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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.