The Associated Press & #8207;@AP 58 seconds ago
BREAKING: Prosecutors drop remaining charges against officers in Freddie Gray case, bringing end to case without a conviction.
I think you're speculating as to cost/benefit. You've got a thin budget, are you going to spend your scant resources on body cams or dash cams that can address frequent citizen complaints or in-car cams for the one-off event where someone is seriously injured while riding in a police car?
How many prison transport vehicles do you think they have? 7-10 maybe? How much do you figure wiring up the back of a van with a camera costs? $600 maybe?
So you have a cost of at the most 7-10K to camera them up. One case that is solved from info obtained via those cameras pay for themselves. 10K does not ruin a major police depts budget, especially when on top of the investigative aspects, that 10K can eliminate BS lawsuits also.
I understand your point, but I think you're optimistic about cost. The private sector may be able to do that at the cost specified, but we're talking about a big city patronage machine doing it. Extrapolating down from the Big Dig/MTA/Port Authority, this could easily cost 50-70k. You can still make the economic argument, but it no longer is blatantly obvious.
I looked it up, its $4200 for a color surveillance system like what you see on Cops to be wired up. You don't need that high end of a unit, so figure $3500 a unit. 35K is a drop in the bucket for the residual savings obtained utilizing these
You forgot the patronage surcharge. And that's not unique to Baltimore. I'll stick with 50-70k.
it's also a standard call in the DiLA and Sonic playbook to blame the police. if it makes the news, the police are guilty. lack of convictions are 'botched justice' according to D
Not really. Point out where I blamed anyone in my post?
And also, this is very much so a pot meet kettle situation. You wear your bias on your sleeve and don't even try to be objective. I will fully admit that I can be weary of official explanations, but at least I attempt to see the other side and be objective.
Basically, there was a comment made that Freddie Gray was acting like an animal. I wanted to know if it was true or if it was a comment made with an ulterior motive.
it's also a standard call in the DiLA and Sonic playbook to blame the police. if it makes the news, the police are guilty. lack of convictions are 'botched justice' according to D
And also, I love how the mantra I've always said - more oversight, more accountability, de-escalation, and equal treatment of all under law - is somehow "blame the police". Your binary way of looking at things is disingenuous.
"acting like an animal" when placed in the van? Maybe it happened and I missed it, but I recall hearing it the way bc4life posted - that he was limping, injured, and handcuffed.
Just curious if there was merit to what madcow said and there's part of the story that I missed, or if there is an ulterior agenda behind madcow's framing of the events.
I checked Wikipeida, and there are numerous references to video of him being motionless while arrested or bystanders saying he was hurt/in pain. The police report says that he was put in leg irons due to acting irate (obviously their report says that. Don't trust that source much, but also don't trust some of the bystanders who likely embellished). However, the only video of him being put in the van, according to Wiki, doesn't show him "acting like an animal". And the police themselves said "irate", not belligerent, combative, aggressive, etc.
So, like I said, just wondering if I missed something else. And if not, I'd love to hear why he was "acting like an animal".
I also find it pretty interesting that there is actual uncertainty as to whether the knife was legal. Regardless, it's a little strange that in the same country where certain people can walk around with guns, either concealed or displayed, a man was arrested, injured, and died in custody over a knife that may or may not have been illegal. Even if it was illegal, it just doesn't make any sense. Also, wouldn't they need a reason to search him to actually find that knife in the first place?
There's too many of these cases, and I haven't really followed this one too closely.
According to the ME report (autopsy), Gray had no trauma to his body other than the spinal injury. No abrasions, no contusions, no subdural hemotomas.
a conviction being necessary for the louisiana shooting. details of that shooting still not known.
but you insisted that it would be botched justice to not convict.
you took a sound byte and created your own narrative around it. By botched justice, I'm commenting about the fact that the whole incident shouldn't have escalated to the point that it did, and that frustration from BLM stemming from seeing this play out at the frequency that it does is not likely to result in charges that stick, creating an ugly situation all around.
"acting like an animal" when placed in the van? Maybe it happened and I missed it, but I recall hearing it the way bc4life posted - that he was limping, injured, and handcuffed.
Just curious if there was merit to what madcow said and there's part of the story that I missed, or if there is an ulterior agenda behind madcow's framing of the events.
I checked Wikipeida, and there are numerous references to video of him being motionless while arrested or bystanders saying he was hurt/in pain. The police report says that he was put in leg irons due to acting irate (obviously their report says that. Don't trust that source much, but also don't trust some of the bystanders who likely embellished). However, the only video of him being put in the van, according to Wiki, doesn't show him "acting like an animal". And the police themselves said "irate", not belligerent, combative, aggressive, etc.
So, like I said, just wondering if I missed something else. And if not, I'd love to hear why he was "acting like an animal".
I also find it pretty interesting that there is actual uncertainty as to whether the knife was legal. Regardless, it's a little strange that in the same country where certain people can walk around with guns, either concealed or displayed, a man was arrested, injured, and died in custody over a knife that may or may not have been illegal. Even if it was illegal, it just doesn't make any sense. Also, wouldn't they need a reason to search him to actually find that knife in the first place?
There's too many of these cases, and I haven't really followed this one too closely.
According to the ME report (autopsy), Gray had no trauma to his body other than the spinal injury. No abrasions, no contusions, no subdural hemotomas.
Yes, the wiki article I stated made references to a limp but I didn't see anything about a previous injury and I am very hesitant to trust eyewitness reports since I think, at this point, without a video, and considering the polarization of the country, they're unreliable. For example, a witness said Gray was beaten with batons. I'm 99.99999% sure that's bullshit considering the batons would probably leave a visible injury.
What I was really trying to understand was the animal comment because I haven't really seen it referenced anywhere - even by the police themselves, who used the word "irate".
Here's the references I am making to a limp:
Code:
Two bystanders captured Gray's arrest with video recordings, showing Gray, screaming in pain,[40] being dragged to a police van by officers, and then stepping up into the van. A bystander with connections to Gray stated that the officers were previously "folding" Gray—with one officer bending Gray's legs backwards, and another holding Gray down by pressing a knee into Gray's neck. Witnesses commented Gray "couldn't walk",[41] "can't use his legs",[42] and "his leg look broke and you all dragging him like that".[43] Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony W. Batts noted from the video that, "Gray stood on one leg and climbed into the van on his own."[44] The Baltimore Sun reported that another witness saw Gray being beaten with police batons.[5][45].... At 8:46 a.m., Gray was unloaded in order to be placed in leg irons because police said he was acting irate. Gray's shackling was recorded on a cellphone, which exhibited a motionless Gray surrounded by several officers as he was restrained.[46]
I attached the link. I like to go to Wikipedia since they cite their sources and usually at least try to keep things factual. But I the limp or prior injury wasn't the crux of my question. It was more the animal comment. Freddie Gray Incident Wiki - ( New Window )
why wouldn't you keep the knife out? What relevance does it have to whether he was hurt on the trip? It is the job of a prosecutor to keep out irrelevant information that may poison the trier of fact against the prosecution, just as it is the job of the defense to keep out irrelevant information or semi-relevant information that may poison the trier of fact against the defendant. It's an adversarial process, people who think there is something unconscionable about acting in an adversarial manner at trial would be well-served to understand that.
RE: RE: RE: Can someone please cite where Freddie Gray was Â
"acting like an animal" when placed in the van? Maybe it happened and I missed it, but I recall hearing it the way bc4life posted - that he was limping, injured, and handcuffed.
Just curious if there was merit to what madcow said and there's part of the story that I missed, or if there is an ulterior agenda behind madcow's framing of the events.
I checked Wikipeida, and there are numerous references to video of him being motionless while arrested or bystanders saying he was hurt/in pain. The police report says that he was put in leg irons due to acting irate (obviously their report says that. Don't trust that source much, but also don't trust some of the bystanders who likely embellished). However, the only video of him being put in the van, according to Wiki, doesn't show him "acting like an animal". And the police themselves said "irate", not belligerent, combative, aggressive, etc.
So, like I said, just wondering if I missed something else. And if not, I'd love to hear why he was "acting like an animal".
I also find it pretty interesting that there is actual uncertainty as to whether the knife was legal. Regardless, it's a little strange that in the same country where certain people can walk around with guns, either concealed or displayed, a man was arrested, injured, and died in custody over a knife that may or may not have been illegal. Even if it was illegal, it just doesn't make any sense. Also, wouldn't they need a reason to search him to actually find that knife in the first place?
There's too many of these cases, and I haven't really followed this one too closely.
According to the ME report (autopsy), Gray had no trauma to his body other than the spinal injury. No abrasions, no contusions, no subdural hemotomas.
Yes, the wiki article I stated made references to a limp but I didn't see anything about a previous injury and I am very hesitant to trust eyewitness reports since I think, at this point, without a video, and considering the polarization of the country, they're unreliable. For example, a witness said Gray was beaten with batons. I'm 99.99999% sure that's bullshit considering the batons would probably leave a visible injury.
What I was really trying to understand was the animal comment because I haven't really seen it referenced anywhere - even by the police themselves, who used the word "irate".
Here's the references I am making to a limp:
Code:
Two bystanders captured Gray's arrest with video recordings, showing Gray, screaming in pain,[40] being dragged to a police van by officers, and then stepping up into the van. A bystander with connections to Gray stated that the officers were previously "folding" Gray—with one officer bending Gray's legs backwards, and another holding Gray down by pressing a knee into Gray's neck. Witnesses commented Gray "couldn't walk",[41] "can't use his legs",[42] and "his leg look broke and you all dragging him like that".[43] Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony W. Batts noted from the video that, "Gray stood on one leg and climbed into the van on his own."[44] The Baltimore Sun reported that another witness saw Gray being beaten with police batons.[5][45].... At 8:46 a.m., Gray was unloaded in order to be placed in leg irons because police said he was acting irate. Gray's shackling was recorded on a cellphone, which exhibited a motionless Gray surrounded by several officers as he was restrained.[46]
I attached the link. I like to go to Wikipedia since they cite their sources and usually at least try to keep things factual. But I the limp or prior injury wasn't the crux of my question. It was more the animal comment. Freddie Gray Incident Wiki - ( New Window )
There's no video that I'm aware of before Gray already has leg shackles on. From that point he was walked about 20 feet to the police van. If he behaved like an animal, it would have been before the shackles were applied, I would think.
why wouldn't you keep the knife out? What relevance does it have to whether he was hurt on the trip? It is the job of a prosecutor to keep out irrelevant information that may poison the trier of fact against the prosecution, just as it is the job of the defense to keep out irrelevant information or semi-relevant information that may poison the trier of fact against the defendant. It's an adversarial process, people who think there is something unconscionable about acting in an adversarial manner at trial would be well-served to understand that.
It was kept out of the trial of one of the arresting officers, who was only charged with some type of official misconduct and reckless endangerment, No murder charge. What did she not want to come out in court?
I hear you. Still haven't found any reference to him behaving so wildly that would substantiate such a dubious claim and charged terminology. Seems more and more like that comment was made to further a specific narrative about the victim.
why wouldn't you keep the knife out? What relevance does it have to whether he was hurt on the trip? It is the job of a prosecutor to keep out irrelevant information that may poison the trier of fact against the prosecution, just as it is the job of the defense to keep out irrelevant information or semi-relevant information that may poison the trier of fact against the defendant. It's an adversarial process, people who think there is something unconscionable about acting in an adversarial manner at trial would be well-served to understand that.
It was kept out of the trial of one of the arresting officers, who was only charged with some type of official misconduct and reckless endangerment, No murder charge. What did she not want to come out in court?
I don't know a ton about the actual dynamics of adversarial legal precedings like this one, so maybe Duned can chime in with a more educated guess, but could it potentially be that the reason the knife was avoided was because it could have brought focus on a prior arrest record?
I'd imagine it wouldn't be a difficult counterpoint to say that you still need probable cause, but that'd probably just evolve into a debate about whether someone running from the police who has a known criminal record would be probably cause for a search. And perhaps that's just a whole different path that obfuscates the actual main issue of the trial?
That whole thing is a wild guess, just my layman's line of thinking (that could be totally wrong here).
and the fact that he was armed at the time of the arrest has little or no relationship to whether or not someone intentionally sought to harm him on the way back to the jail, unless the prosecutor wanted to use it as motive evidence. Otherwise it has the purpose of simply trying to make the defendant look like a bad guy. I'm not saying every judge would necessarily keep it out, only that attempting to keep out particular pieces of evidence or holding defense counsel to the same standards of authentication to which the prosecution is held is not underhanded, it isn't dirty tricks, it's the way trial advocacy works.
and the fact that he was armed at the time of the arrest has little or no relationship to whether or not someone intentionally sought to harm him on the way back to the jail, unless the prosecutor wanted to use it as motive evidence. Otherwise it has the purpose of simply trying to make the defendant look like a bad guy. I'm not saying every judge would necessarily keep it out, only that attempting to keep out particular pieces of evidence or holding defense counsel to the same standards of authentication to which the prosecution is held is not underhanded, it isn't dirty tricks, it's the way trial advocacy works.
The trial in question here was not a murder trial. It was one of the original arresting officers. The police officer/defendant in this case was not charged with anything that happened in the van. The charges related to official misconduct.
Now that all the cases have been adjudicated, let's see how fast the prosecutor moves to have the evidence (knife) destroyed before anyone has a chance to see it.
RE: RE: Putting the focus on why he was arrested... Â
and the fact that he was armed at the time of the arrest has little or no relationship to whether or not someone intentionally sought to harm him on the way back to the jail, unless the prosecutor wanted to use it as motive evidence. Otherwise it has the purpose of simply trying to make the defendant look like a bad guy. I'm not saying every judge would necessarily keep it out, only that attempting to keep out particular pieces of evidence or holding defense counsel to the same standards of authentication to which the prosecution is held is not underhanded, it isn't dirty tricks, it's the way trial advocacy works.
The trial in question here was not a murder trial. It was one of the original arresting officers. The police officer/defendant in this case was not charged with anything that happened in the van. The charges related to official misconduct.
Now that all the cases have been adjudicated, let's see how fast the prosecutor moves to have the evidence (knife) destroyed before anyone has a chance to see it.
Why would they destroy the knife? What is its relevance? What theory do you have regarding the importance of the knife? I'm not even really understanding the full picture of what you're getting at. I get the implication - it's somehow damning - but in what capacity could it even be relevant, let alone damaging?
RE: RE: RE: Putting the focus on why he was arrested... Â
and the fact that he was armed at the time of the arrest has little or no relationship to whether or not someone intentionally sought to harm him on the way back to the jail, unless the prosecutor wanted to use it as motive evidence. Otherwise it has the purpose of simply trying to make the defendant look like a bad guy. I'm not saying every judge would necessarily keep it out, only that attempting to keep out particular pieces of evidence or holding defense counsel to the same standards of authentication to which the prosecution is held is not underhanded, it isn't dirty tricks, it's the way trial advocacy works.
The trial in question here was not a murder trial. It was one of the original arresting officers. The police officer/defendant in this case was not charged with anything that happened in the van. The charges related to official misconduct.
Now that all the cases have been adjudicated, let's see how fast the prosecutor moves to have the evidence (knife) destroyed before anyone has a chance to see it.
Why would they destroy the knife? What is its relevance? What theory do you have regarding the importance of the knife? I'm not even really understanding the full picture of what you're getting at. I get the implication - it's somehow damning - but in what capacity could it even be relevant, let alone damaging?
It really has little to do with the homicide cases, if anything. It goes to Marilyn Mosby's, the State Attorney veracity, who was adamant from day one and continues to this day to state that the knife was legal and thus the arrest wasn't.
Now she deflects responsibility for the not guilty verdicts to everyone and everything but herself. Everyone knows now that her charges were unwarranted. If it can be shown that she also intentionally lied about the knife, in a perfect would it would end her political career.
If there wasn't, Mosby's a bigger idiot than we all think.
Sonic, I think you are taking someone said on this thread and taking it as gospel.
Didn't the DOJ look into this if I'm not mistaken?
All I'm saying is that a lot of other people who had political, etc, reasons other then having a pissing match on BBI have investigated this and found nothing going down your trail.
What makes you think you are going to uncover something new on here that they couldn't?
RE: So the prosecutor doesn't want the knife mentioned in any proceedings. Â
I think you're speculating as to cost/benefit. You've got a thin budget, are you going to spend your scant resources on body cams or dash cams that can address frequent citizen complaints or in-car cams for the one-off event where someone is seriously injured while riding in a police car?
How many prison transport vehicles do you think they have? 7-10 maybe? How much do you figure wiring up the back of a van with a camera costs? $600 maybe?
So you have a cost of at the most 7-10K to camera them up. One case that is solved from info obtained via those cameras pay for themselves. 10K does not ruin a major police depts budget, especially when on top of the investigative aspects, that 10K can eliminate BS lawsuits also.
I understand your point, but I think you're optimistic about cost. The private sector may be able to do that at the cost specified, but we're talking about a big city patronage machine doing it. Extrapolating down from the Big Dig/MTA/Port Authority, this could easily cost 50-70k. You can still make the economic argument, but it no longer is blatantly obvious.
I looked it up, its $4200 for a color surveillance system like what you see on Cops to be wired up. You don't need that high end of a unit, so figure $3500 a unit. 35K is a drop in the bucket for the residual savings obtained utilizing these
You forgot the patronage surcharge. And that's not unique to Baltimore. I'll stick with 50-70k.
\
No I didn't that price quote comes directly from a company that installs them for Police
The average roof-mounted light bar, for instance, costs $1000 to $1800 and needs to be serviced every six months. An in-car camera/VCR - the kind you see on Cops - costs $4200, "though it's worth it," insists Knechtel, "if only to have an audio record of domestic disputes, where somebody always claims the officer was rude."
in the 200 dollar range, but putting one in a cop car 4000?
Audio can't be achieved for less than that?
I'll bet almost all of the videos shown on Tosh.0 or Ridiculousness, or Youtube, are shot on devices that cost far less than $4000.
It's called price gouging. goes on all the time in various industries.
But accepting the cost as being in the thousands instead of the hundreds, budgets usually angle more toward the essentials and then the things that please the unions, like overtime. police in general do not like being recorded.no one does. if you tell me you'd be a-ok with being filmed non stop on your job, I'll tell you you're mistaken. If you have to be good cop all the time, you'll be abused by those you're trying to arrest. I'm not excusing the bad cops of the world, but good cops aren't allowed any leeway in behavior. and recording mostly aids those who want to make mountains out of molehills. even innocent occurrences will be presented as skewed. and of course, you also have the truly dickhead bad cops who don't want to be exposed. so it is no wonder cameras aren't standard issue.
to be made into a complex situation, but the main point is that the lack of convictions is a good ruling. Simply put, the prosecutor overcharged and then doubled down on her incompetence by trying it outside of the courtroom anytime she was in front of the cameras.
If she had focused solely on the van driver or the details of the van ride where Gray was mortally injured, the liklihood of a conviction would've been much higher.
It isn't just in this case, but it happens in many cases where the justice system "works", not necessarily because of innocence or guilt, but because an overzealous prosecutor or a poor defense attorney affect the ruling.
medical attention ever an issue? IIRC, he complained of a sore neck and was ignored and eventually it severed his spine.
Had he been seen by a Dr., it is likely he would have been found to have the broken neck vertebrae.
This was tried in a court of law and unilaterally submissed Â
Why are people still questioning this. Everyone pushes for a trial, but then when the verdict doesn't got their way its not fair. It seems things are only "fair" when you agree. I don't have a lot of facts, however when the mayor and others are pushing hard, yet the verdict is not guilty, it seems to me the evidence must have been very weak.
RE: This was tried in a court of law and unilaterally submissed Â
Why are people still questioning this. Everyone pushes for a trial, but then when the verdict doesn't got their way its not fair. It seems things are only "fair" when you agree. I don't have a lot of facts, however when the mayor and others are pushing hard, yet the verdict is not guilty, it seems to me the evidence must have been very weak.
well, ya see, it's like this: when you get a verdict you like, it's a good justice system. when you don't get the verdict you like, it's a botched justice system.
any other questions?
RE: This was tried in a court of law and unilaterally submissed Â
Why are people still questioning this. Everyone pushes for a trial, but then when the verdict doesn't got their way its not fair. It seems things are only "fair" when you agree. I don't have a lot of facts, however when the mayor and others are pushing hard, yet the verdict is not guilty, it seems to me the evidence must have been very weak.
a good parallel to most of these cases, because they seem to have a common factor - an incompetent prosecution.
Also, not guilty on the criminal charges where the standard was "beyond a reasonable doubt" (see: glove - fit) yet found liable on civil charges where the standard was "preponderance of the evidence".
a good parallel to most of these cases, because they seem to have a common factor - an incompetent prosecution.
Also, not guilty on the criminal charges where the standard was "beyond a reasonable doubt" (see: glove - fit) yet found liable on civil charges where the standard was "preponderance of the evidence".
Here the civil suit was settled before the trials.
a good parallel to most of these cases, because they seem to have a common factor - an incompetent prosecution.
Also, not guilty on the criminal charges where the standard was "beyond a reasonable doubt" (see: glove - fit) yet found liable on civil charges where the standard was "preponderance of the evidence".
In this case they weren't found liable in a civil case, the city just settled before any trial.
That was politics and possibly patronage rather than the legal system Â
If there wasn't, Mosby's a bigger idiot than we all think.
Sonic, I think you are taking someone said on this thread and taking it as gospel.
Didn't the DOJ look into this if I'm not mistaken?
All I'm saying is that a lot of other people who had political, etc, reasons other then having a pissing match on BBI have investigated this and found nothing going down your trail.
What makes you think you are going to uncover something new on here that they couldn't?
Just seems like a very disparaging thing said about a dead man to justify his death.
To me, that is a categorically different statement than saying "there isn't any criminal charges you can bring against police".
It crosses a different line. I'm sure you agree when I say that there can be situations where it isn't mutually exclusive that someone made a mistake that led to someone's death and where there isn't enough evidence to convict those who held custody of a crime. I think we can all agree that in a substantial of these cases, whether or not there was a case for a criminal conviction, the person in custody shouldn't have died. There is definitely a gray area where someone can make a mistake that leads to a death, but their mistake wasn't criminal.
What kind of stuck out to me, though, was that the poster falsely exaggerated a situation to fit his own narrative, and to paint the dead person in a negative light to meet those ends (and justify his death). Almost to say "he deserved it".
That says a lot about the person making that comment. Madcow, you should at least try to justify that comment with an explanation, and if you can't find a source to back it up, at least explain the rationale behind it. Cause it really isn't cool to over-exaggerate the actions of a dead man to posthumously pain him in a negative light to prove a point, or to prove that he deserved it somehow.
RE: That was politics and possibly patronage rather than the legal system Â
Are you talking about the actual charges themselves, or the fact that the officers were charged with anything?
In ambigious death and injury cases like this one, I don't see what's political about investigating and CHARGING those who MAY have committed negligence or wrongdoing (NOT convicting, that obviously depends on the evidence).
I've read the charges were over the top, so I suppose I can see how one could say that was political. But do you feel the act of charging the police officers alone was political?
and the fact that he was armed at the time of the arrest has little or no relationship to whether or not someone intentionally sought to harm him on the way back to the jail, unless the prosecutor wanted to use it as motive evidence. Otherwise it has the purpose of simply trying to make the defendant look like a bad guy. I'm not saying every judge would necessarily keep it out, only that attempting to keep out particular pieces of evidence or holding defense counsel to the same standards of authentication to which the prosecution is held is not underhanded, it isn't dirty tricks, it's the way trial advocacy works.
The trial in question here was not a murder trial. It was one of the original arresting officers. The police officer/defendant in this case was not charged with anything that happened in the van. The charges related to official misconduct.
Now that all the cases have been adjudicated, let's see how fast the prosecutor moves to have the evidence (knife) destroyed before anyone has a chance to see it.
Why would they destroy the knife? What is its relevance? What theory do you have regarding the importance of the knife? I'm not even really understanding the full picture of what you're getting at. I get the implication - it's somehow damning - but in what capacity could it even be relevant, let alone damaging?
It really has little to do with the homicide cases, if anything. It goes to Marilyn Mosby's, the State Attorney veracity, who was adamant from day one and continues to this day to state that the knife was legal and thus the arrest wasn't.
Now she deflects responsibility for the not guilty verdicts to everyone and everything but herself. Everyone knows now that her charges were unwarranted. If it can be shown that she also intentionally lied about the knife, in a perfect would it would end her political career.
You're implying there's something to hide about the knife itself, as if there is something much greater to be unearthed. Is that what you're saying?
Cause I think Dunedin already gave a reasonable explanation for why the prosecutor may have tried to omit the knife from the proceedings. You're alluding to something much more nefarious but it's so cryptic that I don't know if I'm just reading it completely wrong. Can you clarify what you're saying?
I'm not seeing what about the knife could be so big that it alone would ruin this prosecutor's career "in a perfect world"
And wow, you sure do hate this prosecutor a lot. Do you think it'd be justice if she lost her career over this case?
I'm aware of madcow's posting style, I'm just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and would like to hear him explain his rationale directly, that's all.
T-Bone posted out a well thought out post in one of the other threads, outlining in detail what his perspective is. Madcow continued to dig in and go about like usual. He has zero interest in entertaining anything outside of his stupid little narrative.
in the 200 dollar range, but putting one in a cop car 4000?
Audio can't be achieved for less than that?
I'll bet almost all of the videos shown on Tosh.0 or Ridiculousness, or Youtube, are shot on devices that cost far less than $4000.
It's called price gouging. goes on all the time in various industries.
But accepting the cost as being in the thousands instead of the hundreds, budgets usually angle more toward the essentials and then the things that please the unions, like overtime. police in general do not like being recorded.no one does. if you tell me you'd be a-ok with being filmed non stop on your job, I'll tell you you're mistaken. If you have to be good cop all the time, you'll be abused by those you're trying to arrest. I'm not excusing the bad cops of the world, but good cops aren't allowed any leeway in behavior. and recording mostly aids those who want to make mountains out of molehills. even innocent occurrences will be presented as skewed. and of course, you also have the truly dickhead bad cops who don't want to be exposed. so it is no wonder cameras aren't standard issue.
You realize you have to store that data right? Storage of data is not cheap especially when moving it from camera storage to storage and other applications and tools used for analysis.....So of the more sophisticated university systems that are handling some of these vehicle types in a limited manner are in the PB range....lets not make this a simplistic issues, because it is not.
Quote:
In comment 13048260 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 13048038 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
I think you're speculating as to cost/benefit. You've got a thin budget, are you going to spend your scant resources on body cams or dash cams that can address frequent citizen complaints or in-car cams for the one-off event where someone is seriously injured while riding in a police car?
How many prison transport vehicles do you think they have? 7-10 maybe? How much do you figure wiring up the back of a van with a camera costs? $600 maybe?
So you have a cost of at the most 7-10K to camera them up. One case that is solved from info obtained via those cameras pay for themselves. 10K does not ruin a major police depts budget, especially when on top of the investigative aspects, that 10K can eliminate BS lawsuits also.
I understand your point, but I think you're optimistic about cost. The private sector may be able to do that at the cost specified, but we're talking about a big city patronage machine doing it. Extrapolating down from the Big Dig/MTA/Port Authority, this could easily cost 50-70k. You can still make the economic argument, but it no longer is blatantly obvious.
I looked it up, its $4200 for a color surveillance system like what you see on Cops to be wired up. You don't need that high end of a unit, so figure $3500 a unit. 35K is a drop in the bucket for the residual savings obtained utilizing these
You forgot the patronage surcharge. And that's not unique to Baltimore. I'll stick with 50-70k.
And also, this is very much so a pot meet kettle situation. You wear your bias on your sleeve and don't even try to be objective. I will fully admit that I can be weary of official explanations, but at least I attempt to see the other side and be objective.
Basically, there was a comment made that Freddie Gray was acting like an animal. I wanted to know if it was true or if it was a comment made with an ulterior motive.
Just curious if there was merit to what madcow said and there's part of the story that I missed, or if there is an ulterior agenda behind madcow's framing of the events.
I checked Wikipeida, and there are numerous references to video of him being motionless while arrested or bystanders saying he was hurt/in pain. The police report says that he was put in leg irons due to acting irate (obviously their report says that. Don't trust that source much, but also don't trust some of the bystanders who likely embellished). However, the only video of him being put in the van, according to Wiki, doesn't show him "acting like an animal". And the police themselves said "irate", not belligerent, combative, aggressive, etc.
So, like I said, just wondering if I missed something else. And if not, I'd love to hear why he was "acting like an animal".
I also find it pretty interesting that there is actual uncertainty as to whether the knife was legal. Regardless, it's a little strange that in the same country where certain people can walk around with guns, either concealed or displayed, a man was arrested, injured, and died in custody over a knife that may or may not have been illegal. Even if it was illegal, it just doesn't make any sense. Also, wouldn't they need a reason to search him to actually find that knife in the first place?
There's too many of these cases, and I haven't really followed this one too closely.
According to the ME report (autopsy), Gray had no trauma to his body other than the spinal injury. No abrasions, no contusions, no subdural hemotomas.
but you insisted that it would be botched justice to not convict.
are you denying any of this?
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
"acting like an animal" when placed in the van? Maybe it happened and I missed it, but I recall hearing it the way bc4life posted - that he was limping, injured, and handcuffed.
Just curious if there was merit to what madcow said and there's part of the story that I missed, or if there is an ulterior agenda behind madcow's framing of the events.
I checked Wikipeida, and there are numerous references to video of him being motionless while arrested or bystanders saying he was hurt/in pain. The police report says that he was put in leg irons due to acting irate (obviously their report says that. Don't trust that source much, but also don't trust some of the bystanders who likely embellished). However, the only video of him being put in the van, according to Wiki, doesn't show him "acting like an animal". And the police themselves said "irate", not belligerent, combative, aggressive, etc.
So, like I said, just wondering if I missed something else. And if not, I'd love to hear why he was "acting like an animal".
I also find it pretty interesting that there is actual uncertainty as to whether the knife was legal. Regardless, it's a little strange that in the same country where certain people can walk around with guns, either concealed or displayed, a man was arrested, injured, and died in custody over a knife that may or may not have been illegal. Even if it was illegal, it just doesn't make any sense. Also, wouldn't they need a reason to search him to actually find that knife in the first place?
There's too many of these cases, and I haven't really followed this one too closely.
According to the ME report (autopsy), Gray had no trauma to his body other than the spinal injury. No abrasions, no contusions, no subdural hemotomas.
Yes, the wiki article I stated made references to a limp but I didn't see anything about a previous injury and I am very hesitant to trust eyewitness reports since I think, at this point, without a video, and considering the polarization of the country, they're unreliable. For example, a witness said Gray was beaten with batons. I'm 99.99999% sure that's bullshit considering the batons would probably leave a visible injury.
What I was really trying to understand was the animal comment because I haven't really seen it referenced anywhere - even by the police themselves, who used the word "irate".
Here's the references I am making to a limp:
Two bystanders captured Gray's arrest with video recordings, showing Gray, screaming in pain,[40] being dragged to a police van by officers, and then stepping up into the van. A bystander with connections to Gray stated that the officers were previously "folding" Gray—with one officer bending Gray's legs backwards, and another holding Gray down by pressing a knee into Gray's neck. Witnesses commented Gray "couldn't walk",[41] "can't use his legs",[42] and "his leg look broke and you all dragging him like that".[43] Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony W. Batts noted from the video that, "Gray stood on one leg and climbed into the van on his own."[44] The Baltimore Sun reported that another witness saw Gray being beaten with police batons.[5][45].... At 8:46 a.m., Gray was unloaded in order to be placed in leg irons because police said he was acting irate. Gray's shackling was recorded on a cellphone, which exhibited a motionless Gray surrounded by several officers as he was restrained.[46]
I attached the link. I like to go to Wikipedia since they cite their sources and usually at least try to keep things factual. But I the limp or prior injury wasn't the crux of my question. It was more the animal comment.
Freddie Gray Incident Wiki - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13048617 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
"acting like an animal" when placed in the van? Maybe it happened and I missed it, but I recall hearing it the way bc4life posted - that he was limping, injured, and handcuffed.
Just curious if there was merit to what madcow said and there's part of the story that I missed, or if there is an ulterior agenda behind madcow's framing of the events.
I checked Wikipeida, and there are numerous references to video of him being motionless while arrested or bystanders saying he was hurt/in pain. The police report says that he was put in leg irons due to acting irate (obviously their report says that. Don't trust that source much, but also don't trust some of the bystanders who likely embellished). However, the only video of him being put in the van, according to Wiki, doesn't show him "acting like an animal". And the police themselves said "irate", not belligerent, combative, aggressive, etc.
So, like I said, just wondering if I missed something else. And if not, I'd love to hear why he was "acting like an animal".
I also find it pretty interesting that there is actual uncertainty as to whether the knife was legal. Regardless, it's a little strange that in the same country where certain people can walk around with guns, either concealed or displayed, a man was arrested, injured, and died in custody over a knife that may or may not have been illegal. Even if it was illegal, it just doesn't make any sense. Also, wouldn't they need a reason to search him to actually find that knife in the first place?
There's too many of these cases, and I haven't really followed this one too closely.
According to the ME report (autopsy), Gray had no trauma to his body other than the spinal injury. No abrasions, no contusions, no subdural hemotomas.
Yes, the wiki article I stated made references to a limp but I didn't see anything about a previous injury and I am very hesitant to trust eyewitness reports since I think, at this point, without a video, and considering the polarization of the country, they're unreliable. For example, a witness said Gray was beaten with batons. I'm 99.99999% sure that's bullshit considering the batons would probably leave a visible injury.
What I was really trying to understand was the animal comment because I haven't really seen it referenced anywhere - even by the police themselves, who used the word "irate".
Here's the references I am making to a limp:
Code:
Two bystanders captured Gray's arrest with video recordings, showing Gray, screaming in pain,[40] being dragged to a police van by officers, and then stepping up into the van. A bystander with connections to Gray stated that the officers were previously "folding" Gray—with one officer bending Gray's legs backwards, and another holding Gray down by pressing a knee into Gray's neck. Witnesses commented Gray "couldn't walk",[41] "can't use his legs",[42] and "his leg look broke and you all dragging him like that".[43] Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony W. Batts noted from the video that, "Gray stood on one leg and climbed into the van on his own."[44] The Baltimore Sun reported that another witness saw Gray being beaten with police batons.[5][45].... At 8:46 a.m., Gray was unloaded in order to be placed in leg irons because police said he was acting irate. Gray's shackling was recorded on a cellphone, which exhibited a motionless Gray surrounded by several officers as he was restrained.[46]
I attached the link. I like to go to Wikipedia since they cite their sources and usually at least try to keep things factual. But I the limp or prior injury wasn't the crux of my question. It was more the animal comment. Freddie Gray Incident Wiki - ( New Window )
There's no video that I'm aware of before Gray already has leg shackles on. From that point he was walked about 20 feet to the police van. If he behaved like an animal, it would have been before the shackles were applied, I would think.
It was kept out of the trial of one of the arresting officers, who was only charged with some type of official misconduct and reckless endangerment, No murder charge. What did she not want to come out in court?
Quote:
why wouldn't you keep the knife out? What relevance does it have to whether he was hurt on the trip? It is the job of a prosecutor to keep out irrelevant information that may poison the trier of fact against the prosecution, just as it is the job of the defense to keep out irrelevant information or semi-relevant information that may poison the trier of fact against the defendant. It's an adversarial process, people who think there is something unconscionable about acting in an adversarial manner at trial would be well-served to understand that.
It was kept out of the trial of one of the arresting officers, who was only charged with some type of official misconduct and reckless endangerment, No murder charge. What did she not want to come out in court?
I'd imagine it wouldn't be a difficult counterpoint to say that you still need probable cause, but that'd probably just evolve into a debate about whether someone running from the police who has a known criminal record would be probably cause for a search. And perhaps that's just a whole different path that obfuscates the actual main issue of the trial?
That whole thing is a wild guess, just my layman's line of thinking (that could be totally wrong here).
The trial in question here was not a murder trial. It was one of the original arresting officers. The police officer/defendant in this case was not charged with anything that happened in the van. The charges related to official misconduct.
Now that all the cases have been adjudicated, let's see how fast the prosecutor moves to have the evidence (knife) destroyed before anyone has a chance to see it.
Quote:
and the fact that he was armed at the time of the arrest has little or no relationship to whether or not someone intentionally sought to harm him on the way back to the jail, unless the prosecutor wanted to use it as motive evidence. Otherwise it has the purpose of simply trying to make the defendant look like a bad guy. I'm not saying every judge would necessarily keep it out, only that attempting to keep out particular pieces of evidence or holding defense counsel to the same standards of authentication to which the prosecution is held is not underhanded, it isn't dirty tricks, it's the way trial advocacy works.
The trial in question here was not a murder trial. It was one of the original arresting officers. The police officer/defendant in this case was not charged with anything that happened in the van. The charges related to official misconduct.
Now that all the cases have been adjudicated, let's see how fast the prosecutor moves to have the evidence (knife) destroyed before anyone has a chance to see it.
Quote:
In comment 13048888 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
and the fact that he was armed at the time of the arrest has little or no relationship to whether or not someone intentionally sought to harm him on the way back to the jail, unless the prosecutor wanted to use it as motive evidence. Otherwise it has the purpose of simply trying to make the defendant look like a bad guy. I'm not saying every judge would necessarily keep it out, only that attempting to keep out particular pieces of evidence or holding defense counsel to the same standards of authentication to which the prosecution is held is not underhanded, it isn't dirty tricks, it's the way trial advocacy works.
The trial in question here was not a murder trial. It was one of the original arresting officers. The police officer/defendant in this case was not charged with anything that happened in the van. The charges related to official misconduct.
Now that all the cases have been adjudicated, let's see how fast the prosecutor moves to have the evidence (knife) destroyed before anyone has a chance to see it.
Why would they destroy the knife? What is its relevance? What theory do you have regarding the importance of the knife? I'm not even really understanding the full picture of what you're getting at. I get the implication - it's somehow damning - but in what capacity could it even be relevant, let alone damaging?
It really has little to do with the homicide cases, if anything. It goes to Marilyn Mosby's, the State Attorney veracity, who was adamant from day one and continues to this day to state that the knife was legal and thus the arrest wasn't.
Now she deflects responsibility for the not guilty verdicts to everyone and everything but herself. Everyone knows now that her charges were unwarranted. If it can be shown that she also intentionally lied about the knife, in a perfect would it would end her political career.
If there wasn't, Mosby's a bigger idiot than we all think.
Sonic, I think you are taking someone said on this thread and taking it as gospel.
Didn't the DOJ look into this if I'm not mistaken?
All I'm saying is that a lot of other people who had political, etc, reasons other then having a pissing match on BBI have investigated this and found nothing going down your trail.
What makes you think you are going to uncover something new on here that they couldn't?
If the cop acted on good faith that the knife was illegal, even if it wasn't, then that cop is still protected.
Quote:
Wonder why?
If the cop acted on good faith that the knife was illegal, even if it wasn't, then that cop is still protected.
Doesn't make sense, the prosecutor was going after the cops.
As I stated. Too many political and civil rights activists have gone down this road and found nothing.
Theorize all you want, big dogs found nothing in that field.
I doubt the puppies will. :)
Quote:
In comment 13048283 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 13048260 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 13048038 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
I think you're speculating as to cost/benefit. You've got a thin budget, are you going to spend your scant resources on body cams or dash cams that can address frequent citizen complaints or in-car cams for the one-off event where someone is seriously injured while riding in a police car?
How many prison transport vehicles do you think they have? 7-10 maybe? How much do you figure wiring up the back of a van with a camera costs? $600 maybe?
So you have a cost of at the most 7-10K to camera them up. One case that is solved from info obtained via those cameras pay for themselves. 10K does not ruin a major police depts budget, especially when on top of the investigative aspects, that 10K can eliminate BS lawsuits also.
I understand your point, but I think you're optimistic about cost. The private sector may be able to do that at the cost specified, but we're talking about a big city patronage machine doing it. Extrapolating down from the Big Dig/MTA/Port Authority, this could easily cost 50-70k. You can still make the economic argument, but it no longer is blatantly obvious.
I looked it up, its $4200 for a color surveillance system like what you see on Cops to be wired up. You don't need that high end of a unit, so figure $3500 a unit. 35K is a drop in the bucket for the residual savings obtained utilizing these
You forgot the patronage surcharge. And that's not unique to Baltimore. I'll stick with 50-70k.
No I didn't that price quote comes directly from a company that installs them for Police
link - ( New Window )
Audio can't be achieved for less than that?
I'll bet almost all of the videos shown on Tosh.0 or Ridiculousness, or Youtube, are shot on devices that cost far less than $4000.
It's called price gouging. goes on all the time in various industries.
But accepting the cost as being in the thousands instead of the hundreds, budgets usually angle more toward the essentials and then the things that please the unions, like overtime. police in general do not like being recorded.no one does. if you tell me you'd be a-ok with being filmed non stop on your job, I'll tell you you're mistaken. If you have to be good cop all the time, you'll be abused by those you're trying to arrest. I'm not excusing the bad cops of the world, but good cops aren't allowed any leeway in behavior. and recording mostly aids those who want to make mountains out of molehills. even innocent occurrences will be presented as skewed. and of course, you also have the truly dickhead bad cops who don't want to be exposed. so it is no wonder cameras aren't standard issue.
If she had focused solely on the van driver or the details of the van ride where Gray was mortally injured, the liklihood of a conviction would've been much higher.
It isn't just in this case, but it happens in many cases where the justice system "works", not necessarily because of innocence or guilt, but because an overzealous prosecutor or a poor defense attorney affect the ruling.
Had he been seen by a Dr., it is likely he would have been found to have the broken neck vertebrae.
any other questions?
Spot on, that is why OJ is innocent right?
Yup, and some people celebrate a little too hard when the verdict comes in.
Also, not guilty on the criminal charges where the standard was "beyond a reasonable doubt" (see: glove - fit) yet found liable on civil charges where the standard was "preponderance of the evidence".
Quote:
a good parallel to most of these cases, because they seem to have a common factor - an incompetent prosecution.
Also, not guilty on the criminal charges where the standard was "beyond a reasonable doubt" (see: glove - fit) yet found liable on civil charges where the standard was "preponderance of the evidence".
Here the civil suit was settled before the trials.
Quote:
a good parallel to most of these cases, because they seem to have a common factor - an incompetent prosecution.
Also, not guilty on the criminal charges where the standard was "beyond a reasonable doubt" (see: glove - fit) yet found liable on civil charges where the standard was "preponderance of the evidence".
In this case they weren't found liable in a civil case, the city just settled before any trial.
If there wasn't, Mosby's a bigger idiot than we all think.
Sonic, I think you are taking someone said on this thread and taking it as gospel.
Didn't the DOJ look into this if I'm not mistaken?
All I'm saying is that a lot of other people who had political, etc, reasons other then having a pissing match on BBI have investigated this and found nothing going down your trail.
What makes you think you are going to uncover something new on here that they couldn't?
To me, that is a categorically different statement than saying "there isn't any criminal charges you can bring against police".
It crosses a different line. I'm sure you agree when I say that there can be situations where it isn't mutually exclusive that someone made a mistake that led to someone's death and where there isn't enough evidence to convict those who held custody of a crime. I think we can all agree that in a substantial of these cases, whether or not there was a case for a criminal conviction, the person in custody shouldn't have died. There is definitely a gray area where someone can make a mistake that leads to a death, but their mistake wasn't criminal.
What kind of stuck out to me, though, was that the poster falsely exaggerated a situation to fit his own narrative, and to paint the dead person in a negative light to meet those ends (and justify his death). Almost to say "he deserved it".
That says a lot about the person making that comment. Madcow, you should at least try to justify that comment with an explanation, and if you can't find a source to back it up, at least explain the rationale behind it. Cause it really isn't cool to over-exaggerate the actions of a dead man to posthumously pain him in a negative light to prove a point, or to prove that he deserved it somehow.
In ambigious death and injury cases like this one, I don't see what's political about investigating and CHARGING those who MAY have committed negligence or wrongdoing (NOT convicting, that obviously depends on the evidence).
I've read the charges were over the top, so I suppose I can see how one could say that was political. But do you feel the act of charging the police officers alone was political?
Quote:
In comment 13048922 MOOPS said:
Quote:
In comment 13048888 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
and the fact that he was armed at the time of the arrest has little or no relationship to whether or not someone intentionally sought to harm him on the way back to the jail, unless the prosecutor wanted to use it as motive evidence. Otherwise it has the purpose of simply trying to make the defendant look like a bad guy. I'm not saying every judge would necessarily keep it out, only that attempting to keep out particular pieces of evidence or holding defense counsel to the same standards of authentication to which the prosecution is held is not underhanded, it isn't dirty tricks, it's the way trial advocacy works.
The trial in question here was not a murder trial. It was one of the original arresting officers. The police officer/defendant in this case was not charged with anything that happened in the van. The charges related to official misconduct.
Now that all the cases have been adjudicated, let's see how fast the prosecutor moves to have the evidence (knife) destroyed before anyone has a chance to see it.
Why would they destroy the knife? What is its relevance? What theory do you have regarding the importance of the knife? I'm not even really understanding the full picture of what you're getting at. I get the implication - it's somehow damning - but in what capacity could it even be relevant, let alone damaging?
It really has little to do with the homicide cases, if anything. It goes to Marilyn Mosby's, the State Attorney veracity, who was adamant from day one and continues to this day to state that the knife was legal and thus the arrest wasn't.
Now she deflects responsibility for the not guilty verdicts to everyone and everything but herself. Everyone knows now that her charges were unwarranted. If it can be shown that she also intentionally lied about the knife, in a perfect would it would end her political career.
You're implying there's something to hide about the knife itself, as if there is something much greater to be unearthed. Is that what you're saying?
Cause I think Dunedin already gave a reasonable explanation for why the prosecutor may have tried to omit the knife from the proceedings. You're alluding to something much more nefarious but it's so cryptic that I don't know if I'm just reading it completely wrong. Can you clarify what you're saying?
I'm not seeing what about the knife could be so big that it alone would ruin this prosecutor's career "in a perfect world"
And wow, you sure do hate this prosecutor a lot. Do you think it'd be justice if she lost her career over this case?
I'm aware of madcow's posting style, I'm just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and would like to hear him explain his rationale directly, that's all.
Audio can't be achieved for less than that?
I'll bet almost all of the videos shown on Tosh.0 or Ridiculousness, or Youtube, are shot on devices that cost far less than $4000.
It's called price gouging. goes on all the time in various industries.
But accepting the cost as being in the thousands instead of the hundreds, budgets usually angle more toward the essentials and then the things that please the unions, like overtime. police in general do not like being recorded.no one does. if you tell me you'd be a-ok with being filmed non stop on your job, I'll tell you you're mistaken. If you have to be good cop all the time, you'll be abused by those you're trying to arrest. I'm not excusing the bad cops of the world, but good cops aren't allowed any leeway in behavior. and recording mostly aids those who want to make mountains out of molehills. even innocent occurrences will be presented as skewed. and of course, you also have the truly dickhead bad cops who don't want to be exposed. so it is no wonder cameras aren't standard issue.
You realize you have to store that data right? Storage of data is not cheap especially when moving it from camera storage to storage and other applications and tools used for analysis.....So of the more sophisticated university systems that are handling some of these vehicle types in a limited manner are in the PB range....lets not make this a simplistic issues, because it is not.