csbrown28
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 6, 2013
- Messages
- 3,102
- Reaction score
- 1,604
- Location
- NW Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Im not sure why the guy was arrested, but he was no stranger to handcuffs. He led police on a foot chase and had to be tazed in order to be subdued. But I don't see why the officers had to be charged with 'wrongful imprisonment.' That seems way over the top and will almost certainly be dismissed. If the guy died because of injuries that took place in the van due to intentional action by the driver, then the driver should be charged and the others should just face disciplinary hearings within the department at most. This overzealous prosecutor has simply set the stage for acquittals that will only reinforce the idea that the system is flawed, when in truth, it is her charges that were flawed.
What struck me is that they had no real reason to arrest him to begin with. My ex-cop, cop worshipping, coworker even agreed the charges were appropriate.
Im not sure why the guy was arrested, but he was no stranger to handcuffs. He led police on a foot chase and had to be tazed in order to be subdued. But I don't see why the officers had to be charged with 'wrongful imprisonment.' That seems way over the top and will almost certainly be dismissed. If the guy died because of injuries that took place in the van due to intentional action by the driver, then the driver should be charged and the others should just face disciplinary hearings within the department at most. This overzealous prosecutor has simply set the stage for acquittals that will only reinforce the idea that the system is flawed, when in truth, it is her charges that were flawed.
One feature of the US judicial system is the right to a fair trial, and as such, the fate of those on trial and what may be discussed in court is *not* up to the whims of an elected prosecutor.Uh, no. Elected Prosecutors decided what gets heard in front of judges and juries. You should familiarize yourself with the US judicial system.
As much of it as you have.Really? So you read the whole report? :2wave:
You don't need probable cause to pursue, or to question. You need only reasonable suspicion. Simply running from the police does not provide reasonable suspicion, but could if there are other factors in play. The defense will have to provide a better justification than what we currently know to be the facts.She talked about that. She said it was legal to posses, regardless, the cops didn't know he had it on him when they pursued him. Not probable cause.
The cops don't have a right to question anyone without probable cause....they didn't have it.
I suppose they are charged with wrongful imprisonment because they arrested a man who had done nothing wrong. They arrested a man who had committed no crime. They arrested a man without any probable cause that a crime had been committed.
No, that is not right.
She specifically said state law allowed it to be possessed (and it clearly is legal to possess it). The manner in which it is possessed, however, can be a violation of city ordinances.
Gray ran upon noticing the cops. This may well give the police probable cause to stop Gray and to attempt to identify him, thus leading to questions on his probation status, the concealed knife etc.
You don't need probable cause to pursue, or to question. You need only reasonable suspicion. Simply running from the police does not provide reasonable suspicion, but could if there are other factors in play. The defense will have to provide a better justification than what we currently know to be the facts.
She specifically stated his knife in his possesion at the time was legal.
It was stated that that was not probable cause.
You do need probable cause to pursue and arrest. You may not need it to question, but refusal to answer questions is not probable cause.
Failure to ID is a criminal offense. Likewise, people on probation or parole might not enjoy the full right of refusal to answer other questions. For example, I know that some California parolees are "fourth amendment waiver" parolees and have signed an agreement waiving 4th amendment rights.You have every right to not answer a police officers questions.
You only need probable cause to arrest, not pursue. They also would have needed probable cause to search unless they were given permission. In this case, however, the knife they found was partially visible.You do need probable cause to pursue and arrest. You may not need it to question, but refusal to answer questions is not probable cause. You have every right to not answer a police officers questions.
So your definition of "blind partisanship" is "Democrats." Figures, sadly. Sadly, the "party of personal freedom" and the people who are always saying we need guns to defend our freedom are totally fine with citizens being killed by police.
Instead of "black lives matter," how about "Citizens' lives matter?" Sadly, you'd be against that too. Unless of course, a Republican started it.
I gave you some pretty specific examples of what blind partisanship that were relevant to this issue.
If anybody think these charges are appropriate they are not living in reality.
While you have the ability to make such a argument, it is not one supported by the known evidence.Which actions did Mr. Gray take that put his live in danger? I mean, if you can make that argument, then I can simply turn it around and make the same argument.....If the police had simply rendered/ called for medical attention, Mr. Gray would most likely still be alive and 6 police wouldn't be facing some pretty serious charges.
It may be found that there wasn't a meaningful and effective notification of the supposed new policy.Actually contributing to the death of a person via carelessness, either by accident or intentional is, in fact, against the law.
D'oh! Both suspects fled.Yes a drug deal suspiciously short of drugs....hmmmmm
It does not raise to the level of of criminal culpability.Again, the criminal part isn't that they violated policy, it's that someone allegedly has died for failure to implement the policy.
She specifically went out of her way and spoke to it's legality status in regards to Maryland law, not Baltimore city ordinances which is what the violation listed is.SShe specifically stated his knife in his possesion at the time was legal.
Yes. The videos I posted earlier are there for review.Apparently there is an anonymous cop that is reporting that Freddy Grey was an informant, and the pursuit and arrest was a cover up to protect his "street cred". That may explain why he was detained for no good reason...and it may mean his death was a freak accident in no-way intended by the involved officers. Be interseting to see how that part, if at all credible, plays out. It could also be an attempt for the cops to get their brethren off the murder/manslaughter charges, though...
The folks replying indicates that is not true.Looks like you're going on a me-against-the-world crusade. Best of luck, brother!
The folks replying indicates that is not true.
Dershowitz position indicates that is not true.
The FOP's position indicates that is not true.
Etc ...
So why are you speaking untruths?
Never mind, I know.
oh goody. now when the evidence becomes clear(see ferguson) and the officers get off we can all witness an even BIGGER race riot in Baltimore. and the best part is it will all be blamed on ME, the "angry white male".
good times
You do know that 3 of the officers charged were black right? It's not so much about the race of the cops as how the cops handled this and several situations in the past was part of a larger overall problem in the city.
Odd reply considering your claim of "me-against-the-world crusade" is rhetoric.Why do you feel the need to ratchet up the rhetoric so quickly? I wait for all the evidence to come in, not just the alleged components of evidence that suits your narrow views.
Do you have independent sources to support these statements that how the knife was being carried complied with city ordinances and that running from the police is not probable cause to detain and attempt to identify an individual?
The proscecutor is no more an independent source than the defense attorney.
So it is possible that the police had lawful authority to detain Gray in an attempt to identify him. In Gray's case (18 prior arrests with the distinct possibility of being on probation or parole), such a detention could well yield lawful grounds to arrest him for either a criminal offense (failue to ID), or for administrative violations of his probation / parole status*.
* providing that one can be arrested for adminstrative violations of probation / parole. I am not certain, but my bet is that one can be. How often it happens, or if the police int his case made a formal conclusion of administrative violations, may be another matter.
Failure to ID is a criminal offense. Likewise, people on probation or parole might not enjoy the full right of refusal to answer other questions. For example, I know that some California parolees are "fourth amendment waiver" parolees and have signed an agreement waiving 4th amendment rights.
You only need probable cause to arrest, not pursue. They also would have needed probable cause to search unless they were given permission. In this case, however, the knife they found was partially visible.
They should test their mettle one some of the dozens of jobs that are far more dangerous.Anyone who is currently or wants to go into law enforcement, are idiots. The job is dangerous enough without the DOJ and whiny liberals cities and states wanting to imprison you for trying to do a very difficult job.
As you already know, she did not say that.The prosecutor stated that the knife, or his possesion of it did not violate local law.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?