker Street, where officers placed an identification band and leg restraints on Gray.

"Reportedly, Mr. Gray was still yelling and shaking the van," the medical examiner wrote. "He was removed from the van and placed on the ground in a kneeling position, facing the van doors, while ankle cuffs were placed, and then slid onto the floor of the van, belly down and head first, reportedly still verbally and physically active."

Authorities previously said the third stop in the area of Fremont and Mosher streets was captured on video, which showed the van driver, Goodson, getting out and looking in the back.

During a fourth stop, at Dolphin Street and Druid Hill Avenue, authorities said, Goodson called for assistance, at which point Porter got involved.

"The assisting officer opened the doors and observed Mr. Gray lying belly down on the floor with his head facing the cabin compartment, and reportedly he was asking for help, saying he couldn't breathe, couldn't get up, and needed a medic," the autopsy says. "The officer assisted Mr. Gray to the bench and the van continued on its way."

The van made a fifth stop at North and Pennsylvania avenues to pick up a second arrestee, where Mosby has said White helped check on Gray.

"Mr. Gray was found kneeling on the floor, facing the front of the van and slumped over to his right against the bench, and reportedly appeared lethargic with minimal responses to direct questions," the report says.

The medical examiner concluded that Gray's most significant injury was to the lower left part of his head. Given the descriptions of his demeanor and positioning in the van, it most likely occurred between the second and fourth stops made by the van driver, and possibly before the third stop, according to the autopsy.


While it's possible Gray was hurt while lying on the floor and moving back and forth, Allan determined that his body likely couldn't have moved in that position with enough force to cause his injuries.

Allan surmised that Gray could have gotten to his feet using the bench and opposite wall. With his hands and ankles restrained, and unable to see out of the van and anticipate turns, she said, he was at a high risk for an unsupported fall.

She also noted the possibility that Gray's neck injury occurred "with him in a partially reclining position or as he was changing his position on the floor of the van," if the van moved abruptly enough.

The injury to Gray's spinal cord would have caused loss of function of his limbs, and would have "direct effects" on his ability to breathe, according to the autopsy.

Police had said in a court filing that the second passenger reported hearing Gray banging and kicking through the metal divider. Allan said that would not have been possible given Gray's injuries, but he may have been suffering a seizure at the time, which could have caused the noise, she said.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-freddie-gray-autopsy-20150623-story.html#page=1

 
Last edited by a moderator:
According to FOX News (don't shoot the messenger), the medical examiner's report has been leaked. It contains several "possibly, maybe, feasibly" reasons for Gray's death.

If true, reasonable doubt is a slam dunk, right?

I am not a lawyer.
I doubt it.http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/watch/autopsy-released-in-freddie-gray-case-470203459981

The “Baltimore Sun” has obtained a copy of the medical examiner’s autopsy report and it concludes that Freddie Gray suffered a single “high-energy injury,” most likely caused when the police van decelerated
How does that nullify reasonable doubt?
 
According to FOX News (don't shoot the messenger), the medical examiner's report has been leaked. It contains several "possibly, maybe, feasibly" reasons for Gray's death.

If true, reasonable doubt is a slam dunk, right?

I am not a lawyer.
I doubt it.http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/watch/autopsy-released-in-freddie-gray-case-470203459981

The Baltimore Sun has obtained a copy of the medical examiners autopsy report and it concludes that Freddie Gray suffered a single high-energy injury, most likely caused when the police van decelerated
How does that nullify reasonable doubt?
If it's determined that he died in all likelihood because he was not strapped in properly and because the van came to sudden deliberate stops, then the cops are certainly guilty of manslaughter and probably murder IMO.
 
According to FOX News (don't shoot the messenger), the medical examiner's report has been leaked. It contains several "possibly, maybe, feasibly" reasons for Gray's death.

If true, reasonable doubt is a slam dunk, right?

I am not a lawyer.
I doubt it.http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/watch/autopsy-released-in-freddie-gray-case-470203459981

The Baltimore Sun has obtained a copy of the medical examiners autopsy report and it concludes that Freddie Gray suffered a single high-energy injury, most likely caused when the police van decelerated
How does that nullify reasonable doubt?
If it's determined that he died in all likelihood because he was not strapped in properly and because the van came to sudden deliberate stops, then the cops are certainly guilty of manslaughter and probably murder IMO.
How can you prove that?
 
According to FOX News (don't shoot the messenger), the medical examiner's report has been leaked. It contains several "possibly, maybe, feasibly" reasons for Gray's death.

If true, reasonable doubt is a slam dunk, right?

I am not a lawyer.
I doubt it.http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/watch/autopsy-released-in-freddie-gray-case-470203459981

The Baltimore Sun has obtained a copy of the medical examiners autopsy report and it concludes that Freddie Gray suffered a single high-energy injury, most likely caused when the police van decelerated
How does that nullify reasonable doubt?
If it's determined that he died in all likelihood because he was not strapped in properly and because the van came to sudden deliberate stops, then the cops are certainly guilty of manslaughter and probably murder IMO.
How can you prove that?
its sounds like the autopsy has gone a long way towards doing that. We'll see.
 
According to FOX News (don't shoot the messenger), the medical examiner's report has been leaked. It contains several "possibly, maybe, feasibly" reasons for Gray's death.

If true, reasonable doubt is a slam dunk, right?

I am not a lawyer.
I doubt it.http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/watch/autopsy-released-in-freddie-gray-case-470203459981

The Baltimore Sun has obtained a copy of the medical examiners autopsy report and it concludes that Freddie Gray suffered a single high-energy injury, most likely caused when the police van decelerated
How does that nullify reasonable doubt?
If it's determined that he died in all likelihood because he was not strapped in properly and because the van came to sudden deliberate stops, then the cops are certainly guilty of manslaughter and probably murder IMO.
How can you prove that?
its sounds like the autopsy has gone a long way towards doing that. We'll see.
Agreed. We don't know.Clearly, I think, the medical examiner's report and the coroner's report are separate entities.

Wait and see...

 
According to FOX News (don't shoot the messenger), the medical examiner's report has been leaked. It contains several "possibly, maybe, feasibly" reasons for Gray's death.

If true, reasonable doubt is a slam dunk, right?

I am not a lawyer.
I doubt it.http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/watch/autopsy-released-in-freddie-gray-case-470203459981

The Baltimore Sun has obtained a copy of the medical examiners autopsy report and it concludes that Freddie Gray suffered a single high-energy injury, most likely caused when the police van decelerated
How does that nullify reasonable doubt?
If it's determined that he died in all likelihood because he was not strapped in properly and because the van came to sudden deliberate stops, then the cops are certainly guilty of manslaughter and probably murder IMO.
With regard to the Murder 2 charge specifically, I think there's a lot of room for reasonable doubt as to whether the van made sudden deliberate stops. How on earth do you even prove that? Maybe one of the street cameras or a shopkeeper's surveillance video? I know they were looking at all that stuff. In the absence of video evidence, eyewitness testimony or gps tracking (telematics) there is no way you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an intentional rough ride.But as we saw with the OJ trial, you don't need to have the evidence on your side. Just the jurors.

 
Last edited:
According to FOX News (don't shoot the messenger), the medical examiner's report has been leaked. It contains several "possibly, maybe, feasibly" reasons for Gray's death.

If true, reasonable doubt is a slam dunk, right?

I am not a lawyer.
I doubt it.http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/watch/autopsy-released-in-freddie-gray-case-470203459981

The Baltimore Sun has obtained a copy of the medical examiners autopsy report and it concludes that Freddie Gray suffered a single high-energy injury, most likely caused when the police van decelerated
How does that nullify reasonable doubt?
If it's determined that he died in all likelihood because he was not strapped in properly and because the van came to sudden deliberate stops, then the cops are certainly guilty of manslaughter and probably murder IMO.
Deliberate?

Is intent needed here or not?

Common law of MD, I have no idea what depraved heart murder means but it sounds like either negligent homicide or manslaughter.

Anyway, there's:

  • "Acts of omission" - plural? - How is omission intent? That sounds like civil negligence, not criminal.
  • Intervening act - Grey stood up
  • Drugs, pot and opiates, in Grey's system.
  • The officers attended to him between stops, at every stop.
  • "at risk for an unsupported fall during acceleration or deceleration of the van" - that's a hell of a leap to murder, that was in fact the longstanding state policy, how do you then ascribe that to the officers themselves when that rule had just been changed?
  • How many potholes and kids jutting into traffic and who knows what other intervening factors will the officers' attorneys raise between the 2nd and 3rd or 3rd and 4th stops?
Maybe here...

"The assisting officer opened the doors and observed Mr. Gray lying belly down on the floor with his head facing the cabin compartment, and reportedly he was asking for help, saying he couldn't breathe, couldn't get up, and needed a medic," the autopsy says. "The officer assisted Mr. Gray to the bench and the van continued on its way."
...I could see criminal negligence.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just curious, have autopsy reports always included facts from the case and used those to reach a conclusion? I thought they just supplied facts about the deceased and didn't use the available evidence to produce a theory.

 
Back to Ring #2...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-gray-mosby-investigation-20150723-story.html

Attorneys for six Baltimore police officers charged in the arrest and death of Freddie Gray said in a court filing Thursday that prosecutors either failed to turn over evidence or lied about conducting a thorough investigation into Gray's death.
The defense motion represents the latest effort by the officers' attorneys to compel Mosby's office to provide them with documents, emails, text messages and other evidence from its investigation. Mosby said her office investigated with the help of Baltimore sheriffs, separately from a police probe into Gray's death.

Prosecutors are required by law to share any "exculpatory" evidence that would help clear a defendant of charges, and the defense said it is "difficult to imagine" that nothing in the state's investigation was "in some way exculpatory to at least one of the Defendants in this case."

According to court filings, prosecutors have turned over an estimated 52 gigabytes of digital files, including thousands of pages of the officers' emails and dozens of surveillance videos.

Other than one witness interview by an investigator in Mosby's office, the defense attorneys said, they have not received "a single document, witness interview, report, recording, or even mention of a shred of evidence procured through" the independent investigation.

A spokeswoman for Mosby said her office would "litigate this case in the courtroom," and declined to comment further.
 
Back to Ring #2...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-gray-mosby-investigation-20150723-story.html

Attorneys for six Baltimore police officers charged in the arrest and death of Freddie Gray said in a court filing Thursday that prosecutors either failed to turn over evidence or lied about conducting a thorough investigation into Gray's death.
The defense motion represents the latest effort by the officers' attorneys to compel Mosby's office to provide them with documents, emails, text messages and other evidence from its investigation. Mosby said her office investigated with the help of Baltimore sheriffs, separately from a police probe into Gray's death.

Prosecutors are required by law to share any "exculpatory" evidence that would help clear a defendant of charges, and the defense said it is "difficult to imagine" that nothing in the state's investigation was "in some way exculpatory to at least one of the Defendants in this case."

According to court filings, prosecutors have turned over an estimated 52 gigabytes of digital files, including thousands of pages of the officers' emails and dozens of surveillance videos.

Other than one witness interview by an investigator in Mosby's office, the defense attorneys said, they have not received "a single document, witness interview, report, recording, or even mention of a shred of evidence procured through" the independent investigation.

A spokeswoman for Mosby said her office would "litigate this case in the courtroom," and declined to comment further.
:lol:

I doubt there ever was an independent investigation.

 
Defense says prosecutors withholding evidence Freddie Gray 'attempted to injure himself' in previous arrest - http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-gray-sanctions-evidence-20150730-story.html#page=1

Prosecutors have information indicating that Freddie Gray "attempted to injure himself" during a previous arrest, but have intentionally withheld it from their criminal case against the six Baltimore police officers charged in Gray's apprehension and death in April, the officers' attorneys said in a court filing Thursday.
In their filing Thursday, the defense attorneys said prosecutors have withheld "multiple witness statements from individuals who stated that Mr. Gray was banging and shaking the van at various points" after his arrest April 12, as well as "police reports, court records, and witness statements indicating that on prior occasions, Mr. Gray had fled from police and attempted to discard drugs."
They also said the prosecution has withheld witness statements, allegedly provided during the grand jury review of the case, that Gray was on his knees at the fifth and last stop in the van ride... They said the evidence could shine more light on when, where and how Gray was injured, potentially helping the defense of one or more of the officers, all of whom interacted with Gray in different ways at different points during his arrest. Witness statements that Gray was kneeling at the fifth stop of the van, for instance, "would tend to prove that Mr. Gray's spinal fracture had not yet occurred and therefore would tend to prove the innocence of some, if not all, of the officers involved," they wrote.
 
If that last quote is true, that Gray was kneeling at the fifth stop of the van ride, this case is over and the worst they will get the Officers for is a criminal negligence charge for not buckling in Gray. Reason being, at the fifth stop is when they picked up the other prisoner, and that guy gave no indication of any rough ride. If anything, the only thing we have heard from that witness is that Gray was thrashing about, probably in an attempt to injure himself.

Looking very possible right now that this was all an instance of Freddie Gray injuring himself in a bid to frame the Police.

 
Last edited:
Looking very possible right now that this was all an instance of Freddie Gray injuring himself in a bid to frame the Police.
OK, now you're trolling me.

Do you take at face value every statement made by the defense attorneys of alleged criminals charged with violent crimes? Or only when the alleged criminals are police?

 
Looking very possible right now that this was all an instance of Freddie Gray injuring himself in a bid to frame the Police.
OK, now you're trolling me.

Do you take at face value every statement made by the defense attorneys of alleged criminals charged with violent crimes? Or only when the alleged criminals are police?
I am trolling you? Do you work for the Prosecution or something?Do you really think the Defense would file a motion claiming the Prosecution withheld evidence that Gray had previously tried to injure himself during arrests if it didn't exist? Really? You think these people are that dumb to make such an explosive claim like that if they didn't have the goods?

I've withheld judgment on the legal aspect of this case, but after all these Prosecution missteps (most notably the knife, which we now know was a major screw-up by Mosby) forgive me if I'm starting to believe that this whole case is a sham.

These allegations by the Defense are bombshells. I remain open minded, and know full well that there is likely some evidence here we aren't seeing just yet. But up to this point everything I have seen indicated that this was a politically motivated over-charge by a young, inexperienced Prosecutor who was ill equipped for the job at hand.

 
Last edited:
Looking very possible right now that this was all an instance of Freddie Gray injuring himself in a bid to frame the Police.
OK, now you're trolling me.

Do you take at face value every statement made by the defense attorneys of alleged criminals charged with violent crimes? Or only when the alleged criminals are police?
You didn't read the article did you.
Of course I read the article. I found this disgusting:

The defense attorneys said prosecutors have withheld ... "police reports, court records, and witness statements indicating that on prior occasions, Mr. Gray had fled from police and attempted to discard drugs."
Even if Freddie Gray ran from cops every day, what does that have to do with the police's failure to safeguard his safety once they had taken him into custody?

I read this part:

in a court filing, prosecutors have said they gave defense attorneys all the evidence to which they are entitled last month as part of the discovery process.
In which I belive the word of a sworn officer of the court over that of a lawyer paid to defend individuals indicted for manslaugter and homicide.

I read this part:

Disagreements over the discovery process are not uncommon in high-stakes cases such as homicides, according to legal analysts.

Amy Dillard, who teaches criminal law and criminal procedure at the University of Baltimore, said defense attorneys typically want as much evidence as possible — even if a prosecutor contends it is irrelevant — because it might help them as they devise their defense theory and strategy.

The fact that there have been multiple investigations into Gray's death could make this discovery dispute unusual, Dillard said.

"She [Mosby] may have four times as much evidence as she would normally have," Dillard said
In which a neutral observer alludes that the defense team is likely trolling through a bunch of irrelevant information in hopes of obfuscating what is already an unsually complex investigation.

But I didn't read anything supporting that made me believe this:

Looking very possible right now that this was all an instance of Freddie Gray injuring himself in a bid to frame the Police.
 
Looking very possible right now that this was all an instance of Freddie Gray injuring himself in a bid to frame the Police.
OK, now you're trolling me.

Do you take at face value every statement made by the defense attorneys of alleged criminals charged with violent crimes? Or only when the alleged criminals are police?
You didn't read the article did you.
Of course I read the article. I found this disgusting:

The defense attorneys said prosecutors have withheld ... "police reports, court records, and witness statements indicating that on prior occasions, Mr. Gray had fled from police and attempted to discard drugs."
Even if Freddie Gray ran from cops every day, what does that have to do with the police's failure to safeguard his safety once they had taken him into custody?

I read this part:

in a court filing, prosecutors have said they gave defense attorneys all the evidence to which they are entitled last month as part of the discovery process.
In which I belive the word of a sworn officer of the court over that of a lawyer paid to defend individuals indicted for manslaugter and homicide.I read this part:

Disagreements over the discovery process are not uncommon in high-stakes cases such as homicides, according to legal analysts.

Amy Dillard, who teaches criminal law and criminal procedure at the University of Baltimore, said defense attorneys typically want as much evidence as possible — even if a prosecutor contends it is irrelevant — because it might help them as they devise their defense theory and strategy.

The fact that there have been multiple investigations into Gray's death could make this discovery dispute unusual, Dillard said.

"She [Mosby] may have four times as much evidence as she would normally have," Dillard said
In which a neutral observer alludes that the defense team is likely trolling through a bunch of irrelevant information in hopes of obfuscating what is already an unsually complex investigation.

But I didn't read anything supporting that made me believe this:

Looking very possible right now that this was all an instance of Freddie Gray injuring himself in a bid to frame the Police.
Yeah, you failed to note the most important part of the article - that there is apparently evidence that Gray tried to injure himself during arrests. Care to comment on that?
 
I never understand the argument for withholding evidence. If the prosecution has an investigation file the defense should get the whole damn thing, in every single case under the sun from a speeding ticket to a murder, let `em have it. DA's get into huge trouble for this kind of thing in even a single case. The whole Orange County prosecutors office has been recused for this practice. It's also not ethical. Let `em have it.

 
Looking very possible right now that this was all an instance of Freddie Gray injuring himself in a bid to frame the Police.
OK, now you're trolling me.

Do you take at face value every statement made by the defense attorneys of alleged criminals charged with violent crimes? Or only when the alleged criminals are police?
You didn't read the article did you.
Of course I read the article. I found this disgusting:

The defense attorneys said prosecutors have withheld ... "police reports, court records, and witness statements indicating that on prior occasions, Mr. Gray had fled from police and attempted to discard drugs."
Even if Freddie Gray ran from cops every day, what does that have to do with the police's failure to safeguard his safety once they had taken him into custody?

I read this part:

in a court filing, prosecutors have said they gave defense attorneys all the evidence to which they are entitled last month as part of the discovery process.
In which I belive the word of a sworn officer of the court over that of a lawyer paid to defend individuals indicted for manslaugter and homicide.I read this part:

Disagreements over the discovery process are not uncommon in high-stakes cases such as homicides, according to legal analysts.

Amy Dillard, who teaches criminal law and criminal procedure at the University of Baltimore, said defense attorneys typically want as much evidence as possible — even if a prosecutor contends it is irrelevant — because it might help them as they devise their defense theory and strategy.

The fact that there have been multiple investigations into Gray's death could make this discovery dispute unusual, Dillard said.

"She [Mosby] may have four times as much evidence as she would normally have," Dillard said
In which a neutral observer alludes that the defense team is likely trolling through a bunch of irrelevant information in hopes of obfuscating what is already an unsually complex investigation.

But I didn't read anything supporting that made me believe this:

Looking very possible right now that this was all an instance of Freddie Gray injuring himself in a bid to frame the Police.
Yeah, you failed to note the most important part of the article - that there is apparently evidence that Gray tried to injure himself during arrests. Care to comment on that?
You had already noted it - that the defense team alleges there are witness reports of Gray shaking the van. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if those reports really do exist and, if so, how credible they are. Unlike you, I don't yet find this allegation compelling evidence that the police are completely exonerated.

I get it. A lot of people believe that if a cop tells you do to something, then you better obey. And if you don't obey, then you deserve what you get.

Like during the curfew, every single citizen of Baltimore had to subject himself to house arrest every night for a week after all civil unrest had ended. Because the police said so.

I didn't believe that was right. You did.

You believe that because the police decided they could grab Freddie Gray off the streets of Baltimore, then he had better just go along. And because they perceived he didn't cooperate to a sufficent degree, then it was his own fault he lost his life while defenseless in police custody. I don't believe that.

So we will probably just continue to disagree on most issues concerning authoritarian police.

 
I never understand the argument for withholding evidence. If the prosecution has an investigation file the defense should get the whole damn thing, in every single case under the sun from a speeding ticket to a murder, let `em have it. DA's get into huge trouble for this kind of thing in even a single case. The whole Orange County prosecutors office has been recused for this practice. It's also not ethical. Let `em have it.
As a civil libertarian, I agree with this 100 percent. The evidence collected by the state, by law, belongs to the defense. This shouldn't even be a question - who is the prosecutor to cherry pick what evidence might or might not benefit the defense?

 
Looking very possible right now that this was all an instance of Freddie Gray injuring himself in a bid to frame the Police.
OK, now you're trolling me.

Do you take at face value every statement made by the defense attorneys of alleged criminals charged with violent crimes? Or only when the alleged criminals are police?
You didn't read the article did you.
Of course I read the article. I found this disgusting:

The defense attorneys said prosecutors have withheld ... "police reports, court records, and witness statements indicating that on prior occasions, Mr. Gray had fled from police and attempted to discard drugs."
Even if Freddie Gray ran from cops every day, what does that have to do with the police's failure to safeguard his safety once they had taken him into custody?

I read this part:

in a court filing, prosecutors have said they gave defense attorneys all the evidence to which they are entitled last month as part of the discovery process.
In which I belive the word of a sworn officer of the court over that of a lawyer paid to defend individuals indicted for manslaugter and homicide.I read this part:

Disagreements over the discovery process are not uncommon in high-stakes cases such as homicides, according to legal analysts.

Amy Dillard, who teaches criminal law and criminal procedure at the University of Baltimore, said defense attorneys typically want as much evidence as possible — even if a prosecutor contends it is irrelevant — because it might help them as they devise their defense theory and strategy.

The fact that there have been multiple investigations into Gray's death could make this discovery dispute unusual, Dillard said.

"She [Mosby] may have four times as much evidence as she would normally have," Dillard said
In which a neutral observer alludes that the defense team is likely trolling through a bunch of irrelevant information in hopes of obfuscating what is already an unsually complex investigation.

But I didn't read anything supporting that made me believe this:

Looking very possible right now that this was all an instance of Freddie Gray injuring himself in a bid to frame the Police.
Yeah, you failed to note the most important part of the article - that there is apparently evidence that Gray tried to injure himself during arrests. Care to comment on that?
You had already noted it - that the defense team alleges there are witness reports of Gray shaking the van. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if those reports really do exist and, if so, how credible they are. Unlike you, I don't yet find this allegation compelling evidence that the police are completely exonerated.

I get it. A lot of people believe that if a cop tells you do to something, then you better obey. And if you don't obey, then you deserve what you get.

Like during the curfew, every single citizen of Baltimore had to subject himself to house arrest every night for a week after all civil unrest had ended. Because the police said so.

I didn't believe that was right. You did.

You believe that because the police decided they could grab Freddie Gray off the streets of Baltimore, then he had better just go along. And because they perceived he didn't cooperate to a sufficent degree, then it was his own fault he lost his life while defenseless in police custody. I don't believe that.

So we will probably just continue to disagree on most issues concerning authoritarian police.
No, the witnesses saying they saw Gray shaking the van is NOT the bombshell evidence we are talking about here. What we are talking about is evidence that Gray had tried to hurt himself during prior arrests. So when you add that to what witnesses have said occurred during the van ride, you have a pretty clear picture of a guy who had a track record of being uncooperative with police, trying to injure himself intentionally in an effort to obscure his charges with a counter police brutality charge. This is devastating to the Prosecution's case. All the evidence we have heard of thus far supports the theory that Gray injured himself intentionally.I have two questions for you:

1. What evidence exists, or could exist, that this was an intentional act of murder through a "rough ride"?

2. You are a "black lives matter" guy, right? Does this statement apply only to criminals? Or are the 3 black Officers charged with felonies in this case included as well?

 
You didn't read the article did you.
Of course I read the article. I found this disgusting:

The defense attorneys said prosecutors have withheld ... "police reports, court records, and witness statements indicating that on prior occasions, Mr. Gray had fled from police and attempted to discard drugs."
Even if Freddie Gray ran from cops every day, what does that have to do with the police's failure to safeguard his safety once they had taken him into custody?

I read this part:

in a court filing, prosecutors have said they gave defense attorneys all the evidence to which they are entitled last month as part of the discovery process.
In which I belive the word of a sworn officer of the court over that of a lawyer paid to defend individuals indicted for manslaugter and homicide.I read this part:

Disagreements over the discovery process are not uncommon in high-stakes cases such as homicides, according to legal analysts.

Amy Dillard, who teaches criminal law and criminal procedure at the University of Baltimore, said defense attorneys typically want as much evidence as possible — even if a prosecutor contends it is irrelevant — because it might help them as they devise their defense theory and strategy.

The fact that there have been multiple investigations into Gray's death could make this discovery dispute unusual, Dillard said.

"She [Mosby] may have four times as much evidence as she would normally have," Dillard said
In which a neutral observer alludes that the defense team is likely trolling through a bunch of irrelevant information in hopes of obfuscating what is already an unsually complex investigation.

But I didn't read anything supporting that made me believe this:

Looking very possible right now that this was all an instance of Freddie Gray injuring himself in a bid to frame the Police.
Yeah, you failed to note the most important part of the article - that there is apparently evidence that Gray tried to injure himself during arrests. Care to comment on that?
Like during the curfew, every single citizen of Baltimore had to subject himself to house arrest every night for a week after all civil unrest had ended. Because the police said so.

You believe that because the police decided they could grab Freddie Gray off the streets of Baltimore, then he had better just go along. And because they perceived he didn't cooperate to a sufficent degree, then it was his own fault he lost his life while defenseless in police custody. I don't believe that.
With regard to your first statement, it was not the police, but the Mayor, who ordered the curfew. You know, the same Mayor that wanted to give protesters "the space to destroy".

Statement #2 - who gave the order to clean up the street where Freddie Gray was picked up? Your prosecutor Mosby did, that's who, probably at the behest of her husband who is Councilman for that district. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-md-ci-mosby-email-20150609-story.html#page=1

About three weeks before Freddie Gray was chased from a West Baltimore corner by three Baltimore police officers — the start of a fatal encounter — the office of prosecutor Marilyn Mosby asked police to target the intersection with "enhanced" drug enforcement efforts, court documents show. "State's Attorney Mosby asked me to look into community concerns regarding drug dealing in the area of North Ave and Mount St," Joshua Rosenblatt, division chief of Mosby's Crime Strategies Unit, wrote in a March 17 email to a Western District police commander.
Throughout this entire ordeal your anger has been misdirected against the Police, who have just been following orders and doing their jobs. Oh, by the way, Freddie Gray was arrested legally. We already established that, despite Mosby falsely alleging otherwise because she didn't know Baltimore law.

 
Last edited:
Remember this bombshell rom April 29?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/prisoner-in-van-said-freddie-gray-was-banging-against-the-walls-during-ride/2015/04/29/56d7da10-eec6-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html

A prisoner sharing a police transport van with Freddie Gray told investigators that he could hear Gray “banging against the walls” of the vehicle and believed that he “was intentionally trying to injure himself,” according to a police document obtained by The Washington Post.
Hmm, now how could the Post have obtained this police document? Could the police perhaps have given it to the reporter because it made Freddie Gray seem like he was injuring himself? The story continues:

The Post was given the document under the condition that the prisoner not be named because the person who provided it feared for the inmate’s safety.
What noble motives! The police are obviously just trying to protect this witness from the unruly mobs who don't want the "truth" about Gray and might do him harm. But, whoops, the reporter did a little digging, instead of faithfully swallowing the lines fed to him by the Police.

But the prisoner, Donta Allen, 22, later spoke to the media, including The Post, and allowed himself to be identified.
I guess Mr. Allen wasn't too worried about his safety after all.

In a phone interview, Allen said he had been in the van with Gray and told police he heard “light banging.” He said the police report incorrectly characterized his statements to authorities and that he “never ever said to police that [Gray] was hurting himself.”
The Police have lied repeatedly about this investigation, and I have no confidence that they will stop lying anytime soon. I certainly have no way of knowing what happened in the van, but I do think the idea that a handcuffed man broke his own neck is one of the less likely scenarios. We already know that at the very least the police were grossly negligant and very likely criminal (by the definition of the law) by not securing Gray in the back of the van, regardless of how he later came to be injured.

I honestly don't know how you would define a "black lives matter" guy. I'm a civil rights matter guy. So I have a big problem with Gray getting swept up off the street when there is no evidence - at all - that he was breaking the law when they grabbed him (even if the knife he had does turn out to be illegal, there was no way the cops could have known that at the tme). And I have a huge problem with an American citizen being grabbed off the street for no reason, disappeared into the back of a van, and then losing his life while in police custody, without ever even making it to booking, let alone being convicted of a crime.

Doesn't matter what race you are - if you're going to trample on a citizen's rights, then you need to be held accountable by the law.

 
Remember this bombshell rom April 29?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/prisoner-in-van-said-freddie-gray-was-banging-against-the-walls-during-ride/2015/04/29/56d7da10-eec6-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html

A prisoner sharing a police transport van with Freddie Gray told investigators that he could hear Gray “banging against the walls” of the vehicle and believed that he “was intentionally trying to injure himself,” according to a police document obtained by The Washington Post.
Hmm, now how could the Post have obtained this police document? Could the police perhaps have given it to the reporter because it made Freddie Gray seem like he was injuring himself? The story continues:

The Post was given the document under the condition that the prisoner not be named because the person who provided it feared for the inmate’s safety.
What noble motives! The police are obviously just trying to protect this witness from the unruly mobs who don't want the "truth" about Gray and might do him harm. But, whoops, the reporter did a little digging, instead of faithfully swallowing the lines fed to him by the Police.

But the prisoner, Donta Allen, 22, later spoke to the media, including The Post, and allowed himself to be identified.
I guess Mr. Allen wasn't too worried about his safety after all.

In a phone interview, Allen said he had been in the van with Gray and told police he heard “light banging.” He said the police report incorrectly characterized his statements to authorities and that he “never ever said to police that [Gray] was hurting himself.”
The Police have lied repeatedly about this investigation, and I have no confidence that they will stop lying anytime soon. I certainly have no way of knowing what happened in the van, but I do think the idea that a handcuffed man broke his own neck is one of the less likely scenarios. We already know that at the very least the police were grossly negligant and very likely criminal (by the definition of the law) by not securing Gray in the back of the van, regardless of how he later came to be injured.

I honestly don't know how you would define a "black lives matter" guy. I'm a civil rights matter guy. So I have a big problem with Gray getting swept up off the street when there is no evidence - at all - that he was breaking the law when they grabbed him (even if the knife he had does turn out to be illegal, there was no way the cops could have known that at the tme). And I have a huge problem with an American citizen being grabbed off the street for no reason, disappeared into the back of a van, and then losing his life while in police custody, without ever even making it to booking, let alone being convicted of a crime.

Doesn't matter what race you are - if you're going to trample on a citizen's rights, then you need to be held accountable by the law.
"No way the cops could have known the knife was illegal"? Are you kidding me? It was a spring assisted knife. Those are illegal in Baltimore. It doesn't take an FBI lab to make that determination. Cops do that every day of every week. Cops are given a great deal of leeway into stopping anyone who looks suspicious. I know that as a civil libertarian you hate that, but that's the system. And the cops get those marching orders from elected officials like Mosby. SHE is the one who told them directly to ramp up their efforts to crack down on suspected drug dealers like Freddie Gray. So once again, your anger here is completely misdirected. You should be railing against Mosby and Mayor SRB.

As for the claim that the cops were criminal in not securing Gray with a seat belt, we need to see how that plays out as well. The cops were given the mandatory seat belt directive only days before Gray's arrest, and we don't even know yet if that was effectively communicated to the cops in question.

 
I honestly don't know how you would define a "black lives matter" guy. I'm a civil rights matter guy. So I have a big problem with Gray getting swept up off the street when there is no evidence - at all - that he was breaking the law when they grabbed him (even if the knife he had does turn out to be illegal, there was no way the cops could have known that at the tme). And I have a huge problem with an American citizen being grabbed off the street for no reason, disappeared into the back of a van, and then losing his life while in police custody, without ever even making it to booking, let alone being convicted of a crime.
On a related topic, here's where the Libertarian types let me down. They paint a scary picture of a near-future in which an oppressive and authoritarian central government can swoop in and imprison/kill you at any moment and for no reason.

And yet I feel that is what's happening with cases like Freddie Gray and Sandra Bland and Samuel Dubose. These are free American citizens going about their normal daily business, and then suddenly the cops descend upon them for very dubious (at best) reasons and they end up dead, very often without even being booked, let alone tried and convicted. I'd like to see some Libertarians get involved.

 
I honestly don't know how you would define a "black lives matter" guy. I'm a civil rights matter guy. So I have a big problem with Gray getting swept up off the street when there is no evidence - at all - that he was breaking the law when they grabbed him (even if the knife he had does turn out to be illegal, there was no way the cops could have known that at the tme). And I have a huge problem with an American citizen being grabbed off the street for no reason, disappeared into the back of a van, and then losing his life while in police custody, without ever even making it to booking, let alone being convicted of a crime.
On a related topic, here's where the Libertarian types let me down. They paint a scary picture of a near-future in which an oppressive and authoritarian central government can swoop in and imprison/kill you at any moment and for no reason.

And yet I feel that is what's happening with cases like Freddie Gray and Sandra Bland and Samuel Dubose. These are free American citizens going about their normal daily business, and then suddenly the cops descend upon them for very dubious (at best) reasons and they end up dead, very often without even being booked, let alone tried and convicted. I'd like to see some Libertarians get involved.
reason.com does tons of stuff with police brutality. Radley Balko originated there and now has a Washington Post column. The concept of militarized police comes from (or at least was popularized) by Balko's work from '10 - on.

Personally, I think I constantly defend average citizens against police brutality, here and in other threads.

My confidence in Baltimore's authority, which extends to its prosecutorial arm, though, is also suspect given their prior and subsequent actions both historically and currently. I feel like I'm being consistent here. I'm not about to distrust authority and then quietly accept Baltimore's governmental conclusions and integrity when it comes to their prosecutorial doings. Especially given that it's Baltimore, where a whole lot of issues are in play.

I didn't want to get involved in this thread again, but I did note the irony that civil libertarians to the left are now, IMO, acquiescing to the typical tactics of prosecutors that aren't forthcoming when lives are hanging in the balance of a murder/manslaughter trial.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I honestly don't know how you would define a "black lives matter" guy. I'm a civil rights matter guy. So I have a big problem with Gray getting swept up off the street when there is no evidence - at all - that he was breaking the law when they grabbed him (even if the knife he had does turn out to be illegal, there was no way the cops could have known that at the tme). And I have a huge problem with an American citizen being grabbed off the street for no reason, disappeared into the back of a van, and then losing his life while in police custody, without ever even making it to booking, let alone being convicted of a crime.
On a related topic, here's where the Libertarian types let me down. They paint a scary picture of a near-future in which an oppressive and authoritarian central government can swoop in and imprison/kill you at any moment and for no reason.

And yet I feel that is what's happening with cases like Freddie Gray and Sandra Bland and Samuel Dubose. These are free American citizens going about their normal daily business, and then suddenly the cops descend upon them for very dubious (at best) reasons and they end up dead, very often without even being booked, let alone tried and convicted. I'd like to see some Libertarians get involved.
This just a note about your original comment really more than the eta.

We can look at this objectively, civil liberties POV or law & order POV, and a major problem is that the DA (Mosley's office if not Mosley herself) coordinated the police to that vicinity as a sort of 'round up the usual suspects' action. That happened IIRC. So it seems to me the DA (State's Attorney) has a problem here. They can say 'well yeah we do broken windows and that works because it keeps streets cleaner and safer even if some eggs get cracked' and they can say 'we object to police going in and violating civil rights and not following probable cause and reasonable suspicion protocol' but not both. They can't both allegedly call out the goon squad and be the people's protector.

And then objecting in court and in the press to turning over evidence which might reflect on their own actions, not the police's.

I think the arguments are good here but there is a really bad set of facts going on in this particular instance.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
2. You are a "black lives matter" guy, right? Does this statement apply only to criminals? Or are the 3 black Officers charged with felonies in this case included as well?
This statement suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of both the "black lives matter" movement and what it means to be a "criminal."

1. Here's a good explanation of "black lives matter." Everyone who has ever thought to themselves "all lives matter!" should read it. It really isn't relevant to the Baltimore case against the officers at all.

2. The officers charged with felonies are just as much "criminals" as, say, Michael Brown. Perhaps more so in fact, because unlike Brown they've actually been arrested and charged with a felony. What distinction are you trying to make? Who are these criminals to whom you refer that you think are different from the charged officers?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
2. You are a "black lives matter" guy, right? Does this statement apply only to criminals? Or are the 3 black Officers charged with felonies in this case included as well?
This statement suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of both the "black lives matter" movement and what it means to be a "criminal." 1. Here's a good explanation of "black lives matter." Everyone who has ever thought to themselves "all lives matter!" should read it. It really isn't relevant to the Baltimore case against the officers at all.

2. The officers charged with felonies are just as much "criminals" as, say, Michael Brown. Perhaps more so in fact, because unlike Brown they've actually been arrested and charged with a felony. What distinction are you trying to make? Who are these criminals to whom you refer that you think are different from the charged officers?
I'm not sure these cops did anything criminal yet. Negligence from a civil standpoint? Most likely. But 4 of them are charged with serious felonies, and one is charged with murder. And as of now (acknowledging we haven't seen all the evidence yet) it sure looks like Mosby overcharged these guys and pandered to a mob that was looking to right other historical wrongs. We'll see.
 
TobiasFunke said:
General Tso said:
2. You are a "black lives matter" guy, right? Does this statement apply only to criminals? Or are the 3 black Officers charged with felonies in this case included as well?
This statement suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of both the "black lives matter" movement and what it means to be a "criminal." 1. Here's a good explanation of "black lives matter." Everyone who has ever thought to themselves "all lives matter!" should read it. It really isn't relevant to the Baltimore case against the officers at all.

2. The officers charged with felonies are just as much "criminals" as, say, Michael Brown. Perhaps more so in fact, because unlike Brown they've actually been arrested and charged with a felony. What distinction are you trying to make? Who are these criminals to whom you refer that you think are different from the charged officers?
A criminal is someone guilty of a crime. Unless these officers have prior convictions, they aren't criminals. Did Brown have a prior criminal record?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top