Baltimore prosecutor charges police with murder in death of Freddie Gray

[rushmc 18]

skycop

"And I am glad YOU know they (the cops) are guilty"

I'm waiting for the facts as well, but the not seeking immediate medical attention is going to jam them up, BAD.

I'll let our legal expert Andy explain "wanton" behavior, and it's potential legal consequences.

I agree with the medical attention point
It was obvious (at least in the video I saw) that he needed help
But then, this guy has a history with the police there. He may have cried wolf too many times for all we know
But I still think the EMT's should have been called

From what I just heard, there is much more to come out. I think, from a pure political perspective, this one may get really ugly

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 622]

False imprisonment should be a rather serious violation too in my mind.
Trumped up charges happen way too often. She made it clear there was NO reason to stop, NO reason to arrest, and false charges were filed.
M2 will most likely be impossible, I don't see a way to that, but there is probably a lot of evidence that we won't see.
I'd think she has a good deal of hard evidence now to press charges without a grand jury.

[skycop 0]

Quote

Thankfully, the prosecutor there disagrees with your position.
That could be why it's becoming so important for cops to actually know the law.

Disagree with what? I've basically agreed to what you said, the prosecutor is just trying to prove her case. If this had gone another way, this would have been a non-issue.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[skycop 0]

Quote

From what I just heard, there is much more to come out. I think, from a pure political perspective, this one may get really ugly

That is a given, no matter what side you are on..........

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[rushmc 18]

skycop

Quote

From what I just heard, there is much more to come out. I think, from a pure political perspective, this one may get really ugly

That is a given, no matter what side you are on..........

The prosecutor's husband is on the city council there
The lawer for Grey has tight connections to the prosecutor

The police union is stating that prosecutor should recuse herself because of conflicts of interest

More to come I guess

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

For what it is worth, this is the police unions position

http://touch.baltimoresun.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83434661/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[yoink 321]

grue

I did it once when I was younger just to see if they'd actually chase me.

Me too.


It's all fun and games until someone gets shot in the back.

[normiss 622]

Stop resisting!
The nice officer is in fear for his life!

[normiss 622]

I think a lot of folks, including the prosecutor, disagree with:

"The guy is a known criminal, acting suspiciously , all you need is reasonable suspicion to stop him and ask him why he is running or acting in that way. The area he was in was also a high crime area.
If he refused to stop then legal consequences apply, he can be forcibly stopped with reasonable suspicion."

As she stated: "No crime had been committed by Mr. Gray"

So why is he dead?

[Boomerdog 0]

Murder two on the paddy wagon driver with an extra charge of depraved indiffrence?

This I gotta see.

The Maryland States Attorney better have the goods to get a conviction on this one.

[normiss 622]

Fresh bone fractures, an injury they already claims matches a bolt in the van, put in there in a manner that was prohibited.
Those are the reasons a local news outlet is claiming anyway.
It's going to be next to an impossible sell I think.
Odds of getting any sort of a normal trial in that jurisdiction?
Same odds.

[grue 1]

Boomerdog

Murder two on the paddy wagon driver with an extra charge of depraved indiffrence?

This I gotta see.

The Maryland States Attorney better have the goods to get a conviction on this one.

I've seen cops charged with "too heavy" of a charge before, and the cynic in me believes it's to be seen doing something, without worrying about actually putting a cop in jail.

cavete terrae.

[billvon 2,400]

>Why would some one who doesn't have anything illegal on him run when he sees
>a group of cops?

Because they are, unfortunately, getting a reputation for beating and killing people that do not have anything illegal on them.

[Amazon 7]

billvon

>Why would some one who doesn't have anything illegal on him run when he sees
>a group of cops?

Because they are, unfortunately, getting a reputation for beating and killing people that do not have anything illegal on them.

Unless as we have seen in more than one video of a cop magically "finding" an amount of drugs on someone.

[AndyBoyd 0]

skycop

@ryoder
That is complete bullshit.
Read Terry vs. Ohio

The guy is a known criminal, acting suspiciously , all you need is reasonable suspicion to stop him and ask him why he is running or acting in that way. The area he was in was also a high crime area.
If he refused to stop then legal consequences apply, he can be forcibly stopped with reasonable suspicion.

Ryoder's post addressed probable cause to arrest. Terry stops have to do with reasonable suspicion to briefly detain and investigate. These are two different concepts.

http://thelawdictionary.org/article/definitions-of-probable-cause-vs-reasonable-suspicion/

Yes, officers may use force to effect a Terry stop, but that force must be reasonable under the circumstances. Reasonable suspicion does not give the officer the right to beat the crap out of some poor guy. Or to bounce him around in the back of a paddy wagon until his spine snaps.

https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/imported_files/training/programs/legal-division/downloads-articles-and-faqs/research-by-subject/4th-amendment/terryfriskupdate.pdf

[champu 1]

grue

I've seen cops charged with "too heavy" of a charge before, and the cynic in me believes it's to be seen doing something, without worrying about actually putting a cop in jail.

I don't know if it's a universal concept but in at least some jurisdictions there is such a thing as a "lesser included charge" where you can be charged for, say, murder and end up being found guilty of manslaughter.

You can't go the other way though, as was recently demonstrated in Illinois when an off-duty cop fired his gun over his shoulder into an alley while fleeing and killed someone. He was charged with involuntary manslaughter and acquitted because what he did wasn't involuntary manslaughter... ...it was murder.

/edited again... Yuck, I butchered that last sentence twice

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

You can't go the other way though, as was recently demonstrated in Illinois when an off-duty cop fired his gun over his shoulder into an alley while fleeing and killed someone. He was charged with involuntary manslaughter and acquitted because what he did didn't wasn't involuntary manslaughter... ...it was murder.

This was and is a very controversial decision around here. This was a bench trial. The judge basically said that he thought the defendant was guilty of intentional murder, but because he was charged only with recklessness, and there was only evidence of intent, he found the guy not guilty. Some people agreed with the judge, while others argued that the more culpable mental state (intent) necessarily included the lesser mental state (recklessness). I tend to think the second argument was the better one, but that's just my 2 cents.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

rhaig

***

Quote

As such it really can be difficult to establish the legality of a blade at a distance.

It wasn't at a distance.

He ran, they chased. Caught him, then frisked him. Found the knife and arrested him for possession of a switchblade. Prosecutor today says it was a legal knife.

How hard is it to tell the difference when you have the knife in your hands?

so when you asked the question above, you weren't asking a question... you were being intentionally obtuse. Ok. I won't offer any more info then.

Yes I was asking. You offered that it can be difficult at a distance. Thanks for the answer, but it doesn't apply here. They would have had the knife in their hands. So is it still hard to identify when you are holding it?

[mpohl 1]

I'd like those Americans who blamed Freddie Gray for his own demise to consider this: (1) Walking in your own neighborhood, (2) making eye contact with a police sergeant, and (3) running in the opposite direction taken together do not constitute a crime. It is not a crime if you are white, and it shouldn't be a crime if you are black.

[xsniper 1]

skycop

Quote

From what I just heard, there is much more to come out. I think, from a pure political perspective, this one may get really ugly

That is a given, no matter what side you are on..........

No Doubt!!

[rhaig 0]

SkyDekker

Yes I was asking. You offered that it can be difficult at a distance. Thanks for the answer, but it doesn't apply here. They would have had the knife in their hands. So is it still hard to identify when you are holding it?

a "switchblade" is generally defined as opening with the press of a button or other device. That button is usually pretty obvious once the knife is in hand. There is another class of knife referred to as a spring-assist open. Those are (depending on the definition in law) generally not considered a "switchblade". The blade on a spring-assist knife is pushed open with (usually) the thumb and once past a certain point, the spring takes over and opens the blade.

So while an officer might have thought a spring-assist knife was a switchblade, it (depending on law) might not be illegal. (assuming it was a spring-assist)

summary: usually no, once in hand, it's pretty obvious, though sometimes a spring-assist blade is misidentified or the legal classification is vague enough that it's thought to be a switchblade.

--
Rob

[normiss 622]

Agreed, seen it before.
To include back pay.

Right back on the street. Like the last ones sued for the rough rides.

[skycop 0]

Quote

Yes, officers may use force to effect a Terry stop, but that force must be reasonable under the circumstances. Reasonable suspicion does not give the officer the right to beat the crap out of some poor guy. Or to bounce him around in the back of a paddy wagon until his spine snaps.

Well no shit.

The prosecutor denied probable cause for the arrest why? Because she can, now she will use that as leverage in criminal proceedings against the cops. This is now as much of a political issue, as a legal one.

I love to hear many talk about the "Thin Blue Line", there really isn't one regarding misconduct. One or more of these guys will roll on the other, I've seen it happen before.
They are just like anyone else when faced with legal pressure.

But there are two sides to every story as well, once facts actually matter, it will be interesting how this shakes out.
The officers willfully violating policy will be the key to who gets jammed up the worst.

This decision is going to be just one of the things that is going to help this thing get uglier than it already is.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[DanG 1]

Based on available evidence,what do you think these guys should have been charged with, if anything?

- Dan G

[wmw999 2,123]

Quote

But there are two sides to every story as well, once facts actually matter, it will be interesting how this shakes out.

That's true for the people being apprehended, as well as the ones doing the apprehending. In the heat of the moment, neither gives a crap about the other's point of view, but that's where bad decisions come from.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)