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.
the remaining charges are being dropped, because they were not able to convict on any of the foundational charges. Either the DA office screwed this up badly, or the City Attorney pulled a "Duke Lacrosse" political prosecution act.
There's a difference between not enough evidence for a conviction, and "nonsense" charges.
It's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention what more than likely took place. Fortunately for the accused, there wasn't close to enough evidence to convict.
The whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing is pretty important in our legal system.
The startling move was an apparent acknowledgement of the unlikelihood of a conviction following the acquittals of three other officers on similar and more serious charges by Circuit Judge Barry G. Williams, who was expected to preside over the remaining trials as well.
It also means the office of Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby will secure no convictions in the case after more than a year of dogged fighting, against increasingly heavy odds, to hold someone criminally accountable in Gray's death. from the Baltimore Sun - ( New Window )
RE: I hope all six cops sue whoever they can for... Â
obviously went wrong, but case was overcharged, that was the opinion of most experts. typically, in custody deaths are negligent homicide cases - (e.g., failure to monitor, provide medical care).
obviously went wrong, but case was overcharged, that was the opinion of most experts. typically, in custody deaths are negligent homicide cases - (e.g., failure to monitor, provide medical care).
Right. And even with lesser charges, there was still a lack of evidence.
RE: I'm not willing to say the charges were nonsense. Â
There's a difference between not enough evidence for a conviction, and "nonsense" charges.
It's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention what more than likely took place. Fortunately for the accused, there wasn't close to enough evidence to convict.
The whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing is pretty important in our legal system.
I would say some of the charges were nonsense. I would put in this category the charges against the arresting officers who had no role in the transport. At first the reason for the arrest was questioned but the last information was that it was due to possession of a type of knife which was questionable to be legal.
RE: I hope all six cops sue whoever they can for... Â
already 3 acquittals and 1 hung jury in trials against the other officers charged for Gray's death. The State obviously does not have enough evidence to get a conviction in the remaining cases. Dropping the charges makes complete sense from a legal standpoint but maybe not from a political/PR perspective.
RE: RE: I'm not willing to say the charges were nonsense. Â
There's a difference between not enough evidence for a conviction, and "nonsense" charges.
It's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention what more than likely took place. Fortunately for the accused, there wasn't close to enough evidence to convict.
The whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing is pretty important in our legal system.
I would say some of the charges were nonsense. I would put in this category the charges against the arresting officers who had no role in the transport. At first the reason for the arrest was questioned but the last information was that it was due to possession of a type of knife which was questionable to be legal.
I think I can agree with that.
RE: I hope all six cops sue whoever they can for... Â
and what's the legal argument for getting the money back - person arrested for a misdemeanor dies in custody. while not being seat-belted in was not criminal - it was policy which was widely ignored by the rank and file and the supervisors held no one accountable for violating policy.
they have paid out previous million dollar lawsuits for injuries due to prisoner transport. and they never bothered to attempt to put cameras in the transport vans. and there was a sign posted on the van "Hope you enjoy you're ride, w e know we did" which gives credence to the issue of rough rides.
RE: I'm not willing to say the charges were nonsense. Â
There's a difference between not enough evidence for a conviction, and "nonsense" charges.
It's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention what more than likely took place. Fortunately for the accused, there wasn't close to enough evidence to convict.
The whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing is pretty important in our legal system.
Cam - I think I've got these facts right, but I believe that none of the remaining defendants had any connection to the van ride. If correct, and given the outcomes of the previous trials, I'd say the chances for conviction were virtually nil. Beyond that, IMHO, I think all defendants who had no connection with the van ride were egregiously overcharged for probably political purposes. However, I agree with you in that I don't think the charges were nonsense with respect to anyone who was involved with the van ride.
$6.4 million in taxpayer money back from his family?
Why do people keep saying this?
The very same judge (Barry Williams) finding some of the officers not guilty of criminal negligence said that actions of the defendants could indeed be civilly negligent.
there was no evidence of a rough ride in this case Â
$6.4 million in taxpayer money back from his family?
I believe that was a civil case, which would have involved a lower standard of proof. It's wild speculation, but Baltimore probably could have settled for less than that if they had waited for the outcome of the criminal cases, but I doubt it would have gone down to zero.
RE: RE: RE: I hope all six cops sue whoever they can for... Â
$6.4 million in taxpayer money back from his family?
I believe that was a civil case, which would have involved a lower standard of proof. It's wild speculation, but Baltimore probably could have settled for less than that if they had waited for the outcome of the criminal cases, but I doubt it would have gone down to zero.
That was my point. The City rushed to settle the civil case for political reasons. And, oh yeah, the Gray family lawyer who pocketed $2.1M happens to be good friends with the Mosbys.
Mosby tried to suppress testimony from the Medical Examiner... Â
That Gray's death was a "freakish accident," not a homicide. Mosby also attempted to silence the lead investigator on the the case - Detective Dawnyell Taylor - after Taylor found that the "evidence" Mosby wanted to present to the grand jury was full of inaccuracies and distortions. Mosby also attempted to prevent Taylor's case notes from being entered into the record. Luckily for Price and the other defendants, the judge wasn't having any of it.
She's giving a press conference right now yelling about how the judge wasn't fair to her. She sounds like an angry child. (And oddly, the man standing next to her is wearing a NY Jets hat.)
Mosby, an hour ago, gave a press conference near where the arrest took place along with Freddie Gray's parent's. She was cheered and they said they were proud she was the prosecutor. There might be isolated incidents, but I don't think there will be anything close to the earlier riots.
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Accepting that description, just how does that make the 5 non-drivers guilty?
I don't think I said anything about non-drivers. Â
malicious prosecution, defamation or anything else that will stick.
Yeah, because they did no wrong.
So sayeth the judge. And you're an expert on the law?
Get over it.
They judge didn't say they did no wrong.
That's not the judge's job. The prosecutor couldn't make the case she brought because she had no evidence to support her charges. The judge did his job and ruled not guilty. That says it all.
She over played the case, and lacked the evidence to prosecute. She fueled the emotion surrounding the case and raised the false expectations of a different outcome, even through she lacked the means (legal evidence) to deliver. This was a politically motivated overreach.
As a result, we now have an angrier city that wants revenge (naively labeled as "Justice") for the death of Gray. The man should not have died, and something went horrible wrong. However, the DA and prosecuting team played this wrong and made a bad situation even worse.
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
You're guessing, so the driver is guilty? Seriously, that's how you would judge this case?
That's akin to guilt by association. Somebody else did this so the driver in the Freddie Grey case must have done it too?
I think that there are some countries where "I guess he did it" Â
I find it hard to believe they did not have cameras covering the holding area of the van. That is basic shit, especially since many criminal prosecutions are won from tape from inside police cars
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Video shows no sudden stops or turns of van. Link - ( New Window )
They located video where the van wasn't making sudden stops or turns? I'm sure they didn't do it the entire ride. Are people really making the case that this was accidental?
"Judge Williams repeatedly said that prosecutors presented little or no evidence to support their broader theory in the case- that the officers acted unreasonably, and wilfully disregarded their training and general orders, when they decide not to secure Gray in a seat belt in the back of a police transport van, and that the decision directly led to his death."
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Video shows no sudden stops or turns of van. Link - ( New Window )
They located video where the van wasn't making sudden stops or turns? I'm sure they didn't do it the entire ride. Are people really making the case that this was accidental?
they represent police officers. Police officers were falsely charged with crimes that are now being dismissed. Why shouldn't they be happy? They aren't celebrating the death of Freddy Gray.
you're happy with the fact that officers disregard the policies they don't like?
Not surprised at the acquittal - but something that shouldn't have happened happened and there and not much has been done to prevent it from happening again. Yet, you cannot seem to understand why minority citizens do not trust the police.
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Video shows no sudden stops or turns of van. Link - ( New Window )
They located video where the van wasn't making sudden stops or turns? I'm sure they didn't do it the entire ride. Are people really making the case that this was accidental?
I stand by my statement.
"Freddie Gray suffered a single "high-energy injury" to his neck and spine — most likely caused when the police van in which he was riding suddenly decelerated, according to a copy of the autopsy report obtained by The Baltimore Sun." Autopsy of Freddie Gray shows 'high-energy' impact - ( New Window )
if you're handcuffed and cannot break your fall or stop your momentum - does not take a whole lot of energy to break a neck. normal vehicle operation at 10-15 mph could make it happen
you're happy with the fact that officers disregard the policies they don't like?
Not surprised at the acquittal - but something that shouldn't have happened happened and there and not much has been done to prevent it from happening again. Yet, you cannot seem to understand why minority citizens do not trust the police.
Are you saying all 6 disregarded those policies? You couldn't have gotten all 6 into the van to restrain Grey.
They located video where the van wasn't making sudden stops or turns? I'm sure they didn't do it the entire ride. Are people really making the case that this was accidental?
1. With the way cities have traffic cameras set up all over the place, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that they could have tape on the entire ride.
2. Is the Medical Examiner considered "people?" Because he (or she) concluded that the death was, indeed, accidental.
policy, 2,3 - whoever knew he should have been handcuffed.
but, it's broader than that - Megyn Kelly interviewed a cop (disguised identity) on air and they asserted that no one follows the policy. Meaning you may have a significant part of teh patrol force that does not follow orders in an alleged paramilitary organization. That's something to be happy about?
A major component of her argument was that an "intentional rough ride" was the cause of death. If you're going to make that the method of death - might have been important to present some evidence of a rough ride - which she did not.
policy, 2,3 - whoever knew he should have been handcuffed.
but, it's broader than that - Megyn Kelly interviewed a cop (disguised identity) on air and they asserted that no one follows the policy. Meaning you may have a significant part of teh patrol force that does not follow orders in an alleged paramilitary organization. That's something to be happy about?
not sure if you are following along or what, but it's pretty clear that the 6 that were charged should not have been charged. The DA did a terrible job. We knew it going into the trials, and the African American judge pretty much said as much when he saw the case she presented. The DA will lose her job because of this at some point. It may not come in the form of a firing, but she's done.
Not related at all, other than on topic of people let go Â
not sure if you are following along or what, but it's pretty clear that the 6 that were charged should not have been charged. The DA did a terrible job. We knew it going into the trials, and the African American judge pretty much said as much when he saw the case she presented. The DA will lose her job because of this at some point. It may not come in the form of a firing, but she's done.
She's the perfect blend of panderer and "look at me". Thought she could sacrifice the law to get a career notch and whoops...
policy, 2,3 - whoever knew he should have been handcuffed.
but, it's broader than that - Megyn Kelly interviewed a cop (disguised identity) on air and they asserted that no one follows the policy. Meaning you may have a significant part of teh patrol force that does not follow orders in an alleged paramilitary organization. That's something to be happy about?
The trial revealed the seat belt policy was very recently added and that the officers were unaware of the new policy, or that's what i thought i read.
Also read that they placed him on the floor of the van, and experts testified he would likely have not have suffered serious injuries had he stayed there.
RE: Not related at all, other than on topic of people let go Â
policy, 2,3 - whoever knew he should have been handcuffed.
but, it's broader than that - Megyn Kelly interviewed a cop (disguised identity) on air and they asserted that no one follows the policy. Meaning you may have a significant part of teh patrol force that does not follow orders in an alleged paramilitary organization. That's something to be happy about?
The trial revealed the seat belt policy was very recently added and that the officers were unaware of the new policy, or that's what i thought i read.
Also read that they placed him on the floor of the van, and experts testified he would likely have not have suffered serious injuries had he stayed there.
Tell you what. I'll rent a U-Haul Van. You lie on the floor. I'll slam on the brakes at only 15 MPH. Let's see what happens.
not sure if you are following along or what, but it's pretty clear that the 6 that were charged should not have been charged. The DA did a terrible job. We knew it going into the trials, and the African American judge pretty much said as much when he saw the case she presented. The DA will lose her job because of this at some point. It may not come in the form of a firing, but she's done.
I've followed this fairly closely. I disagree with you with respect to the driver. I thought charges were possible, and an intense investigation of his actions was mandatory. I could also see acquittal on the basis of insufficient evidence. What I also see is a politically motivated overcharging of any cop within 1/2 mile of the innocent. Could 1 or 2 more be charged? Yes. All the other 5? NFW.
BTW. My understanding is that the DA is an elective office. If that's correct, you haven't seen the last of Mosely by a long shot.
I'm sorry. I thought you were the poster that said the people in the police union were sick f's. My mistake. I agree with you for the most part, for what it's worth.
policy, 2,3 - whoever knew he should have been handcuffed.
but, it's broader than that - Megyn Kelly interviewed a cop (disguised identity) on air and they asserted that no one follows the policy. Meaning you may have a significant part of teh patrol force that does not follow orders in an alleged paramilitary organization. That's something to be happy about?
The trial revealed the seat belt policy was very recently added and that the officers were unaware of the new policy, or that's what i thought i read.
Also read that they placed him on the floor of the van, and experts testified he would likely have not have suffered serious injuries had he stayed there.
Tell you what. I'll rent a U-Haul Van. You lie on the floor. I'll slam on the brakes at only 15 MPH. Let's see what happens.
Volunteers? >:)
they interviewed the other prisoner in the van and he said that there wasn't a rough ride.
Plus, there are many other experiments I can think of that you can do that cause self harm that would help the defense.
RE: Not related at all, other than on topic of people let go Â
policy, 2,3 - whoever knew he should have been handcuffed.
but, it's broader than that - Megyn Kelly interviewed a cop (disguised identity) on air and they asserted that no one follows the policy. Meaning you may have a significant part of teh patrol force that does not follow orders in an alleged paramilitary organization. That's something to be happy about?
The trial revealed the seat belt policy was very recently added and that the officers were unaware of the new policy, or that's what i thought i read.
Also read that they placed him on the floor of the van, and experts testified he would likely have not have suffered serious injuries had he stayed there.
Tell you what. I'll rent a U-Haul Van. You lie on the floor. I'll slam on the brakes at only 15 MPH. Let's see what happens.
Volunteers? >:)
Where is the evidence that the van driver slammed on the brakes?
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Video shows no sudden stops or turns of van. Link - ( New Window )
The video is from outside security cameras and is impossible for them to be able to cover the whole ride to the jail. Where is the video from inside the van that virtually every police dept i have heard of has set up in prisoner trasport vehicles?n
RE: Mosby tried to suppress testimony from the Medical Examiner... Â
That Gray's death was a "freakish accident," not a homicide. Mosby also attempted to silence the lead investigator on the the case - Detective Dawnyell Taylor - after Taylor found that the "evidence" Mosby wanted to present to the grand jury was full of inaccuracies and distortions. Mosby also attempted to prevent Taylor's case notes from being entered into the record. Luckily for Price and the other defendants, the judge wasn't having any of it.
Huh? The ME ruled it a homicide. Some of the defendants' lawyers tried to claim she told a detective it was a "freakish accident", then was later pressured into ruling it a homicide. The ME denied that under oath. While that's clearly hearsay, the judge only allowed it because of the other stuff the prosecutors withheld.
One of the things they withheld was a statement from the other detainee in the police van. One of the reasons it was withheld was because they thought his statements were ultimately worthless... the guy told cops Gray tried to injure himself, then later said the exact opposite. The judge criticized prosecutors for withholding it, but ultimately decided against entering it into evidence or dismissing the charges because of it.
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Video shows no sudden stops or turns of van. Link - ( New Window )
The video is from outside security cameras and is impossible for them to be able to cover the whole ride to the jail. Where is the video from inside the van that virtually every police dept i have heard of has set up in prisoner trasport vehicles?n
They got approved earlier this year for Baltimore.
they interviewed the other prisoner in the van and he said that there wasn't a rough ride.
Plus, there are many other experiments I can think of that you can do that cause self harm that would help the defense.
From a Baltimore Sun article...
"Allen's statement to police on the day of the arrest has not played a central role in the court proceedings against the officers to date. That's likely in part because in the days following, Allen recanted and denied that statement in media interviews."
policy, 2,3 - whoever knew he should have been handcuffed.
but, it's broader than that - Megyn Kelly interviewed a cop (disguised identity) on air and they asserted that no one follows the policy. Meaning you may have a significant part of teh patrol force that does not follow orders in an alleged paramilitary organization. That's something to be happy about?
The trial revealed the seat belt policy was very recently added and that the officers were unaware of the new policy, or that's what i thought i read.
Also read that they placed him on the floor of the van, and experts testified he would likely have not have suffered serious injuries had he stayed there.
Tell you what. I'll rent a U-Haul Van. You lie on the floor. I'll slam on the brakes at only 15 MPH. Let's see what happens.
Volunteers? >:)
There's zero evidence that happened. You want them convicted on a hunch?
this. although there are bad cops, there are also bad individuals and somehow our politicians and in this case the prosecutor that is looking to exploit cops to further their career. Look at that fool, Baltimore mayor in the same breath....opportunists and will use any crisis and individuals to stir up shit....most of this stuff is like Al Sharpton Tawanna Brawley like in nature...
I applaud Michael Jordan for stepping up just recently and donating money to cops and NAACP to seek to stop this nonsense before more families lose their loved ones to exploiters.
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Video shows no sudden stops or turns of van. Link - ( New Window )
The video is from outside security cameras and is impossible for them to be able to cover the whole ride to the jail. Where is the video from inside the van that virtually every police dept i have heard of has set up in prisoner trasport vehicles?n
They got approved earlier this year for Baltimore.
Most police vans of that size don't have cameras in the back and neither do most of the patrol cars.
I am guessing you just made that up :)
LOL...This actually is the only police force i have heard that does not have recording capabilities inside police vehicles, especially prisoner transport ones. Hell my little towns 10 man force even has them. The amount of cases you could close just from info gotten inside these vehicles makes them extremely cost effective
dash cams are almost ubiquitous at this point, body cams are in vogue though not universal, backseat cameras are hit or miss.
I wonder why people who are utterly convinced that Adnan Syed should never have been convicted wonder why the police here haven't been. This case seemed awash with reasonable doubt, and the prosecutor in this case seemed to raise expectations for outcomes unreasonably high.
Now the city and the people need to heal. Black Lives Matter so do Blue, and everyone else lives too. Michael Jordan said it best we all need to respect each other. Until that happens it will never change. We need more minorities to apply for jobs as cops in the inner cities. I believe when that number starts to go the problems will start to go down.
they interviewed the other prisoner in the van and he said that there wasn't a rough ride.
Plus, there are many other experiments I can think of that you can do that cause self harm that would help the defense.
From a Baltimore Sun article...
"Allen's statement to police on the day of the arrest has not played a central role in the court proceedings against the officers to date. That's likely in part because in the days following, Allen recanted and denied that statement in media interviews."
I would have recanted too if I lived in Baltimore, but an interview that happened before he found out about the media frenzy is more credible than after when he can now be a target of his community.
Freddie Gray had a history of injury for cash attempts, and self harm in police custody; looks like this one worked. He was the one acting like an animal when they tried to get him into the seat and his behavior made it reasonable for the cop to believe he could get injured trying.
dash cams are almost ubiquitous at this point, body cams are in vogue though not universal, backseat cameras are hit or miss.
I wonder why people who are utterly convinced that Adnan Syed should never have been convicted wonder why the police here haven't been. This case seemed awash with reasonable doubt, and the prosecutor in this case seemed to raise expectations for outcomes unreasonably high.
I am not arguing the decision of not prosecuting them at all. I am though wondering why a police dept would not utilize a very cost effective solution to trivial lawsuits, and a very effective investigative tool that seems just common sense to have
dash cams are almost ubiquitous at this point, body cams are in vogue though not universal, backseat cameras are hit or miss.
I wonder why people who are utterly convinced that Adnan Syed should never have been convicted wonder why the police here haven't been. This case seemed awash with reasonable doubt, and the prosecutor in this case seemed to raise expectations for outcomes unreasonably high.
I am not arguing the decision of not prosecuting them at all. I am though wondering why a police dept would not utilize a very cost effective solution to trivial lawsuits, and a very effective investigative tool that seems just common sense to have
Freddie Gray had a history of injury for cash attempts, and self harm in police custody; looks like this one worked. He was the one acting like an animal when they tried to get him into the seat and his behavior made it reasonable for the cop to believe he could get injured trying.
The problem with that argument is that everyone acknowledges the officers didn't follow procedure and if they had followed procedure, there's a 99% chance Gray would still be alive today. However, as the judge stated, the violation of police general orders is not a crime, and that "failing to seat-belt a detainee in a transport wagon is not inherently criminal conduct." It was always going to be difficult to prove nefarious intent on the part of police... it always is.
This case is similar to the Sean Bell case in how not following police procedure isn't a criminal offense, although it conceivably leads to the death of someone. All of the officers in the Bell case were eventually fired or forced to resign... it will be interesting to see what happens with these guys.
they interviewed the other prisoner in the van and he said that there wasn't a rough ride.
Plus, there are many other experiments I can think of that you can do that cause self harm that would help the defense.
From a Baltimore Sun article...
"Allen's statement to police on the day of the arrest has not played a central role in the court proceedings against the officers to date. That's likely in part because in the days following, Allen recanted and denied that statement in media interviews."
I would have recanted too if I lived in Baltimore, but an interview that happened before he found out about the media frenzy is more credible than after when he can now be a target of his community.
Freddie Gray had a history of injury for cash attempts, and self harm in police custody; looks like this one worked. He was the one acting like an animal when they tried to get him into the seat and his behavior made it reasonable for the cop to believe he could get injured trying.
Wouldn't you recant your statement after your name and where you live was published in the paper!
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: whoever disregarded the Â
Freddie Gray had a history of injury for cash attempts, and self harm in police custody; looks like this one worked. He was the one acting like an animal when they tried to get him into the seat and his behavior made it reasonable for the cop to believe he could get injured trying.
The problem with that argument is that everyone acknowledges the officers didn't follow procedure and if they had followed procedure, there's a 99% chance Gray would still be alive today. However, as the judge stated, the violation of police general orders is not a crime, and that "failing to seat-belt a detainee in a transport wagon is not inherently criminal conduct." It was always going to be difficult to prove nefarious intent on the part of police... it always is.
This case is similar to the Sean Bell case in how not following police procedure isn't a criminal offense, although it conceivably leads to the death of someone. All of the officers in the Bell case were eventually fired or forced to resign... it will be interesting to see what happens with these guys.
It is also against policy to put yourself in undue harm. There is also a 99% change he would be alive if he wasn't belligerent.
If Baltimore wants to force the cops to resign, that is their decision.
dehumanize the victim, and bring up past transgressions to justify the end result. It's ridiculously predictable. You're the Mike in Marin of these police threads that involves dead black guys.
Saw Mosely's entire statement on the news last night Â
Blame the judge. Blame the fact that the defendant's could waive a jury trial (that Constitution is a real piece of shit, isn't it). Blame the investigator. Blame everything but the fact that she overcharged and didn't have the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt where the charges were justified.
Utter garbage, but it's likely to get her reelected.
he was handcuffed and there were at least six cops there and he was not fighting nor spitting at the officers when they put him in the van - how were they were supposed to be harmed?
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?
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 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.
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Except there was testimony from another prisoner it didn't happen That way. Whatever may happen in other cases doesn't mean it happened in his case and the people still howling for the police to be thrown In jail are assholes. Cops do fuck up and sometimes do do things illegal. This wasn't one of those cases. The self righteous indignation of the howlers is old and tired. Same with Michael Brown. God forbid people's narrative that every cop interaction is malicious or premeditated. And it's wrong to absolve cops of everything too. Why that is I have no idea.
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Except there was testimony from another prisoner it didn't happen That way. Whatever may happen in other cases doesn't mean it happened in his case and the people still howling for the police to be thrown In jail are assholes. Cops do fuck up and sometimes do do things illegal. This wasn't one of those cases. The self righteous indignation of the howlers is old and tired. Same with Michael Brown. God forbid people's narrative that every cop interaction is malicious or premeditated. And it's wrong to absolve cops of everything too. Why that is I have no idea.
Um, you are aware that the "other prisoner" recanted?
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
"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.
make shit up about the deceased, trump up the danger they may have presented, bring up priors that have nothing to do with why someone is dead, etc. He's the Dominique Dawes of playing mental gymnastics to absolve police of any form of accountability.
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
fkap, I actually don't defiantly say I am anti police Â
I want better measures to ensure more accountability, and more safeguards from preventing incidents like this from happening again. You seem to be 'ok' with it.
I already explained the 'botched justice' comment a while back 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.
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.
Gee, I don't know. Maybe because they have lost every case they brought and that they were nonsense to begin with. Just a guess.
Anyone with the ACTUAL answer?
That said, this is the kind of shit BLM is protesting about.
It's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention what more than likely took place. Fortunately for the accused, there wasn't close to enough evidence to convict.
The whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing is pretty important in our legal system.
Anyone with the ACTUAL answer?
The startling move was an apparent acknowledgement of the unlikelihood of a conviction following the acquittals of three other officers on similar and more serious charges by Circuit Judge Barry G. Williams, who was expected to preside over the remaining trials as well.
It also means the office of Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby will secure no convictions in the case after more than a year of dogged fighting, against increasingly heavy odds, to hold someone criminally accountable in Gray's death.
from the Baltimore Sun - ( New Window )
because they're the victims here, not the dead guy.
Quote:
malicious prosecution, defamation or anything else that will stick.
because they're the victims here, not the dead guy.
He was a thug. They deserve what they get. Duh.
Right. And even with lesser charges, there was still a lack of evidence.
It's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention what more than likely took place. Fortunately for the accused, there wasn't close to enough evidence to convict.
The whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing is pretty important in our legal system.
Sue? They should be on their knees in prayer that they're not in jail.
Quote:
There's a difference between not enough evidence for a conviction, and "nonsense" charges.
It's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention what more than likely took place. Fortunately for the accused, there wasn't close to enough evidence to convict.
The whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing is pretty important in our legal system.
I would say some of the charges were nonsense. I would put in this category the charges against the arresting officers who had no role in the transport. At first the reason for the arrest was questioned but the last information was that it was due to possession of a type of knife which was questionable to be legal.
I think I can agree with that.
Yeah, because they did no wrong. They should give them medals!
Quote:
malicious prosecution, defamation or anything else that will stick.
Yeah, because they did no wrong.
So sayeth the judge. And you're an expert on the law?
Get over it.
they have paid out previous million dollar lawsuits for injuries due to prisoner transport. and they never bothered to attempt to put cameras in the transport vans. and there was a sign posted on the van "Hope you enjoy you're ride, w e know we did" which gives credence to the issue of rough rides.
It's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention what more than likely took place. Fortunately for the accused, there wasn't close to enough evidence to convict.
The whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing is pretty important in our legal system.
Cam - I think I've got these facts right, but I believe that none of the remaining defendants had any connection to the van ride. If correct, and given the outcomes of the previous trials, I'd say the chances for conviction were virtually nil. Beyond that, IMHO, I think all defendants who had no connection with the van ride were egregiously overcharged for probably political purposes. However, I agree with you in that I don't think the charges were nonsense with respect to anyone who was involved with the van ride.
If this isnt sarcasm you're a fucking disgusting piece of shit. This man died in the custody of law enforcement for no fucking reason.
Why do people keep saying this?
The very same judge (Barry Williams) finding some of the officers not guilty of criminal negligence said that actions of the defendants could indeed be civilly negligent.
Quote:
In comment 13046581 Crispino said:
Quote:
malicious prosecution, defamation or anything else that will stick.
because they're the victims here, not the dead guy.
He was a thug. They deserve what they get. Duh.
And a Baltimore thug at that. Anyone who watched "The Wire" knows all about it!
I believe that was a civil case, which would have involved a lower standard of proof. It's wild speculation, but Baltimore probably could have settled for less than that if they had waited for the outcome of the criminal cases, but I doubt it would have gone down to zero.
Quote:
In comment 13046581 Crispino said:
Quote:
malicious prosecution, defamation or anything else that will stick.
Yeah, because they did no wrong.
So sayeth the judge. And you're an expert on the law?
Get over it.
They judge didn't say they did no wrong.
the charges re: their arrest of Gray "unlawful imprisonment" seemed thin, and that's being generous
they had to due to statute of limitations on filing a civil suit.
Link - ( New Window )
Anyone with the ACTUAL answer?
That is the answer. Some people want Mosby's ass on this and want her to lose her attorney license or worse.
Quote:
$6.4 million in taxpayer money back from his family?
I believe that was a civil case, which would have involved a lower standard of proof. It's wild speculation, but Baltimore probably could have settled for less than that if they had waited for the outcome of the criminal cases, but I doubt it would have gone down to zero.
That was my point. The City rushed to settle the civil case for political reasons. And, oh yeah, the Gray family lawyer who pocketed $2.1M happens to be good friends with the Mosbys.
As soon as the usual suspects get back from Philly.
Mosby, an hour ago, gave a press conference near where the arrest took place along with Freddie Gray's parent's. She was cheered and they said they were proud she was the prosecutor. There might be isolated incidents, but I don't think there will be anything close to the earlier riots.
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Accepting that description, just how does that make the 5 non-drivers guilty?
Quote:
In comment 13046625 AP in Halfmoon said:
Quote:
In comment 13046581 Crispino said:
Quote:
malicious prosecution, defamation or anything else that will stick.
Yeah, because they did no wrong.
So sayeth the judge. And you're an expert on the law?
Get over it.
They judge didn't say they did no wrong.
That's not the judge's job. The prosecutor couldn't make the case she brought because she had no evidence to support her charges. The judge did his job and ruled not guilty. That says it all.
As a result, we now have an angrier city that wants revenge (naively labeled as "Justice") for the death of Gray. The man should not have died, and something went horrible wrong. However, the DA and prosecuting team played this wrong and made a bad situation even worse.
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Link - ( New Window )
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
You're guessing, so the driver is guilty? Seriously, that's how you would judge this case?
That's akin to guilt by association. Somebody else did this so the driver in the Freddie Grey case must have done it too?
Because they lost the first 3 cases and everyone knows the whole thing was bogus.
Quote:
.
Because they lost the first 3 cases and everyone knows the whole thing was bogus.
I believe Mosby stated she dropped the cases when she determined she could bring them to trial 100 times and lose every time.
Quote:
I have cop friends.
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Video shows no sudden stops or turns of van. Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13046919 x meadowlander said:
Quote:
I have cop friends.
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Video shows no sudden stops or turns of van. Link - ( New Window )
They located video where the van wasn't making sudden stops or turns? I'm sure they didn't do it the entire ride. Are people really making the case that this was accidental?
Yes, buford
Justice was served - ( New Window )
That depends.
If you think they are guilty and were acquitted due to insufficient evidence you have a point
On they the other hand, if they were innocent people wrongly prosecuted than they have reason to celebrate.
I lol at this each time. You provide a fine service to BBI, Greg.
Not surprised at the acquittal - but something that shouldn't have happened happened and there and not much has been done to prevent it from happening again. Yet, you cannot seem to understand why minority citizens do not trust the police.
Quote:
In comment 13046919 x meadowlander said:
Quote:
I have cop friends.
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Video shows no sudden stops or turns of van. Link - ( New Window )
They located video where the van wasn't making sudden stops or turns? I'm sure they didn't do it the entire ride. Are people really making the case that this was accidental?
"Freddie Gray suffered a single "high-energy injury" to his neck and spine — most likely caused when the police van in which he was riding suddenly decelerated, according to a copy of the autopsy report obtained by The Baltimore Sun."
Autopsy of Freddie Gray shows 'high-energy' impact - ( New Window )
Not surprised at the acquittal - but something that shouldn't have happened happened and there and not much has been done to prevent it from happening again. Yet, you cannot seem to understand why minority citizens do not trust the police.
Are you saying all 6 disregarded those policies? You couldn't have gotten all 6 into the van to restrain Grey.
1. With the way cities have traffic cameras set up all over the place, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that they could have tape on the entire ride.
2. Is the Medical Examiner considered "people?" Because he (or she) concluded that the death was, indeed, accidental.
but, it's broader than that - Megyn Kelly interviewed a cop (disguised identity) on air and they asserted that no one follows the policy. Meaning you may have a significant part of teh patrol force that does not follow orders in an alleged paramilitary organization. That's something to be happy about?
but, it's broader than that - Megyn Kelly interviewed a cop (disguised identity) on air and they asserted that no one follows the policy. Meaning you may have a significant part of teh patrol force that does not follow orders in an alleged paramilitary organization. That's something to be happy about?
But 6 were criminally charged.
but, it's broader than that - Megyn Kelly interviewed a cop (disguised identity) on air and they asserted that no one follows the policy. Meaning you may have a significant part of teh patrol force that does not follow orders in an alleged paramilitary organization. That's something to be happy about?
The trial revealed the seat belt policy was very recently added and that the officers were unaware of the new policy, or that's what i thought i read.
Also read that they placed him on the floor of the van, and experts testified he would likely have not have suffered serious injuries had he stayed there.
Quote:
policy, 2,3 - whoever knew he should have been handcuffed.
but, it's broader than that - Megyn Kelly interviewed a cop (disguised identity) on air and they asserted that no one follows the policy. Meaning you may have a significant part of teh patrol force that does not follow orders in an alleged paramilitary organization. That's something to be happy about?
The trial revealed the seat belt policy was very recently added and that the officers were unaware of the new policy, or that's what i thought i read.
Also read that they placed him on the floor of the van, and experts testified he would likely have not have suffered serious injuries had he stayed there.
Volunteers? >:)
I've followed this fairly closely. I disagree with you with respect to the driver. I thought charges were possible, and an intense investigation of his actions was mandatory. I could also see acquittal on the basis of insufficient evidence. What I also see is a politically motivated overcharging of any cop within 1/2 mile of the innocent. Could 1 or 2 more be charged? Yes. All the other 5? NFW.
BTW. My understanding is that the DA is an elective office. If that's correct, you haven't seen the last of Mosely by a long shot.
Quote:
In comment 13047149 bc4life said:
Quote:
policy, 2,3 - whoever knew he should have been handcuffed.
but, it's broader than that - Megyn Kelly interviewed a cop (disguised identity) on air and they asserted that no one follows the policy. Meaning you may have a significant part of teh patrol force that does not follow orders in an alleged paramilitary organization. That's something to be happy about?
The trial revealed the seat belt policy was very recently added and that the officers were unaware of the new policy, or that's what i thought i read.
Also read that they placed him on the floor of the van, and experts testified he would likely have not have suffered serious injuries had he stayed there.
Tell you what. I'll rent a U-Haul Van. You lie on the floor. I'll slam on the brakes at only 15 MPH. Let's see what happens.
Volunteers? >:)
they interviewed the other prisoner in the van and he said that there wasn't a rough ride.
Plus, there are many other experiments I can think of that you can do that cause self harm that would help the defense.
He got screwed on the medal, too.
Quote:
In comment 13047149 bc4life said:
Quote:
policy, 2,3 - whoever knew he should have been handcuffed.
but, it's broader than that - Megyn Kelly interviewed a cop (disguised identity) on air and they asserted that no one follows the policy. Meaning you may have a significant part of teh patrol force that does not follow orders in an alleged paramilitary organization. That's something to be happy about?
The trial revealed the seat belt policy was very recently added and that the officers were unaware of the new policy, or that's what i thought i read.
Also read that they placed him on the floor of the van, and experts testified he would likely have not have suffered serious injuries had he stayed there.
Tell you what. I'll rent a U-Haul Van. You lie on the floor. I'll slam on the brakes at only 15 MPH. Let's see what happens.
Volunteers? >:)
Where is the evidence that the van driver slammed on the brakes?
Oh wait. There is none.
Quote:
I have cop friends.
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Video shows no sudden stops or turns of van. Link - ( New Window )
The video is from outside security cameras and is impossible for them to be able to cover the whole ride to the jail. Where is the video from inside the van that virtually every police dept i have heard of has set up in prisoner trasport vehicles?n
Huh? The ME ruled it a homicide. Some of the defendants' lawyers tried to claim she told a detective it was a "freakish accident", then was later pressured into ruling it a homicide. The ME denied that under oath. While that's clearly hearsay, the judge only allowed it because of the other stuff the prosecutors withheld.
One of the things they withheld was a statement from the other detainee in the police van. One of the reasons it was withheld was because they thought his statements were ultimately worthless... the guy told cops Gray tried to injure himself, then later said the exact opposite. The judge criticized prosecutors for withholding it, but ultimately decided against entering it into evidence or dismissing the charges because of it.
Quote:
In comment 13046919 x meadowlander said:
Quote:
I have cop friends.
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Video shows no sudden stops or turns of van. Link - ( New Window )
The video is from outside security cameras and is impossible for them to be able to cover the whole ride to the jail. Where is the video from inside the van that virtually every police dept i have heard of has set up in prisoner trasport vehicles?n
They got approved earlier this year for Baltimore.
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/city-officials-approve-cameras-in-police-transport-vans/38171142
Most police vans of that size don't have cameras in the back and neither do most of the patrol cars.
I am guessing you just made that up :)
they interviewed the other prisoner in the van and he said that there wasn't a rough ride.
Plus, there are many other experiments I can think of that you can do that cause self harm that would help the defense.
From a Baltimore Sun article...
"Allen's statement to police on the day of the arrest has not played a central role in the court proceedings against the officers to date. That's likely in part because in the days following, Allen recanted and denied that statement in media interviews."
Quote:
In comment 13047149 bc4life said:
Quote:
policy, 2,3 - whoever knew he should have been handcuffed.
but, it's broader than that - Megyn Kelly interviewed a cop (disguised identity) on air and they asserted that no one follows the policy. Meaning you may have a significant part of teh patrol force that does not follow orders in an alleged paramilitary organization. That's something to be happy about?
The trial revealed the seat belt policy was very recently added and that the officers were unaware of the new policy, or that's what i thought i read.
Also read that they placed him on the floor of the van, and experts testified he would likely have not have suffered serious injuries had he stayed there.
Tell you what. I'll rent a U-Haul Van. You lie on the floor. I'll slam on the brakes at only 15 MPH. Let's see what happens.
Volunteers? >:)
There's zero evidence that happened. You want them convicted on a hunch?
this. although there are bad cops, there are also bad individuals and somehow our politicians and in this case the prosecutor that is looking to exploit cops to further their career. Look at that fool, Baltimore mayor in the same breath....opportunists and will use any crisis and individuals to stir up shit....most of this stuff is like Al Sharpton Tawanna Brawley like in nature...
I applaud Michael Jordan for stepping up just recently and donating money to cops and NAACP to seek to stop this nonsense before more families lose their loved ones to exploiters.
Quote:
In comment 13046944 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 13046919 x meadowlander said:
Quote:
I have cop friends.
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Video shows no sudden stops or turns of van. Link - ( New Window )
The video is from outside security cameras and is impossible for them to be able to cover the whole ride to the jail. Where is the video from inside the van that virtually every police dept i have heard of has set up in prisoner trasport vehicles?n
They got approved earlier this year for Baltimore.
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/city-officials-approve-cameras-in-police-transport-vans/38171142
Most police vans of that size don't have cameras in the back and neither do most of the patrol cars.
I am guessing you just made that up :)
LOL...This actually is the only police force i have heard that does not have recording capabilities inside police vehicles, especially prisoner transport ones. Hell my little towns 10 man force even has them. The amount of cases you could close just from info gotten inside these vehicles makes them extremely cost effective
I wonder why people who are utterly convinced that Adnan Syed should never have been convicted wonder why the police here haven't been. This case seemed awash with reasonable doubt, and the prosecutor in this case seemed to raise expectations for outcomes unreasonably high.
Quote:
they interviewed the other prisoner in the van and he said that there wasn't a rough ride.
Plus, there are many other experiments I can think of that you can do that cause self harm that would help the defense.
From a Baltimore Sun article...
"Allen's statement to police on the day of the arrest has not played a central role in the court proceedings against the officers to date. That's likely in part because in the days following, Allen recanted and denied that statement in media interviews."
I would have recanted too if I lived in Baltimore, but an interview that happened before he found out about the media frenzy is more credible than after when he can now be a target of his community.
Freddie Gray had a history of injury for cash attempts, and self harm in police custody; looks like this one worked. He was the one acting like an animal when they tried to get him into the seat and his behavior made it reasonable for the cop to believe he could get injured trying.
I wonder why people who are utterly convinced that Adnan Syed should never have been convicted wonder why the police here haven't been. This case seemed awash with reasonable doubt, and the prosecutor in this case seemed to raise expectations for outcomes unreasonably high.
I am not arguing the decision of not prosecuting them at all. I am though wondering why a police dept would not utilize a very cost effective solution to trivial lawsuits, and a very effective investigative tool that seems just common sense to have
Quote:
dash cams are almost ubiquitous at this point, body cams are in vogue though not universal, backseat cameras are hit or miss.
I wonder why people who are utterly convinced that Adnan Syed should never have been convicted wonder why the police here haven't been. This case seemed awash with reasonable doubt, and the prosecutor in this case seemed to raise expectations for outcomes unreasonably high.
I am not arguing the decision of not prosecuting them at all. I am though wondering why a police dept would not utilize a very cost effective solution to trivial lawsuits, and a very effective investigative tool that seems just common sense to have
I entirely agree on that point.
Freddie Gray had a history of injury for cash attempts, and self harm in police custody; looks like this one worked. He was the one acting like an animal when they tried to get him into the seat and his behavior made it reasonable for the cop to believe he could get injured trying.
The problem with that argument is that everyone acknowledges the officers didn't follow procedure and if they had followed procedure, there's a 99% chance Gray would still be alive today. However, as the judge stated, the violation of police general orders is not a crime, and that "failing to seat-belt a detainee in a transport wagon is not inherently criminal conduct." It was always going to be difficult to prove nefarious intent on the part of police... it always is.
This case is similar to the Sean Bell case in how not following police procedure isn't a criminal offense, although it conceivably leads to the death of someone. All of the officers in the Bell case were eventually fired or forced to resign... it will be interesting to see what happens with these guys.
Quote:
In comment 13047257 madgiantscow009 said:
Quote:
they interviewed the other prisoner in the van and he said that there wasn't a rough ride.
Plus, there are many other experiments I can think of that you can do that cause self harm that would help the defense.
From a Baltimore Sun article...
"Allen's statement to police on the day of the arrest has not played a central role in the court proceedings against the officers to date. That's likely in part because in the days following, Allen recanted and denied that statement in media interviews."
I would have recanted too if I lived in Baltimore, but an interview that happened before he found out about the media frenzy is more credible than after when he can now be a target of his community.
Freddie Gray had a history of injury for cash attempts, and self harm in police custody; looks like this one worked. He was the one acting like an animal when they tried to get him into the seat and his behavior made it reasonable for the cop to believe he could get injured trying.
Wouldn't you recant your statement after your name and where you live was published in the paper!
Quote:
Freddie Gray had a history of injury for cash attempts, and self harm in police custody; looks like this one worked. He was the one acting like an animal when they tried to get him into the seat and his behavior made it reasonable for the cop to believe he could get injured trying.
The problem with that argument is that everyone acknowledges the officers didn't follow procedure and if they had followed procedure, there's a 99% chance Gray would still be alive today. However, as the judge stated, the violation of police general orders is not a crime, and that "failing to seat-belt a detainee in a transport wagon is not inherently criminal conduct." It was always going to be difficult to prove nefarious intent on the part of police... it always is.
This case is similar to the Sean Bell case in how not following police procedure isn't a criminal offense, although it conceivably leads to the death of someone. All of the officers in the Bell case were eventually fired or forced to resign... it will be interesting to see what happens with these guys.
It is also against policy to put yourself in undue harm. There is also a 99% change he would be alive if he wasn't belligerent.
If Baltimore wants to force the cops to resign, that is their decision.
animal, thug,... some things never change
Utter garbage, but it's likely to get her reelected.
you're reaching almost as bad as Mosby
"As a State Attorney, you absolutely cannot put political gains ahead of the Constitution and the laws of the land. When will people learn that?"
----Mike Nifong
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.
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.
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Except there was testimony from another prisoner it didn't happen That way. Whatever may happen in other cases doesn't mean it happened in his case and the people still howling for the police to be thrown In jail are assholes. Cops do fuck up and sometimes do do things illegal. This wasn't one of those cases. The self righteous indignation of the howlers is old and tired. Same with Michael Brown. God forbid people's narrative that every cop interaction is malicious or premeditated. And it's wrong to absolve cops of everything too. Why that is I have no idea.
Quote:
I have cop friends.
Driving in a manner to punish disorderly passengers is a common cop tactic. Asshole in the back seat mouthing off? Slam the brakes - people who are cuffed have a hard time preventing themselves from hitting the cage. Shuts them right up.
I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Gray. But it wasn't a squad car - it was a van, and there was room for him to fly and snap his neck when the brakes were pegged.
I doubt the cop meant to kill him, but kill him he did, and it's a crying shame there's no justice on this one, not only for Gray, but for those affected by the inevitable violence in 3... 2.... 1...
Except there was testimony from another prisoner it didn't happen That way. Whatever may happen in other cases doesn't mean it happened in his case and the people still howling for the police to be thrown In jail are assholes. Cops do fuck up and sometimes do do things illegal. This wasn't one of those cases. The self righteous indignation of the howlers is old and tired. Same with Michael Brown. God forbid people's narrative that every cop interaction is malicious or premeditated. And it's wrong to absolve cops of everything too. Why that is I have no idea.
Um, you are aware that the "other prisoner" recanted?
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
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.
Link - ( New Window )
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.