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? (4 Viewers)

With Mosby and Prince - it becomes a problem when she starts to look like she is aggrandizing or building her own fame or public profile as a result of her decisions as prosecutor. It becomes even worse when it starts to look like a prosecutor is whipping up public frenzy which is already frenzied.

On the one hand the motive for the indictment gets further from the facts and more towards motives external to the case and accusations that the indictments are political; on the other it creates the potential for prejudice in the jury pool and will probably be one of the first exhibits when the defendants file motions to move the case.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
With Mosby and Prince - it becomes a problem when she starts to look like she is aggrandizing or building her own fame or public profile as a result of her decisions as prosecutor. It becomes even worse when it starts to look like a prosecutor is whipping up public frenzy which is already frenzied.

On the one hand the motive for the indictment gets further from the facts and more towards motives external to the case and accusations that the indictments are political; on the other it creates the potential for prejudice in the jury pool and will probably be one of the first exhibits when the defendants file motions to move the case.
Silently waving amounts to whipping up public frenzy now? Does that make the Queen of England and Miss America political agitators?

 
With Mosby and Prince - it becomes a problem when she starts to look like she is aggrandizing or building her own fame or public profile as a result of her decisions as prosecutor. It becomes even worse when it starts to look like a prosecutor is whipping up public frenzy which is already frenzied.

On the one hand the motive for the indictment gets further from the facts and more towards motives external to the case and accusations that the indictments are political; on the other it creates the potential for prejudice in the jury pool and will probably be one of the first exhibits when the defendants file motions to move the case.
Silently waving amounts to whipping up public frenzy now? Does that make the Queen of England and Miss America political agitators?
It probably makes it an exhibit in a motion.

 
With Mosby and Prince - it becomes a problem when she starts to look like she is aggrandizing or building her own fame or public profile as a result of her decisions as prosecutor. It becomes even worse when it starts to look like a prosecutor is whipping up public frenzy which is already frenzied.

On the one hand the motive for the indictment gets further from the facts and more towards motives external to the case and accusations that the indictments are political; on the other it creates the potential for prejudice in the jury pool and will probably be one of the first exhibits when the defendants file motions to move the case.
Silently waving amounts to whipping up public frenzy now? Does that make the Queen of England and Miss America political agitators?
It probably makes it an exhibit in a motion.
I have no idea what you're saying. Who whipped up public frenzy now? Other than Prince, obviously. Prince is pretty great.

 
With Mosby and Prince - it becomes a problem when she starts to look like she is aggrandizing or building her own fame or public profile as a result of her decisions as prosecutor. It becomes even worse when it starts to look like a prosecutor is whipping up public frenzy which is already frenzied.

On the one hand the motive for the indictment gets further from the facts and more towards motives external to the case and accusations that the indictments are political; on the other it creates the potential for prejudice in the jury pool and will probably be one of the first exhibits when the defendants file motions to move the case.
Silently waving amounts to whipping up public frenzy now? Does that make the Queen of England and Miss America political agitators?
It probably makes it an exhibit in a motion.
I have no idea what you're saying. Who whipped up public frenzy now? Other than Prince, obviously. Prince is pretty great.
Well yeah Prince is definitely great. - I'm just saying there is probably video or pictures of her standing in front of a crowd calling for justice for Gray's death and that will be attached as an exhibit to motions to recuse and transfer.

Does that make the Queen of England and Miss America political agitators?
It's more like Al Sharpton. Which is ok, but no one would say he is an impartial arbiter of justice.

 
With Mosby and Prince - it becomes a problem when she starts to look like she is aggrandizing or building her own fame or public profile as a result of her decisions as prosecutor. It becomes even worse when it starts to look like a prosecutor is whipping up public frenzy which is already frenzied.

On the one hand the motive for the indictment gets further from the facts and more towards motives external to the case and accusations that the indictments are political; on the other it creates the potential for prejudice in the jury pool and will probably be one of the first exhibits when the defendants file motions to move the case.
Silently waving amounts to whipping up public frenzy now? Does that make the Queen of England and Miss America political agitators?
It probably makes it an exhibit in a motion.
I have no idea what you're saying. Who whipped up public frenzy now? Other than Prince, obviously. Prince is pretty great.
Well yeah Prince is definitely great. - I'm just saying there is probably video or pictures of her standing in front of a crowd calling for justice for Gray's death and that will be attached as an exhibit to motions to recuse and transfer.

Does that make the Queen of England and Miss America political agitators?
It's more like Al Sharpton. Which is ok, but no one would say he is an impartial arbiter of justice.
Well, no, that's not what you said. You said she whipped the public into a frenzy. She didn't do that. She also didn't call for justice. She went on stage at Prince's invitation, waved awkwardly to the crowd, and sat back down. Is that what Al Sharpton does? I don't think that's what Al Sharpton does, but I don't pay nearly as much attention to him as conservatives do so I can't say for sure.

 
With Mosby and Prince - it becomes a problem when she starts to look like she is aggrandizing or building her own fame or public profile as a result of her decisions as prosecutor.
Yes, it would have been terrible if someone - say, Rudy Giuliani - had ever used his prosecutor's office to aggrandize or build his own fame or public profile.

 
Man - If you're saying she has higher political ambitions like Giuliani and is using this to propel herself, ok. Maybe while prosecutir Giuliani appeared in front of a crowd calling for one of his indictees to be convicted, I'm sure that happened at some point. If you mean using 9/11/01 as a means to do so, that may be fair, but he wasn't facing calls for recusal from a prosecution.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
With Mosby and Prince - it becomes a problem when she starts to look like she is aggrandizing or building her own fame or public profile as a result of her decisions as prosecutor.
Yes, it would have been terrible if someone - say, Rudy Giuliani - had ever used his prosecutor's office to aggrandize or build his own fame or public profile.
Or how about Ken Cuccinelli, former Virginia Attorney General and GOP rising star, who spent most of his time in public office bringing political actions like challenges to EPA's greenhouse gas rules, Obamacare and gay rights.

I'm sure if we went back through these guys' posting histories we'd find similar outrage over the politicized behavior of these tireless public servants. I'd hate to think that their opposition to Mosby was based on something other than principle.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Btw I said "it starts to look". My point was her appearance on stage will or could be used by the defense on calling for recusal or transfer, that's it.

 
With Mosby and Prince - it becomes a problem when she starts to look like she is aggrandizing or building her own fame or public profile as a result of her decisions as prosecutor. It becomes even worse when it starts to look like a prosecutor is whipping up public frenzy which is already frenzied.

On the one hand the motive for the indictment gets further from the facts and more towards motives external to the case and accusations that the indictments are political; on the other it creates the potential for prejudice in the jury pool and will probably be one of the first exhibits when the defendants file motions to move the case.
Silently waving amounts to whipping up public frenzy now? Does that make the Queen of England and Miss America political agitators?
It probably makes it an exhibit in a motion.
I have no idea what you're saying. Who whipped up public frenzy now? Other than Prince, obviously. Prince is pretty great.
Well yeah Prince is definitely great. - I'm just saying there is probably video or pictures of her standing in front of a crowd calling for justice for Gray's death and that will be attached as an exhibit to motions to recuse and transfer.

Does that make the Queen of England and Miss America political agitators?
It's more like Al Sharpton. Which is ok, but no one would say he is an impartial arbiter of justice.
Well, no, that's not what you said. You said she whipped the public into a frenzy. She didn't do that. She also didn't call for justice. She went on stage at Prince's invitation, waved awkwardly to the crowd, and sat back down. Is that what Al Sharpton does? I don't think that's what Al Sharpton does, but I don't pay nearly as much attention to him as conservatives do so I can't say for sure.
She came on stage during the song "Baltimore". You know, the song with the refrain, "If there aint no justice, then there aint no peace" and the one calling for justice for Freddie Gray. And it was right after Prince made his little speech about the system being broken, and that it needs to be fixed. Clearly political, with the potential for contaminating the jury pool.It's not just a couple of Conservatives criticizing her. She's getting roundly criticized by Liberals and Conservatives alike. It was a dumb move and totally unnecessary. Not sure why you are having such a hard time understanding this.

 
Last edited:
With Mosby and Prince - it becomes a problem when she starts to look like she is aggrandizing or building her own fame or public profile as a result of her decisions as prosecutor.
Yes, it would have been terrible if someone - say, Rudy Giuliani - had ever used his prosecutor's office to aggrandize or build his own fame or public profile.
Or how about Ken Cuccinelli, former Virginia Attorney General and GOP rising star, who spent most of his time in public office bringing political actions like challenges to EPA's greenhouse gas rules, Obamacare and gay rights.

I'm sure if we went back through these guys' posting histories we'd find similar outrage over the politicized behavior of these tireless public servants. I'd hate to think that their opposition to Mosby was based on something other than principle.
Rising star? That is similar to calling a 5 year AAA player a "prospect". He couldn't even beat Terry McAuliffe.

 
She came on stage during the song "Baltimore". You know, the song with the refrain If there aint no justice, then there aint no peace. and the one calling for justice for Freddie Gray. And it was right after Prince made his little speech about the system being broken, and that it needs to be fixed. Clearly political, with the potential for continating the jury pool.It's not just a couple of Conservatives criticizing her. She's getting roundly criticized by Liberals and Conservatives alike. It was a dumb move and totally unnecessary. Not sure why you are having such a hard time understanding this.
She came on when Prince invited her on, waved awkwardly, and left the stage immediately. It wasn't planned or anything. It was the most innocuous thing possible. Not sure why you and anyone else who is criticizing her, regardless of their politics, is having a hard time understanding this.

 
She came on stage during the song "Baltimore". You know, the song with the refrain If there aint no justice, then there aint no peace. and the one calling for justice for Freddie Gray. And it was right after Prince made his little speech about the system being broken, and that it needs to be fixed. Clearly political, with the potential for continating the jury pool.
Coming on stage to wave at the audience during "Baltimore" while Prince is performing the song is contaminating the jury pool?

You have got to be kidding.

 
Waving to the crowd at a concert is tainting the jury pool? Then what is leaking grand jury testimony to the press and doing TV interviews?

www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/us/politics/10prosecutor.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

There was, however, another side to the young prosecutor, a moralistic and carnivorously ambitious man who desired public office. Mr. Giuliani, who was 38 when he became United States attorney in 1983, threatened his targets with long prison sentences, and he infuriated judges with leaks of grand jury testimony to the press. .... Like a medieval crusader, he rarely flinched at hard tactics in pursuit of exalted goals.

In 1987, about 50 armed marshals raided and locked down the investment firm Princeton/Newport Partners. A federal appellate court overturned that racketeering conviction, but the firm remained shuttered. “We were in the wrong place at the wrong time,” said financier Jay Regan, a principal at Princeton/Newport. “It’s strange to be sacrificed on someone’s altar.”

He possessed a junkyard-dog toughness and moral clarity that left his deputies exhilarated. Action, he told them, was preferable to hesitation ... Mr. Giuliani armored himself with a tight band of lawyers and investigators, men known as the “Yes Rudys!” One of them tended to the prosecutor’s political future, another to the deputies, a third handled leaks to the press. ...Mr. Giuliani’s wife at the time, Donna Hanover, was a television anchor, and they cultivated reporters like gardeners tending flowers. He sat for interviews that ran for hours. Announcements were timed for the 6 o’clock news.
This all gets back to the difference between people who think all arrested people should be treated equally, and those who think there should be special treatment when those arrested belong to a privileged class, such as the Police Department. The contradiction is striking.

In any other criminal conspiracy, if a prosecutor charged all 6 suspects with the heaviest possible charges, you guys would love it - because one of the 6 would undoubtedly turn and rat on the true perpetrator. But suddenly that tried and true prosecutorial tactic is somehow shocking and corrupt.

 
Sigh, guys, Rudy was never DA in Baltimore. this will play a role in the defense motions, either the defendants will include Mosby's appearance on stage in their motions or the judge will just take notice. If you think it will have no effect, fine, IMO it's one more thing for the defense to point to.

 
Waving to the crowd at a concert is tainting the jury pool? Then what is leaking grand jury testimony to the press and doing TV interviews?

www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/us/politics/10prosecutor.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

There was, however, another side to the young prosecutor, a moralistic and carnivorously ambitious man who desired public office. Mr. Giuliani, who was 38 when he became United States attorney in 1983, threatened his targets with long prison sentences, and he infuriated judges with leaks of grand jury testimony to the press. .... Like a medieval crusader, he rarely flinched at hard tactics in pursuit of exalted goals.

In 1987, about 50 armed marshals raided and locked down the investment firm Princeton/Newport Partners. A federal appellate court overturned that racketeering conviction, but the firm remained shuttered. “We were in the wrong place at the wrong time,” said financier Jay Regan, a principal at Princeton/Newport. “It’s strange to be sacrificed on someone’s altar.”

He possessed a junkyard-dog toughness and moral clarity that left his deputies exhilarated. Action, he told them, was preferable to hesitation ... Mr. Giuliani armored himself with a tight band of lawyers and investigators, men known as the “Yes Rudys!” One of them tended to the prosecutor’s political future, another to the deputies, a third handled leaks to the press. ...Mr. Giuliani’s wife at the time, Donna Hanover, was a television anchor, and they cultivated reporters like gardeners tending flowers. He sat for interviews that ran for hours. Announcements were timed for the 6 o’clock news.
This all gets back to the difference between people who think all arrested people should be treated equally, and those who think there should be special treatment when those arrested belong to a privileged class, such as the Police Department. The contradiction is striking.

In any other criminal conspiracy, if a prosecutor charged all 6 suspects with the heaviest possible charges, you guys would love it - because one of the 6 would undoubtedly turn and rat on the true perpetrator. But suddenly that tried and true prosecutorial tactic is somehow shocking and corrupt.
No, don't speak for all of us. I wouldn't paint my opposition with such a broad brush. I think Mosby has done some weird stuff and don't like it. I also don't like overcharging when it's directed at people who aren't the police. There are a lot of problems with overcharging, not the least of which is that it often prevents a constitutionally guaranteed right of a jury of one's peers.

eta* BTW, I'm so willing to criticize your posts that I don't think I've stated enough that I enjoy reading them. Fair, insightful, empirical with merit, etc. :thumbup:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Waving to the crowd at a concert is tainting the jury pool? Then what is leaking grand jury testimony to the press and doing TV interviews?

www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/us/politics/10prosecutor.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

There was, however, another side to the young prosecutor, a moralistic and carnivorously ambitious man who desired public office. Mr. Giuliani, who was 38 when he became United States attorney in 1983, threatened his targets with long prison sentences, and he infuriated judges with leaks of grand jury testimony to the press. .... Like a medieval crusader, he rarely flinched at hard tactics in pursuit of exalted goals.

In 1987, about 50 armed marshals raided and locked down the investment firm Princeton/Newport Partners. A federal appellate court overturned that racketeering conviction, but the firm remained shuttered. “We were in the wrong place at the wrong time,” said financier Jay Regan, a principal at Princeton/Newport. “It’s strange to be sacrificed on someone’s altar.”

He possessed a junkyard-dog toughness and moral clarity that left his deputies exhilarated. Action, he told them, was preferable to hesitation ... Mr. Giuliani armored himself with a tight band of lawyers and investigators, men known as the “Yes Rudys!” One of them tended to the prosecutor’s political future, another to the deputies, a third handled leaks to the press. ...Mr. Giuliani’s wife at the time, Donna Hanover, was a television anchor, and they cultivated reporters like gardeners tending flowers. He sat for interviews that ran for hours. Announcements were timed for the 6 o’clock news.
This all gets back to the difference between people who think all arrested people should be treated equally, and those who think there should be special treatment when those arrested belong to a privileged class, such as the Police Department. The contradiction is striking.

In any other criminal conspiracy, if a prosecutor charged all 6 suspects with the heaviest possible charges, you guys would love it - because one of the 6 would undoubtedly turn and rat on the true perpetrator. But suddenly that tried and true prosecutorial tactic is somehow shocking and corrupt.
No, don't speak for all of us. I wouldn't paint my opposition with such a broad brush. I think Mosby has done some weird stuff and don't like it. I also don't like overcharging when it's directed at people who aren't the police. There are a lot of problems with overcharging, not the least of which is that it often prevents a constitutionally guaranteed right of a jury of one's peers.

eta* BTW, I'm so willing to criticize your posts that I don't think I've stated enough that I enjoy reading them. Fair, insightful, empirical with merit, etc. :thumbup:
It's all good, though I got a little hot under the collar when the riots were happening and the curfew was imposed. It really is kind of strange when it's your hometown that's the one under the microscope - not least because of the complete inaccuracies that get bandied about in the national discourse.

And this is definitely a conundrum for me as a fierce civil libertarian. I think it's malfeasance when a prosecutor grossly violates the due process of regular citizens, so it's hard for me to get real excited when I see her do the same to these police. But when you really drill into my stance on civil rights, I think the most serious thing the state can do is take away a citizen's freedom and when it does so - like when the Police arrested Freddie Gray - it is incumbent upon that authority to safeguard that citizen's life and well-being until it has restored his freedom, especially when his case hasn't yet been adjudicated. In the case of Freddie Gray it turns out he probably had committed no crime, he went into Police custody, and he emerged dead. As I have said before, someone must be held accountable when a free citizen has his life unjustly taken by agents of the state.

I've also been very impressed by the way the Governor - who I thought was a lightweight - has handled this. And I've been gratified to see the Mayor's imperious, ineffective and shallow ways exposed. My enduring regret is that the riots happened at all. The fact that they happened after 3 days of (almost entirely) peaceful protests, and have been followed by another fortnight of calm strengthens my belief that they arose out of an unnecessarily confrontational encounter between police and high school students. I have been proud of Baltimore's response (except for the egregious curfew) and the way the city has come together in the wake of both the Gray incident and the riots that followed.

 
Which is irrelevant if the van Freddie Gray was riding in had seat belts and they were not used.
Wait, did the van Gray was in actually have seat belts?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-gray-rough-rides-20150423-story.html#page=1

The reports keep saying he was unbuckled as though someone refused or failed to buckle him in, but was there a way to do that?

 
Officer cleared in Wisconsin. Protestors

Yeah, Erin is race baiting every chance she gets on this one too. Two straight guests she has peppered with leading questions about racism being the cause, despite no evidence to support that other than the cop was white and the victim was mixed race. I was very impressed with the first guest, the cousin of the victim. When Erin race baited him he responded that he did not know, and that if anything it was proabbly more about his socio-economic class than anything.

 
And in 1980, a 58-year-old man broke his neck and became paralyzed during a ride to the Southwestern District. While seated on a bench with his hands cuffed behind his back, John Wheatfall was thrown to the floor and hit his head against a wall, The Sun reported. The officer said he swerved to avoid an oncoming car, and investigators ruled that the officer was not reckless.

At the time, the vans did not have seat belts, and police officials said installing them could cause other injuries during accidents. An official said: "We carry thousands and thousands of people in those wagons, and this is the most serious accident I've ever heard of."

Wheatfall sued for $3 million, but a judge ruled that there was no evidence the officer was negligent. The jury granted Wheatfall $20,000, the maximum amount under a state law when an accident is caused by an unknown driver of another vehicle.
That was a long time ago but it sounds really similar.

 
Which is irrelevant if the van Freddie Gray was riding in had seat belts and they were not used.
Wait, did the van Gray was in actually have seat belts?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-gray-rough-rides-20150423-story.html#page=1

The reports keep saying he was unbuckled as though someone refused or failed to buckle him in, but was there a way to do that?
i have not seen any definitive report saying the van had working seat belts, but I'm almost certain that was the case. Mosby wouldn't have mentioned it if there weren't seat belts in the van.The seat belt policy is going to be a crucial aspect of this case - probably the most important element. The Prosecution will point to the new policy enacted by the PD only a few days prior to Gray's death mandating the usage of seat belts. The Defense will argue that the new procedure was poorly communicated. I read somewhere that new procedures like this are often lumped together and released to the Cops in a weekly email. They will also argue that buckling in a combative prisoner in a confined space like that, where you have to lean right across the prisoner, is dangerous and that it's common practice for cops not to buckle in prisoners in such circumstances. Lastly, the Defense will argue that if the policy mandating seat belt usage was in fact so steadfast and hardcore, why are there so many vans in the region without any seat belts?

Unless the Prosecution has some evidence here we are unaware of, like street videos or GPS data showing high rates of speed, or if one of the Officers flips and tells a story of Goodson saying that he gave him a rough ride - the State doesn't have a chance in hell of getting a Murder 2 charge here. Not a chance.

 
Is this what Gray was actually riding in?

View from floor toward door of 2006 GMC Savana prisoner transport van. Benches seat five a side and are outfitted with grab straps. Vents provide heat or air. One-way glass is between prisoners and driver.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-seatbelts-police-vans-20150508-story.html#page=1&lightbox=83508088
No. The van Gray was in was split down the middle with two separate compartments. It was a very confined space which will work in Officer Goodson's favor I think.
 
Is this what Gray was actually riding in?

View from floor toward door of 2006 GMC Savana prisoner transport van. Benches seat five a side and are outfitted with grab straps. Vents provide heat or air. One-way glass is between prisoners and driver.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-seatbelts-police-vans-20150508-story.html#page=1&lightbox=83508088
No. The van Gray was in was split down the middle with two separate compartments. It was a very confined space which will work in Officer Goodson's favor I think.
Ok thanks a lot.

 
Baltimore Sun

Violence surges as Baltimore police officers feel hesitant

As the number of shootings and homicides has surged in Baltimore, some police officers say they feel hesitant on the job under intense public scrutiny and in the wake of criminal charges against six officers in the Freddie Gray case.

State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby's decision last week to charge the officers has stoked strong opinions across the country — includingpraise from those who want accountability and derision from some legal experts.

But perhaps the most jarring effect has been on the Baltimore Police Department.

"In 29 years, I've gone through some bad times, but I've never seen it this bad," said Lt. Kenneth Butler, president of the Vanguard Justice Society, a group for black Baltimore police officers. Officers "feel as though the state's attorney will hang them out to dry."

Several officers said in interviews they are concerned crime could spike as officers are hesitant to do their jobs, and criminals sense opportunity. Butler, a shift commander in the Southern District, said his officers are expressing reluctance to go after crime.

"I'm hearing it from guys who were go-getters, who would go out here and get the guns and the bad guys and drugs. They're hands-off now," Butler said. "I've never seen so many dejected faces.

"Policing, as we once knew it, has changed."

Lt. Victor Gearhart, a 33-year veteran who works in the Southern District, said residents with complaints about police "are going to get the police force they want, and God help them."

Edward C. Jackson, a retired Baltimore police colonel who teaches at Baltimore City Community College, said he is worried about crime spiking if officers go into a "work slowdown" to avoid proactive police work.

"Baltimore can ill afford having cops do the bare minimum," he said. "The bad guys are going to take advantage of a slowdown. It's a terrible situation for the city to be in."

The city has seen 40 shootings since April 28, the day after the city's most intense day of rioting, including 10 on Thursday alone. There also have been 15 homicides in that span, bringing the year's total to 82 — 20 more than at the same time last year.

One city leader said he doesn't believe officers are treading too cautiously on the job, but he acknowledged that the stress from protests, rioting and federal investigations is wearing on police, as is fatigue for officers who worked 14- and 15-hour days several days in a row during the unrest.

"You have a perfect storm," City Councilman Brandon M. Scott said. "First of all, I think everyone is tired. But you also have to realize for everything that's going on in the city last week, we still have a violence problem in the city, and it's just being exacerbated by the light being shined on Baltimore."

Scott said he doesn't believe officers are being "purposefully hesitant."

"They have a pride in their job," Scott said. "They would not do that to prove a point."

He urged officers to focus on their individual jobs and not the daily developments that grow out of the Gray case. Scott said he is asking for an immediate accounting of the well-being, staffing and deployment of officers as well as patrol strategies to ensure police haven't been spread too thin or deployed in the wrong places.

Scott said he does not believe the violence is spiraling out of control.

"I am concerned, and I don't think it is, but I want to make sure we're going to right the ship and put people where they need to be," Scott said.

Baltimore police said Friday that they're assessing their patrol plans to make sure the city is covered adequately.

"Every loss of life is tragic, and we have an obligation as a department to provide safe communities for our citizens,"

Baltimore police spokesman Sgt. Jarron Jackson said. "We're evaluating our deployment strategies to ensure that we're doing that."

It remains to be seen how the tensions will affect relations between police and prosecutors, who must work together to build cases.

Mosby often notes that she comes from a family with five generations of police officers, and during the announcement of the charges last week stressed they were not "an indictment of the entire force."

Gray, 25, died a week after sustaining a severed spine and other injuries while in police custody.

Mosby charged the driver of the police van that transported Gray with second-degree murder and the other officers with offenses that included involuntary manslaughter, false imprisonment and misconduct in office.

On Friday, the attorneys for the six officers charged in Gray's death filed a motion to dismiss the case and asked for the recusal of Mosby, claiming "overzealous prosecution" and an array of conflicts of interest.

Mosby said in a statement this week that she would not discuss the pending case, but cautioned that prosecutors have information that supports the charges that has not been made public. Mosby declined to comment Friday.

Baltimore attorney J. Wyndal Gordon said officers should clean up their act if they are worried about being charged.

"Mosby has sent a clear message that the way they've been doing things in the past is no longer acceptable," Gordon said. "We're going to see more-attuned police officers. They will think before they act."
Legal analyst and civil rights attorney Lisa Bloom wrote on her blog that Mosby "did precisely what prosecutors are supposed to do" and that the shock surrounding her decision to charge the officers comes from a history of cases involving police being handled differently.

The police union has said the charges against the officers were rushed, and have pointed to prosecutors including incorrect identifying information on the charging documents. The state's attorney's office investigated the case for three weeks before charges were brought.

Officers and legal experts said they are concerned about Mosby's contention that Gray was falsely arrested. Mosby said that three officers failed to establish probable cause, as no crime had been committed. She said the knife Gray was carrying was not illegal under Maryland law, making the arrest "illegal."

Former federal prosecutor Jason Weinstein, who held a leadership post in the Justice Department, said the remedy for failing to establish proper probable cause is that "a defendant goes free — not that an officer goes to jail."

The result could have a "chilling effect" on officers, preventing them from making "good faith judgments" when making arrests, Weinstein said.

Jackson, the retired Baltimore police colonel, agreed.

"It's very dangerous to say the intent is criminal if the officer is simply wrong about probable cause," he said. "I don't think the response to that should be a criminal indictment of the police officer. Cops make mistakes all the time with arrests about probable cause. They're not lawyers. That's why we have courts to determine if the probable cause was sufficient."

Sgt. Robert F. Cherry, former president of the police union, said city officials have encouraged officers to perform aggressive enforcement to lower crime numbers.

"The same people they asked to aggressively police that area then turn around and say things like, 'Why were they chasing him?'" Cherry said, referring to Gray. "Officers engage in things like this every day."

Cherry said the Police Department could improve. As union president, he pushed a plan that would improve the quality of officers. Still, he sees an agency that has drastically reduced the number of arrests and brutality complaints, while the city has seen decreases in violent crime."We gained so much ground. We've come so far, and if only we had leaders who would give police credit during this whole crisis and admit that, while we can always improve, we wouldn't be able to get a lot of this done if we didn't have good relationships. Somehow that all got missed," Cherry said.

"It's not just fear of getting charged if a case doesn't meet Marilyn Mosby's expectation of a standard for probable cause. We're only doing what we were asked to do."

 
So either we let the police have a free rein, or they become so demoralized that they won't be able to keep the streets safe? Are those really our only two choices?

 
So either we let the police have a free rein, or they become so demoralized that they won't be able to keep the streets safe? Are those really our only two choices?
We've created a horrible environment for police. Cop shootings are up 89% over last year. Crime is starting to go up. It's perfectly logical what's happening, and what's going to happen. Dust off your Abba records Tim.
 
So either we let the police have a free rein, or they become so demoralized that they won't be able to keep the streets safe? Are those really our only two choices?
We've created a horrible environment for police. Cop shootings are up 89% over last year. Crime is starting to go up. It's perfectly logical what's happening, and what's going to happen. Dust off your Abba records Tim.
i don't buy it. I think police are angry about all of these cameras catching some of them behaving badly, and that they don't like being questioned, so they're deliberately backing off and then saying, "Hey we're scared to be police these days." It's crap IMO. The police have a responsibility not to behave badly, not to target and mistreat young black men, not to racially profile, and they have to keep the streets safe. Most of them are quite capable of handling all this. The ones that aren't shouldn't be police.
 
So either we let the police have a free rein, or they become so demoralized that they won't be able to keep the streets safe? Are those really our only two choices?
We've created a horrible environment for police. Cop shootings are up 89% over last year. Crime is starting to go up. It's perfectly logical what's happening, and what's going to happen. Dust off your Abba records Tim.
Do you have a citation for this statement? Because this editorial seems to say the exact opposite:

First, this isn’t the late 1960s. By noting that Brian Moore is the fifth NYPD officer shot since December, both Cohen and Green imply that police officers today operate in an increasingly dangerous environment. That just isn’t true. I’ve made this point many times over the last few years, but the job of policing has been getting progressively safer since the mid-1990s, and today is as safe as it has ever been. About half as many cops are killed on the job today as in 1968, despite the fact that there are significantly more cops on the street. So far this year, 10 U.S. police officers have been killed by gunfire. That puts us on pace for 29 by the end of the year. That would be the lowest raw number in well more than half a century. And again, once you factor in the increase in the number of cops overall, the drop in the homicide rate among cops is even more dramatic.
 
And as far as cop shootings being up 89% over last year, that's a completely absurd, irrelevant statistic. The odds of a policeman being shot in this country remain almost impossibly low.

 
And as far as cop shootings being up 89% over last year, that's a completely absurd, irrelevant statistic. The odds of a policeman being shot in this country remain almost impossibly low.
but still higher than a law abiding citizen getting shot by the police.

 
So either we let the police have a free rein, or they become so demoralized that they won't be able to keep the streets safe? Are those really our only two choices?
I have a post further up about the experience in NO. We have been through the ringer on this, we have had actual prosecutions of policemen, but yes that has been the experience here, post reforms. The impact has largely been in cops just quitting, but they often just don't answer or are slow to respond. Undermanned, underpaid, overwatched, policing has definitely changed here. I say that as someone who advocated for reforms and still believe in them, but it is what it is.

 
So either we let the police have a free rein, or they become so demoralized that they won't be able to keep the streets safe? Are those really our only two choices?
We've created a horrible environment for police. Cop shootings are up 89% over last year. Crime is starting to go up. It's perfectly logical what's happening, and what's going to happen. Dust off your Abba records Tim.
If you're going to use statistics to prove a point, then stop cherry-picking. Cop shootings were up in 2014 compared to 2013, but that's because 2013 was an all time low. 2014 was also very low compared to other years.

 
Line of duty officers killed is up 89% in 2014, but 2013 was the lowest in 35 years

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-report-51-law-enforcement-officers-killed-2014-n357206
The link embedded in the section of the editorial I cited (from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund) had slightly higher numbers and only a 10% increase from 2013 to 2014, but most importantly shows the same slow and steady decline since the 70s.
Over the same time frame... Haven't incarceration rates also gone up over the same time period? And haven't crime rates gone down? Would it be so surprising if police deaths would also be down?

I'm reading Tso's comments to mean the events since the Ferguson and Garnier controversies, the change in media tone and street protests and the corresponding rise in cop deaths in that time frame.

It just seems like two different issues.

 
Instead, the Governor just kept waiting and calling and waiting and calling, until finally the Mayor had to knuckle under to preserve the city and request his assistance with the Guard. She basically played chicken and lost, with local businesses paying the price of her failed gamble.
I wonder how many lawsuits have been filed against the city already? The mayor has basically opened the coffers and will be handing out checks for a long time here.


Mark Davis said:
Believe me I took no offense. I don't buy into the liberal policies thing being the primary reason Baltimore is in trouble. Put a Republican mayor in Baltimore and it's not going to be paradise either.
Eh - when you have single party control for 50 years and the city is in the shape it's in one side should get the blame. When you spend 17k per child in the schools and you get the results you're getting one side should get the blame.

 
So either we let the police have a free rein, or they become so demoralized that they won't be able to keep the streets safe? Are those really our only two choices?
Its about managing expectations imo - Police have been given free rein for a very long time, so curtailing that a bit will have some demoralizing effects. But, that is not a reason not to reconfigure expectations.

Our policing in general could use an overhaul, where more emphasis is placed on rebuilding trust in all communities, rather than policing via brute force and terror (which is how some communities feel). But that will take a shift in the overall perception of what we want from police and the justice system.

Just like reforms that are needed to our education system, I think these changes are simply too big and all-encompassing to ever take place.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top