• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Freddie Gray verdict: Baltimore officer who drove van not guilty on all charges

RetiredUSN said:
Freddie gay violating his probation, and smacking his own head against the floor/wall somehow makes the police responsible?

Here is a list of poor Freedie's priors.

March 20, 2015: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance
March 13, 2015: Malicious destruction of property, second-degree assault
January 20, 2015: Fourth-degree burglary, trespassing
January 14, 2015: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute
December 31, 2014: Possession of narcotics with intent to distribute
December 14, 2014: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance
August 31, 2014: Illegal gambling, trespassing
January 25, 2014: Possession of marijuana
September 28, 2013: Distribution of narcotics, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, second-degree assault, second-degree escape
April 13, 2012: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, violation of probation
July 16, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute
March 28, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
March 14, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to manufacture and distribute
February 11, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance
August 29, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, violation of probation
August 28, 2007: Possession of marijuana
August 23, 2007: False statement to a peace officer, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
July 16, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (2 counts)
Click to expand...

Yawn. His priors are irrelevant to this case.
 
Cephus said:
It is absolutely and completely relevant. If it hadn't been for that criminal history, he wouldn't have found himself in the back of that van. He brought it on himself.
Click to expand...

The issue isn't whether or not he deserved to be arrested. It isn't relevant whatsoever.
 
Cephus said:
It is absolutely and completely relevant. If it hadn't been for that criminal history, he wouldn't have found himself in the back of that van. He brought it on himself.
Click to expand...

Hypothesis contrary to fact. He brought nothing on himself in terms of severing his spine.
 
Cephus said:
There's nothing mysterious about it. He was an idiot for his criminal history, he was an idiot for violating his parole, he was an idiot for ignoring what the police told him to do and he harmed himself because of it.

Liberals aren't that bright, are they?
Click to expand...

Whatever, dude. Liberals are winning this argument — the rules are changing, police are under scrutiny, the war on drugs is being rolled back state by state. If you want your point of view to be taken seriously, you're going to have to make a coherent point. Try harder.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
You're actually choosing to defend that? Just show that the "black community" wants "whites" to be found guilty, or whatever. It's really too stupid to even paraphrase.
Click to expand...

We want the GUILTY to be found guilty. And Freddy Gray and Michael Brown and all of the rest of these sleazebags are GUILTY. But asshole liberals, particularly racist asshole liberals, think that the law doesn't actually apply to minorities because... reasons. The law is color blind. If you break the law, you get punished. If you break the law, you earned what you get. But no, BLM jerks think that when the actual law doesn't go their way, they get to riot and burn things down because somehow, they're special.

No, they're just racist assholes.
 
Sherman123 said:
The issue isn't whether or not he deserved to be arrested. It isn't relevant whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Apparently it is. He brought the whole situation on himself, from violating the law to ignoring what he was told to do. It's only irrelevant because reality proves you laughably wrong.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Hypothesis contrary to fact. He brought nothing on himself in terms of severing his spine.
Click to expand...

Did he remain laying down as he was told to? Or are you suggesting that someone else stood him up and threw him around?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Already did. It doesn't make his priors relevant to this case, m'am.

Where'd you study law? Pep Boys?
Click to expand...

The evidence of the "money for fake injuries" definitely swayed the judge didn't it.

Acquittal!!!!!!!!!!

The Judge knew he was a scumbag looking for a quick buck.
 
Cephus said:
Did he remain laying down as he was told to? Or are you suggesting that someone else stood him up and threw him around?
Click to expand...

Evidence either way is inconclusive, but the extent/severity of his injuries indicate it was highly unlikely he did this of his own volition. The autopsy stated it "was a non-accidental homicide after he suffered a “high-energy” injury to his neck and spine while in the Baltimore police van"
 
RetiredUSN said:
The evidence of the "money for fake injuries" definitely swayed the judge didn't it.

Acquittal!!!!!!!!!!

The Judge knew he was a scumbag looking for a quick buck.
Click to expand...

Yawn. Yet more irrelevancy. No one is disputing he wasn't acquitted, m'am, and the fact remains that his priors were irrelevant to this case and there is no indication the judge took them into account.

Or haven't you been following the actual case?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Evidence either way is inconclusive, but the extent/severity of his injuries indicate it was highly unlikely he did this of his own volition. The autopsy stated it "was a non-accidental homicide after he suffered a “high-energy” injury to his neck and spine while in the Baltimore police van"
Click to expand...

Again... Freddie was always playing the crash for cash scheme on the police.

Defense says prosecutor steered police away from evidence Freddie Gray had history of 'crash for cash' schemes - Baltimore Sun

Freddie Gray accused of 'crash for cash' schemes - CNN.com

Lawyers: Freddie Gray Participated In Scams | The Daily Caller

Only you can say or suggest that it was non-accidental because you never took the time to research before making an argument.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Yawn. Yet more irrelevancy. No one is disputing he wasn't acquitted, m'am, and the fact remains that his priors were irrelevant to this case and there is no indication the judge took them into account.

Or haven't you been following the actual case?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant in your argument, because you never researched Freddie, and the judge who is on very same circuit as the some of Freddie's prior judges. Only you could possibly think that this judge wasn't aware of his priors. The judge has full access to his priors and damn well used them against the DA.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Again... Freddie was always playing the crash for cash scheme on the police.

Defense says prosecutor steered police away from evidence Freddie Gray had history of 'crash for cash' schemes - Baltimore Sun

Freddie Gray accused of 'crash for cash' schemes - CNN.com

Lawyers: Freddie Gray Participated In Scams | The Daily Caller

Only you can say or suggest that it was non-accidental because you never took the time to research before making an argument.
Click to expand...

You're really not very good at this. You made a claim about his priors being relevant. Thus far you haven't demonstrated that they were in any way relevant to the case or that the judge considered them.

You might consider finding out what the term 'argument' means before attempting to use it.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Irrelevant in your argument, because you never researched Freddie, and the judge who is on very same circuit as the some of Freddie's prior judges. Only you could possibly think that this judge wasn't aware of his priors. The judge has full access to his priors and damn well used them against the DA.
Click to expand...

But, of course, I have. It's how I know you're simply bloviating and braying about what you wish were true, but can't actually make the case that it is. Nor, obviously, have you read about the judge's decision and its details.

Good luck with your magical thinking and fantasies about how the courts and this case worked, though. You're going to need it.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
You're really not very good at this. You made a claim about his priors being relevant. Thus far you haven't demonstrated that they were in any way relevant to the case or that the judge considered them.

You might consider finding out what the term 'argument' means before attempting to use it.
Click to expand...

The very same judge has prosecuted police in the past. Trail by judge will certainly bring up priors. Trial were defendants give testimony are different than trials were they refuse to testify.

Straight out of the Maryland bar exam:

Priors in Action
Consider the following examples, which show how judges determine whether to admit prior convictions of testifying defendants:

A defendant is charged with murder and has a prior conviction for passing bad checks. Because the prior conviction involves a crime of dishonesty, the judge will probably allow the prosecutor to question the defendant about it.
 
Cephus said:
We want the GUILTY to be found guilty. And Freddy Gray and Michael Brown and all of the rest of these sleazebags are GUILTY. But asshole liberals, particularly racist asshole liberals, think that the law doesn't actually apply to minorities because... reasons. The law is color blind. If you break the law, you get punished. If you break the law, you earned what you get. But no, BLM jerks think that when the actual law doesn't go their way, they get to riot and burn things down because somehow, they're special.

No, they're just racist assholes.
Click to expand...

It's not blacks to whom the law doesn't seem to apply. You couldn't have a more skewed perception of this issue.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
But, of course, I have. It's how I know you're simply bloviating and braying about what you wish were true, but can't actually make the case that it is. Nor, obviously, have you read about the judge's decision and its details.

Good luck with your magical thinking and fantasies about how the courts and this case worked, though. You're going to need it.
Click to expand...

It's you that believes he is the nest Perry Mason. I have the Freddie Crap on my TV every night and see first hand as to what the judge will allow for evidence.
 
Sherman123 said:
I'm utterly uninterested in his criminal history. It isn't relevant.
Click to expand...

Of course it isn't relevant to you... It completely destroys the "Freddie Gray was an innocent victim of racist cops" narrative.

.
 
Grim17 said:
Of course it isn't relevant to you... It completely destroys the "Freddie Gray was an innocent victim of racist cops" narrative.

.
Click to expand...

Just because he was a scoundrel doesn't mean he wasn't treated in a horrendous fashion that caused his death.
 
Sherman123 said:
Just because he was a scoundrel doesn't mean he wasn't treated in a horrendous fashion that caused his death.
Click to expand...

The verdicts handed down by the courts thus far disagree with your belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom