jonessed
Footballguy
No. The DA has to be going on the assumption that the cops knew nothing illegal had occurred and arrested him anyway.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Baltimore: The Next Ferguson? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Gary Coal Man
- Start date
rockaction
Footballguy
I think she also asserts the following. She conducted her own "parallel" investigation using her police integrity unit (the only unit listed on her published staffing tree missing the name of a supervisor.) She had no time to evaluate the crucial autopsy report, or consult with experts about its implications. In her haste to step into the national limelight, she circumvented normal charging procedures by grabbing a member of the sheriff's office to swear to their truth and file them for her. She calculated her actions for surprise and maximum effect, and she got it.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Comment away but don't put words in my mouth and then pretend like you aren't. You get your panties in a bunch here every day picking an argument with someone different and then you get on your high horse. You aren't engaging discussion. You're twisting words around without putting one second of thought into what my response was to. But that's your style.
timschochet
Footballguy
Two points here:
1. We need to clarify if the actual knife was legal or not. I've only heard one statement from the prosecutor, and that is that the knife was legal. The editorial rockaction posted and the website I linked argue otherwise- but at this point, that's all it is, an argument (and one I don't even understand.)
2. Whether or not the knife was legal, it was not a switchblade. The officers in their report, according to the prosecutor, wrote that it was a switchblade. If true, they lied. So that in itself may be false imprisonment even if the actual knife was illegal anyhow. I'm not sure about this.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Jack White
Footballguy
If we lived in a free society, the possession of either of those items would not be a crime.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
So to review: first you said that it didn't look like black America cared about the inner cities "when they fight rogue cops by breaking the law and destroying their own businesses and property," which looks for all the world to be you judging all of black America of the actions of a few people in a specific circumstance. And now you've chosen to insult me rather than defend your own words.
Is that accurate? I don't want to treat you unfairly, so please let me know if I've misinterpreted something here.
timschochet
Footballguy
Yeah I read that rockaction, but it really doesn't tell us anything. What's important here is whether or not the actual charges are flawed. If it turns out they are, then we can go back and examine her methodology and say, well she did this wrong or that wrong or she ignored this or circumvented that, etc. But the reverse argument doesn't hold for me: if you say, she did this wrong and that wrong and THEREFORE the charges are wrong- that doesn't fly, because the writer of this editorial has no idea what actually went through this prosecutor's head, it's all surmise. Prove that the charges themselves are incompetent, then we can go from there.
And unfortunately, with the exception of the questionable knife part, the writer of this editorial fails to explain her reasoning as to what's wrong with these charges.
timschochet
Footballguy
As per usual, your posts are completely irrelevant to the discussion, and I think they're meant to be irritating as well.
rockaction
Footballguy
Part of the charges being legitimate is the process they go through on their way to being charged. The procedure safeguards the substantive right of the accused. That's why it's due process at every level.
Jack White
Footballguy
Freedom is never irrelevant. If you are irritated by it, that's your problem.
You can argue whether possessing a partciular inanimate object is a crime or not; I'll argue unequivocally that it isn't.
Real crimes are things like theft, assault, murder, fraud. Possession of an object or a substance is not a real crime.
timschochet
Footballguy
OK, re Dershowitz:
Usually when Alan Dershowitz offers criticism of a legal decision, he writes a long essay or blog in which he explores the ramifications in great detail. He is quite brilliant at this. Unfortunately, he hasn't done that here; hopefully he will. His criticism was limited to a live interview on Newsmax TV, and then reported by Breitbart. I have only been able to come up with a couple of quotes from that interview. Here they are:
This is a very sad day for justice in the United States, in Baltimore and in Maryland. Today had nothing to do with justice; today was crowd-control. Everything was motivated by a threat of riots and a desire to prevent riots. The Mayor–outrageously–said we’re gonna get justice for the victims and the families and the people of Baltimore; never mentioning the defendants…”
“The Mayor and the state attorney have made it virtually impossible for these defendants to get a fair trial. They have been presumed guilty…some in the crowd said the only reason we got these indictments is because we rioted. They may very well be right…There is an incompatibility between crowd-control and justice…you cannot allow police officers or any other defendants to become scapegoats for crowds who are demanding a continuation of rioting… Even the ACLU issued a statement today praising the indictment, and not mentioning the presumption of innocence, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or due process…”
There is no plausible, hypothetical, conceivable case for murder under the facts as we now know them. You might say conceivably, there is a case for manslaughter. My prediction—they have overplayed their hand. It is unlikely they’ll get any convictions in this case as a result of this and if they do there is a good possibility they will get reversed on appeal.”
Unfortunately, much like the editorial that rockaction posted, (which used Dershowitz as justification) there are no details here. There is no breakdown of the charges at all. There is a complaint about the mayor's statement to the public, which I think is justifiable (I also personally thought the prosecutor's statement to the public was very troubling, though Dershowitz doesn't mention this.) He acknowledges the possibility of manslaughter but then attacks the murder charge, giving no rebuttal to the explanation, made several times on TV over the last few days (and even a few times in this thread) about how 2nd degree murder need not be a deliberately planned act under the circumstances. (I also raised an objection to that explanation, but my objection was with the law itself, not with it's specific application in this case.)
Hopefully Dershowitz will clarify his views. But at this point neither he nor the writer rockaction linked seem to be willing to break down and attack these charges- they're simply making a much more general complaint about the speed and motivation.
Usually when Alan Dershowitz offers criticism of a legal decision, he writes a long essay or blog in which he explores the ramifications in great detail. He is quite brilliant at this. Unfortunately, he hasn't done that here; hopefully he will. His criticism was limited to a live interview on Newsmax TV, and then reported by Breitbart. I have only been able to come up with a couple of quotes from that interview. Here they are:
This is a very sad day for justice in the United States, in Baltimore and in Maryland. Today had nothing to do with justice; today was crowd-control. Everything was motivated by a threat of riots and a desire to prevent riots. The Mayor–outrageously–said we’re gonna get justice for the victims and the families and the people of Baltimore; never mentioning the defendants…”
“The Mayor and the state attorney have made it virtually impossible for these defendants to get a fair trial. They have been presumed guilty…some in the crowd said the only reason we got these indictments is because we rioted. They may very well be right…There is an incompatibility between crowd-control and justice…you cannot allow police officers or any other defendants to become scapegoats for crowds who are demanding a continuation of rioting… Even the ACLU issued a statement today praising the indictment, and not mentioning the presumption of innocence, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or due process…”
There is no plausible, hypothetical, conceivable case for murder under the facts as we now know them. You might say conceivably, there is a case for manslaughter. My prediction—they have overplayed their hand. It is unlikely they’ll get any convictions in this case as a result of this and if they do there is a good possibility they will get reversed on appeal.”
Unfortunately, much like the editorial that rockaction posted, (which used Dershowitz as justification) there are no details here. There is no breakdown of the charges at all. There is a complaint about the mayor's statement to the public, which I think is justifiable (I also personally thought the prosecutor's statement to the public was very troubling, though Dershowitz doesn't mention this.) He acknowledges the possibility of manslaughter but then attacks the murder charge, giving no rebuttal to the explanation, made several times on TV over the last few days (and even a few times in this thread) about how 2nd degree murder need not be a deliberately planned act under the circumstances. (I also raised an objection to that explanation, but my objection was with the law itself, not with it's specific application in this case.)
Hopefully Dershowitz will clarify his views. But at this point neither he nor the writer rockaction linked seem to be willing to break down and attack these charges- they're simply making a much more general complaint about the speed and motivation.
rockaction
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
lol. Freedom doesn't irritate me. YOU irritate me. That seems to be your purpose- not just to irritate me, but most people reading this. Anybody if they wanted to could learn a few libertarian ideas and then post them every chance they got, regardless of the discussion. Most people don't do that because they know it's annoying.
There may be a lot of tension in this thread from people like Ramblin Wreck, General Tso, Jonessed, Dr. Detroit, Tobias Funke, rockaction, and myself arguing. We disagree a lot. We're passionate. Sometimes, unfortunately, we insult each other personally and we shouldn't. But that's because these are very serious issues that go to the heart of what our society is about. Everyone of the people I named have offered something positive to this discussion. You offer nothing. You simply wait until the next opportunity to insert one of your beliefs, none of which have anything to do with the matter at hand.
timschochet
Footballguy
Well, the "unusual process" is based on speed and motivation, so that was my point.
And you're correct in your earlier point that the process itself is important- if one can actually demonstrate that it wasn't done right. She can't; as I wrote, she has no evidence of her surmise about this. And I note that the title of her editorial isn't "The process used to determine the charges are incompetent"; her title is "The charges are incompetent" and that's a very separate issue from the process, and issue for which neither she nor Dershowitz have yet offered any evidence or even real argument.
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
Sorry for my comments earlier, I just made the thread worse. 
squistion
Footballguy
The fact this reported by Newsmax and Breitbart should be a pretty good indication where Dershowitz is coming from and why his star as a respected legal expert/talking head has dimmed considerably over the last decade. He is pretty much only taken seriously now by those on the right. He was on CNN last night and I will let his comments speak for itself(although this was not about Baltimore):
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dershowitz-clashes-with-cnn-guest-after-saying-only-radical-muslims-threaten-speech/
Dershowitz Clashes with CNN Guest After Saying Only Radical Muslims Threaten Speech
Alan Dershowitz clashed with a Muslim guest on CNN tonight after arguing that the only group today threatening violence to suppress free speech is radical Muslims. Dershowitz told Don Lemon theres no real case for Pamela Gellers group "inciting" people, because if that was applied, "we would have no free speech [and] you could always, then, by threatening violence, end free speech."
Amani Al-Khatahtbeh argued that its just as important to be concerned with "vitriolic rhetoric that were allowing to fly by under the guise of free speech" and asked about the people who might be threatened or targeted because of the rhetoric from Geller and others.
Dershowitz said, "The only people today who are threatening violence against others for expressing political views are radical Muslims."
The two of them ended up clashing over that statement, with Al-Khatahtbeh calling that extremely sweeping and Dershowitz challenging her to name another group thats today attacking freedom of speech.
(video at link)
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Your comments about Jack White were dead on.Sorry for my comments earlier, I just made the thread worse.
Your comments about General Tso and rockaction were, IMO, over the top and filled with unnecessarily rancor, but that being said the crux of your criticism was sharp and accurate and needed to be said. So overall, at least to me, you contributed more positive than negative.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
I blame white people.Sorry for my comments earlier, I just made the thread worse.
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
Yeah I wasn't addressing either individually, just the entire thread. Did seem as though I was responding to them though (especially Tso), and for that I apologize.Your comments about Jack White were dead on.Sorry for my comments earlier, I just made the thread worse.
Your comments about General Tso and rockaction were, IMO, over the top and filled with unnecessarily rancor, but that being said the crux of your criticism was sharp and accurate and needed to be said. So overall, at least to me, you contributed more positive than negative.
No other apologies coming though.
timschochet
Footballguy
Well, I think he's very wrong there. I should add I think he's been quite wrong about Netanyahu and Israel lately as well.
But I will continue to take him seriously. I've admired him far too long to do anything else. I think he's a brilliant, reasonable man, and a good man. And those on the left who take issue with him now should keep in mind how much he's contributed to progressive ideas and movements and legal causes over the decades.
G
General Tso
Guest
It's not just Dershowitz - a lot of legal experts have been sharply critical of the State's Attorney's handling of the indictment. Her victory speech given to the crowd virtually guarantees a change of venue. I mentioned it at the time and was ridiculed in here for it, but it seems to be the prevailing wisdom of the talking heads now, particularly Geraldo Rivera who used the word guarantee last night.
This issue about the knife potentially being illegal is huge news. The case starts to unravel when the police are shown not to have acted with evil intent as the Prosecution has charged, and that intent begins with the allegation of it being a wrongful arrest. The knife looks to be close enough to being illegal that it looks reasonable that the police at the time were justified in arresting Gray. If Moseby screwed this up, and it looks like she did, ten it's a pretty bad mistake.
As for the murder 2 charge, his in the hell can she produce enough evidence to get behind the intent of the driver? If she doesn't have video or eyewitnesses showing him driving erratically, or GPS or telematic data from the ride, there is always going to be reasonable doubt that Gray broke his neck due to an unfortunate accident or through an intentional act on his part. And that's not murder 2 - it's more like manslaughter or reckless endangerment.
And the charging of the wrong people in the official documentation just validates what most people have been thinking - that this was a rush job to quell the protests. Looks like a JV job thus far, which is fitting given the way Baltimore has handled everything else.
This issue about the knife potentially being illegal is huge news. The case starts to unravel when the police are shown not to have acted with evil intent as the Prosecution has charged, and that intent begins with the allegation of it being a wrongful arrest. The knife looks to be close enough to being illegal that it looks reasonable that the police at the time were justified in arresting Gray. If Moseby screwed this up, and it looks like she did, ten it's a pretty bad mistake.
As for the murder 2 charge, his in the hell can she produce enough evidence to get behind the intent of the driver? If she doesn't have video or eyewitnesses showing him driving erratically, or GPS or telematic data from the ride, there is always going to be reasonable doubt that Gray broke his neck due to an unfortunate accident or through an intentional act on his part. And that's not murder 2 - it's more like manslaughter or reckless endangerment.
And the charging of the wrong people in the official documentation just validates what most people have been thinking - that this was a rush job to quell the protests. Looks like a JV job thus far, which is fitting given the way Baltimore has handled everything else.
The_Man
Footballguy
1. Can anyone produce a link to Mayor SRB being quoted what Dershowitz claims she said? Here's the closest approximation I can find:
"We will get justice for Freddie Gray. Believe you me, we will get justice," Rawlings-Blake said. "If, with the nation watching, three black women at three different levels can't get justice and healing for this community, you tell me where we're going to get it in our country."
2. Is it really outrageous for a Mayor to call out for justice for the victim of a fatal crime? Because that's a comment I feel like I hear mayors and police make all the time. And I'm pretty sure I don't usually hear the public clamoring for the mayor to seek out justice for the defendants in a murder case.
G
General Tso
Guest
Thanks for the apology DD. As I said we've all been on full tilt the last couple of days. No harm no foul.Yeah I wasn't addressing either individually, just the entire thread. Did seem as though I was responding to them though (especially Tso), and for that I apologize. No other apologies coming though.Your comments about Jack White were dead on.Your comments about General Tso and rockaction were, IMO, over the top and filled with unnecessarily rancor, but that being said the crux of your criticism was sharp and accurate and needed to be said. So overall, at least to me, you contributed more positive than negative.Sorry for my comments earlier, I just made the thread worse.
cstu
Footballguy
Jack White
Footballguy
Jack White
Footballguy
Well, I'll repeat that if I irritate you, that's your problem, not mine.
You guys can argue the minutiae of statism, and I'll argue that the State and its interventions into private life are at the root of what's being discussed in this thread. Or, "the matter at hand" as you put it.
As for personal insults, I don't engage in them.
Yeah, that was obviously inaccurate and IMO merits an apology.
I think I know what Apple Jack might have meant. He might have meant that while Baltimore's worst are obviously worse than rockaction, it's more important to criticize rockaction's position than it is to criticize Baltimore's worst. Here in the FFA, nobody is in danger of siding with Baltimore's worst, so criticizing them is, at best, a waste of time. At worst, it perpetuates the odious idea that large segments of the city of Baltimore deserve whatever bad things happen to them. So criticizing Baltimore's worst, within the context of this thread, may actually do more harm than good. Meanwhile, a number of people in the FFA may share rockaction's position, so criticizing that has a legitimate chance of changing people's minds. Apple Jack is therefore making a rational choice to criticize rockaction's position more heavily than he'll criticize Baltimore's worst.
That's as charitably as I can interpret Apple Jack's post, but even under that interpretation, he still phrased it very poorly.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Gary Coal Man
Footballguy
How about stolen property that you did not steal but you know to be stolen?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Even a left-leaning person like me shares your opinion here on some subjects. But I think this thread is the last place where it belongs. Surely you agree that the state needs to police its citizens' criminal behavior to some degree. So if we take out that element of what constitutes "State intervention into private life," I'd argue that the two subjects at issue here (bad behavior by law enforcement and disparity in treatment of the races in American society) are the two where government action is MOST needed. Without government action we might still have slavery, and we would almost certainly have widespread segregation in schools, limited access to the ballot box and discriminatory businesses. And nobody other than their government higher-ups is in a position to check police behavior; that's the whole problem- that these people providing a necessary service are being permitted to behave with little regard to consequence, and there needs to be more.
You can quarrel with how the government has addressed these problems if you like, but I don't see how you can quarrel with its involvement.
G
General Tso
Guest
Agree 100% with this. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Dershowitz and I'm surprised that he seems to have fallen out of favor a bit with the Left.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I'm try to figure out how that it is bad that only 39% of those surveyed are wrong versus 62% that were wrong three months ago. Unfortunately we don't live in a world that thinking positive thoughts means we have a positive reality. No matter how great a color blind world would be we are no where near it and pretending otherwise is one of the greatest hindrance to achieving the goal. The first step to solving a problem is identifying the problem and if society can't be largely honest that the problem even exist there is not much hope.General Tso said:
quickhands
Footballguy
As a fellow detroiter I'm kinda surprised. The suburbs of detroit have been trying for years to help the city.Doctor Detroit said:
You think white s.e. michigan doesn't care about detroit?
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
What exactly have the Detroit suburbs done to try and save Detroit? Bailing out the Zoo? That came about 30 years too late.
Suburbs have tried to distance themselves from Detroit as long as I've been around, pretty sure they would have all built 20 foot walls on the Alter, Telegraph, 8 mile and anywhere else they could.
G
General Tso
Guest
Here's the situation with the knife:timschochet said:
Maryland Law specifies that a person may not "display" a "switchblade" or a "knife or a penknife having a blade that opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring, or other device in the handle of the knife." The City of Baltimore has an old Ordinance (59-22) that more broadly describes what an illegal knife is:
As you can see, the Baltimore ordinance is much broader than the state definition. The knife only has to have an automatic spring for it to be illegal. It has been widely reported that Freddie Gray's knife was of the "spring assisted" variety. And an article in the Baltimore Sun yesterday reported that a Police Task Force studied the knife and concluded that it was a "spring assisted" knife and therefore illegal under Baltimore Ordinances.
How is all this relevant to the case?
Marilyn Moseby's Probable Cause Affidavit charging the 6 officers states:
Mosby relied on Maryland Law, which appears to be completely irrelevant to Gray’s arrest, because he was not arrested for a violation of Maryland law. Rather he was arrested for a violation of the City Code of Baltimore. The official Statement of Charges filled out against Gray specifically cites the violation of Baltimore Ordinance 59-22, that Gray "did unlawfully carry, possess and sell a knife commonly known as a switch blade knife, with an automatic spring or other device for opening and/or closing the blade within the limits of Baltimore City." Yet somehow Mosby missed that fact? How does a State's Attorney make such a horrible blunder?
I think the answer is obvious - she rushed the indictment process. Had she gone through a Grand Jury she would have vetted out all these issues. Or if she had just taken another week or so, perhaps she would have realized at some point that Freddie Gray was arrested under Baltimore codes rather than Maryland codes. You'd think she would have seen that on his arrest document - which clearly shows that he was being charged under a Baltimore Ordinance.
Officer Nero's attorney filed a motion in court to have the police department and prosecutor produce the knife that was the reason for the arrest, saying that it was an illegal weapon and therefore a legal arrest. Unless I'm missing something, this will likely lead to charges being dropped for two of the 6 officers (Nero and Miller), a major embarrassment and early defeat for the prosecution, and a big hole punched in the rest of the Prosecution's case against the other officers.
Last edited:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Yeah the knife issue sounds like a problem, it also sounds like a chance for an early hearing.
Maybe Mosby missed it because the cops likely live and breath the criminal code and she just manages cases.
Does anyone know which officers played which roles? Who did the arresting, who did the driving, etc.? Thanks.
Maybe Mosby missed it because the cops likely live and breath the criminal code and she just manages cases.
Does anyone know which officers played which roles? Who did the arresting, who did the driving, etc.? Thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
G
General Tso
Guest
Yes, Miller, Nero and Rice were the officers who arrested Gray.
Goodson was the driver.
White and Porter arrived at various stops to check on Gray at the request of Goodson.
Last edited:
The Big Guy
Fear the Blitz
http://www.theisraelidaily.com/middle-eastern-states-debate-whether-to-intervene-in-baltimore/
As riots in Baltimore continue to spiral out of control, several Middle Eastern leaders have publicly considered sending forces to help maintain some sense of order and stop the chaos from spilling over into neighboring states.
“We aren’t the world’s police, and we can’t be expected to intervene in such an unstable region every time the people rise up against their government,” explained Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi. “At the same time, we have legitimate interests in ensuring Maryland doesn’t become a failed state given its proximity to Washington.”
While the Iraqi leader said he was against putting boots on the ground in Baltimore, he would not rule out airstrikes to help strengthen the increasingly-tenuous hold of the American regime. The Libyan Prime Minister, Abdullah al-Thani, said that Arab states must take action to make sure the unrest does not spread to the American capital just 30 miles away. However, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani was adamant that his military would not be pulled into the conflict in Baltimore.
RELATED: Ferguson Police taking tactical tips from ISIS?
“While we view the events in Baltimore with great concern, we’ve got our own issues to deal with and cannot afford to be nation-building overseas,” Ghani insisted. “Besides, even if our intention is just to put down the uprising in Baltimore, we could end up getting sucked into their civil war and still have our troops propping up the government 15 years from now.”
President Obama would not comment on reports that Iranian forces were seen fighting alongside police near Camden Yards, and Egyptian President al-Sisi has expressed “deep concerns” at the brutal crackdown on citizens and a possible military coup. “Such actions are simply unacceptable,” said the Egyptian President.
In related news, the Israeli Prime Minister expressed his support for the American government and offered to send settlers to assist in occupying territory in Baltimore.
This is a pretty funny Onion-style story on the Baltimore story.
As riots in Baltimore continue to spiral out of control, several Middle Eastern leaders have publicly considered sending forces to help maintain some sense of order and stop the chaos from spilling over into neighboring states.
“We aren’t the world’s police, and we can’t be expected to intervene in such an unstable region every time the people rise up against their government,” explained Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi. “At the same time, we have legitimate interests in ensuring Maryland doesn’t become a failed state given its proximity to Washington.”
While the Iraqi leader said he was against putting boots on the ground in Baltimore, he would not rule out airstrikes to help strengthen the increasingly-tenuous hold of the American regime. The Libyan Prime Minister, Abdullah al-Thani, said that Arab states must take action to make sure the unrest does not spread to the American capital just 30 miles away. However, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani was adamant that his military would not be pulled into the conflict in Baltimore.
RELATED: Ferguson Police taking tactical tips from ISIS?
“While we view the events in Baltimore with great concern, we’ve got our own issues to deal with and cannot afford to be nation-building overseas,” Ghani insisted. “Besides, even if our intention is just to put down the uprising in Baltimore, we could end up getting sucked into their civil war and still have our troops propping up the government 15 years from now.”
President Obama would not comment on reports that Iranian forces were seen fighting alongside police near Camden Yards, and Egyptian President al-Sisi has expressed “deep concerns” at the brutal crackdown on citizens and a possible military coup. “Such actions are simply unacceptable,” said the Egyptian President.
In related news, the Israeli Prime Minister expressed his support for the American government and offered to send settlers to assist in occupying territory in Baltimore.
This is a pretty funny Onion-style story on the Baltimore story.
G
General Tso
Guest
We'll have plenty of time to dive into the case later, but one of the things that stood out from the start with regard to the Prosecution's case is this assertion that Gray sustained a critical neck injury during transport. Maybe she has some evidence to support this, but I have to be honest - when I first saw the video of Gray being loaded into the truck I thought he looked seriously injured at that time. To my untrained eye he looked partially paralyzed when he was being dragged into the van. And there is some eyewitness testimony at the first stop a block away (when they put shackles on him) that he once again looked paralyzed and in rough shape. Check it out - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V60gwWTfIX0
Is it possible that he sustained a broken neck during the takedown and was therefore unable to keep himself seated on the bench in the moving van? Maybe he had a broken neck that was subsequently displaced during a fall in the van?
Is it possible that he sustained a broken neck during the takedown and was therefore unable to keep himself seated on the bench in the moving van? Maybe he had a broken neck that was subsequently displaced during a fall in the van?
G
General Tso
Guest
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
I hope it's peaceful, but there's not a chance I would go. Especially with my family.
G
General Tso
Guest
I'd go. Though I might take a well-timed restroom break when he breaks into "Let's Go Crazy".A lot of you guys might be surprised by this, but I once saw Public Enemy in Springfield, Mass right around the time of OJ and Rodney King. It was pretty hardcore. They staged a scene during the concert where they put on trial a fictitious Klansman, convicted him, and then hung him right there on the stage! The guy I went with (the other white person at the show) got a little fidgety and I remember him giving me a look like, "Dude, we are going to die". No problems at all before, during or after the show, though the performance was a little disappointing.
timschochet
Footballguy
I just listened to a very compelling argument on the radio that might seem to support General Tso's contention that the false imprisonment charges were poorly made.
We still don't know whether the knife is going to be ruled legal or not (though apparently one of the police officer's attorneys is raising this very issue as we speak.) But the argument made was, whether the knife was illegal or not, this charge should never have been made, because even if the knife was illegal, there is a good faith defense- basically the officers believed the knife was illegal.
As the attorney on the radio explained it, the charge of false imprisonment is almost never levied at police officers, and there is good reason for this- because officers make mistakes all the time. The penalty for those mistakes, when they are discovered, is to throw out evidence against the arrested suspect. But once officers are actually charged for those mistakes, it makes other police afraid to carry out their duties. It's also an extremely difficult charge to prove because of the good faith defense. (And in this case, because of the question of the knife, that defense might not even be necessary.)
Now I have not heard any rebuttal argument made to these points, so I could always change my mind. But at the moment, what this attorney on the radio said (I don't know who it was) was very convincing. And it gives greater credence to the charge, made here by General Tso and others, that this prosecutor acted too quickly and recklessly in assembling charges. Though in truth none of us know how much evidence she looked at.
All of this is minor in any case. If the cops are convicted, it's not going to be for false imprisonment. It's going to be for manslaughter because they will be held responsible for the death of Gray. The guilt or innocence over that issue won't rest on these questions. But it is interesting nonetheless.
We still don't know whether the knife is going to be ruled legal or not (though apparently one of the police officer's attorneys is raising this very issue as we speak.) But the argument made was, whether the knife was illegal or not, this charge should never have been made, because even if the knife was illegal, there is a good faith defense- basically the officers believed the knife was illegal.
As the attorney on the radio explained it, the charge of false imprisonment is almost never levied at police officers, and there is good reason for this- because officers make mistakes all the time. The penalty for those mistakes, when they are discovered, is to throw out evidence against the arrested suspect. But once officers are actually charged for those mistakes, it makes other police afraid to carry out their duties. It's also an extremely difficult charge to prove because of the good faith defense. (And in this case, because of the question of the knife, that defense might not even be necessary.)
Now I have not heard any rebuttal argument made to these points, so I could always change my mind. But at the moment, what this attorney on the radio said (I don't know who it was) was very convincing. And it gives greater credence to the charge, made here by General Tso and others, that this prosecutor acted too quickly and recklessly in assembling charges. Though in truth none of us know how much evidence she looked at.
All of this is minor in any case. If the cops are convicted, it's not going to be for false imprisonment. It's going to be for manslaughter because they will be held responsible for the death of Gray. The guilt or innocence over that issue won't rest on these questions. But it is interesting nonetheless.
G
General Tso
Guest
You explained all that very well, Tim, and that's spot on with what I've been reading as well. They do seem to grant police a bit of leniency when it comes to probable cause for an arrest. So if the knife is even close to being illegal the cops are probably going to get the benefit of the doubt.
Last edited:
The_Man
Footballguy
Well, I'm not planning on taking my Mother-in-Law.
Let me give you an on-the-ground report from Baltimore. There have been no disturbances in the past 10 days, and the one day - Monday, April 27 - is really pretty much the only day anything happened. There were a few nightly confrontations at 10 p.m. near the end of the curfew, but those all went away as soon as the curfew did.
I continue to believe that the April 27 conflagration could also have been avoided and was, in fact, precipitated by the Police. Other than a few broken windows, the violence was completely contained in an impoverished, African-American neighborhood.
At any rate, life is completely back to normal in pretty much all of Baltimore, and definitely within the enclaves in which I live, work, and recreate. I'm not sure what people think is going to happen at the Baltimore Arena, other than a coming together of a very racially integrated group of individuals eager to have a good time and see our city continue to avoid violence.
