It's been explained by someone that it offends many times in the Off-Topic Forum.
I personally don't have a problem with it, but I understand where he's coming from. I prefer the words donkey-cave, BALETEDhole, and BALETEDface, anyhow.
Edit: Forgot those get by the DakkaDakka filter. My bad.
The word "Thug" can be racially charged. As happen last time we debated something like this the word (thug) was being used in placed of the "November" word. Was the thread about the Ferguson shooting.
nkelsch wrote: What can the president do except feel bad about it and try to address general social economic issues? Federalize state and local police?
The fix is at the very least three-fold:
1) Get rid of ridiculous laws that increases the Police vs Citizen confrontation. IE, the loosie cigarette or illegal knives that warrants actual fething arrests. (if you want to deincentivize these behaviors, simply fine them).
2) Speaking of fines, stop empowering the police/state to treat the citizens as another source of tax revenues via fines. That is, do NOT budget based on a certain expectation from revenues generated from fines.
1) & 2) is really the domain of the local/state goverments... however...
3) Nationally, we must have Judicial/Incarceration reforms. If we're honest, is really getting out of hand.
On a national level, Congress can only affect federal laws and the sentencing guidelines for them. Police Departments are enforcing municipal and state laws and the people they arrest are being prosecuted by municipal/county/state prosecutors. Congress can pass legislation to reform the DoJ and the federal agencies like the DEA, ATF and FBI but they can't effect any change on Baltimore knife laws or similar laws.
Not trying to be nitpicky but when the federal govt tries to involve itself in matters it's not designed to handle and doesn't have jurisdiction over it tends to be one size fits all solutions that are unwieldy and bring about negative unintended consequences.
While Cameras don't solve every issue(I fully believe Garner was executed by a dirty cop who Garner had filed charges against) in this particular issue, both recording the arrest and the van ride would have quickly answered virtually all the questions.
*We would have had "on Video" an officer who could say "here is the reason for the arrest, he had this knife, and see this *sproing* this makes it illegal in the city. Shows real-time interpretation of a situation, and how the stop initiated (since the knife didn't initiate the stop) opposed to manufacturing charges later to CYA.
*We would have had the interactions between the officers on recording, so *IF* someone ordered a rough ride, it would have been caught (more likely, they wouldn't have ordered it, if it was)
*If we would have had a camera inside the paddywagon, we could have immediately seen the lack of securing, any "freddie hurt himself", the words calling for help, the violent level of the ride and the actual death.
*If the sarge who investigated the community complaints had a camera, we would have seen her immediate reaction and interaction with Gray.
If they did nothing wrong and it was a horrible mistake, it probably would have proved it. If they DID do something wrong, the cameras would have provided enough 'encouragement' to not do it. He would have been arrested, taken to the precinct and alive with a public defender trying to shake a potentially sketchy arrest which would probably have been charges dropped.
Cameras protect everyone, and while doesn't address the core issues which are on the table of overpolicing, low income people disproportionately put through the system and such, it does cut down on false claims and helps remind people who might have a rage issue or walk the line of making a bad call willing to second guess when they know their actions can be under review.
nkelsch wrote: I fully believe Garner was executed by a dirty cop who Garner had filed charges against
Executed? Really? If Garner was even remotely fit he'd be alive. I have trouble following the thought train that starts with "cop knew Garner's heart would give out if placed under stress." They shouldn't have used the initial choke hold. But that didn't kill Garner on it's own.
I think I just have a lot of trouble with the use of "executed."
Cameras protect everyone, and while doesn't address the core issues which are on the table of overpolicing, low income people disproportionately put through the system and such, it does cut down on false claims and helps remind people who might have a rage issue or walk the line of making a bad call willing to second guess when they know their actions can be under review.
Exactly. Fewer cops toeing a line. Fewer false reports. Better for everyone.
nkelsch wrote: I fully believe Garner was executed by a dirty cop who Garner had filed charges against
Executed? Really? If Garner was even remotely fit he'd be alive. I have trouble following the thought train that starts with "cop knew Garner's heart would give out if placed under stress." They shouldn't have used the initial choke hold. But that didn't kill Garner on it's own.
I think I just have a lot of trouble with the use of "executed."
The issue is, if it really did go down the way Garner reported, it reeks of retaliation in which the only way for the retaliation to not prompt further investigation and issue is with Garner being dead.
The burring of the contents of Garner's official complaint leads to reasonable belief something bad was going on. And the history of the officer and other complaints along with the history of cops seizing money used in a crime for their own pockets in NYC, it probably did happen to some point where money was being repeatedly seized under threat of arrest for something they didn't have the right to arrest for. Saying 'no' and reporting it got him killed. Motive turns Manslaughter into Murder. Destroy evidence of motive via silence or police corruption, and Murder never gets proven and we are left scratching our heads and no clear answer or resolution.
But besides all that... Why are the NYC police using illegal choke holds hundreds of times a year when it is explicitly banned? Same reason Baltimore City cops are giving rough rides causing paralysis, because cops break the law and disregard procedure to do what they want knowing they can get away with it and it is 'banned, but accepted' within the departments.
That is the core issue... these are not isolated honest mistakes of a single hot-headed cop, this is systematic rulebreaking and violence supported by the police departments. And since I don't think the police can and will 'police' themselves, Cameras and possibly Civilian social workers are the way to go to protect citizen's rights.
But besides all that... Why are the NYC police using illegal choke holds hundreds of times a year when it is explicitly banned? Same reason Baltimore City cops are giving rough rides causing paralysis, because cops break the law and disregard procedure to do what they want knowing they can get away with it and it is 'banned, but accepted' within the departments.
That is the core issue... these are not isolated honest mistakes of a single hot-headed cop, this is systematic rulebreaking and violence supported by the police departments. And since I don't think the police can and will 'police' themselves, Cameras and possibly Civilian social workers are the way to go to protect citizen's rights.
Agreed on both of those points.
I'm all for body cams. I just don't want to pay for them
The issue is, if it really did go down the way Garner reported, it reeks of retaliation in which the only way for the retaliation to not prompt further investigation and issue is with Garner being dead.
I mean, Garner was a career criminal and I'm fairly certain the complaint was filed against him to the police that prompted them showing up that day anyways, didn't it?
It's a real problem we have, in that we tend to automatically believe police. But I just have trouble trusting the word of a dude that's been arrested that often.
I'm all for body cams. I just don't want to pay for them
Would you rather pay for a few hundred thousand dollars for cams/training/infrastructure or a few million dollars of lawsuits? The taxpayer is on the hook either way. I'll go for the cameras.
I'm all for body cams. I just don't want to pay for them
Would you rather pay for a few hundred thousand dollars for cams/training/infrastructure or a few million dollars of lawsuits? The taxpayer is on the hook either way. I'll go for the cameras.
I can understand your stance in Corruptville, USA.
We haven't seen any such lawsuits in my neck of the woods.
I'm all for body cams. I just don't want to pay for them
Would you rather pay for a few hundred thousand dollars for cams/training/infrastructure or a few million dollars of lawsuits? The taxpayer is on the hook either way. I'll go for the cameras.
I can understand your stance in Corruptville, USA.
We haven't seen any such lawsuits in my neck of the woods.
Yeah, the math works out to make the Cams way more expensive than a few lawsuits every now and then.
Sure, for a single, podunk town... it'd be a budget buster.
But, I'm sure a State could take that on, and use the collective purchasing power of the combined PD to get a great deal. That'd be another "check"... in that, the administration/archival of these videos are handle by State officials.
In 2008, 12,501 local police departments with the equivalent of at least one full-time officer were operating in the U.S. In 2008, local police departments had about 593,000 full-time employees, including 461,000 sworn officers. About 60% of all state and local sworn personnel were local police officers.
At $75 per camera, buying one for every two cops comes out to $17.3 million (rounded to get the 3).
That is just local cops (where money is tightest).
And that is just for the cameras.
But hey, it is just tax payer money, so who cares right? And we can keep electing and appointing folks who keep up the same policies while we're at it.
Sure, for a single, podunk town... it'd be a budget buster.
But, I'm sure a State could take that on, and use the collective purchasing power of the combined PD to get a great deal. That'd be another "check"... in that, the administration/archival of these videos are handle by State officials.
Even at a state level, especially at a state level, the Cameras would still be way more expensive than just having a "malpractice" fund.
Not only do you have to buy cameras, but you also have to buy extra cameras. And then pay for collecting, storing, and analyzing all that data. Data storage is cheap, but the people actively downloading and archiving that data aren't.
Thats adding a lot of employees to the state tab for some rather minor gains.
In 2008, 12,501 local police departments with the equivalent of at least one full-time officer were operating in the U.S.
In 2008, local police departments had about 593,000 full-time employees, including 461,000 sworn officers. About 60% of all state and local sworn personnel were local police officers.
At $75 per camera, buying one for every two cops comes out to $17.3 million (rounded to get the 3).
That is just local cops (where money is tightest).
And that is just for the cameras.
But hey, it is just tax payer money, so who cares right? And we can keep electing and appointing folks who keep up the same policies while we're at it.
In 2008, 12,501 local police departments with the equivalent of at least one full-time officer were operating in the U.S. In 2008, local police departments had about 593,000 full-time employees, including 461,000 sworn officers. About 60% of all state and local sworn personnel were local police officers.
At $75 per camera, buying one for every two cops comes out to $17.3 million (rounded to get the 3).
That is just local cops (where money is tightest).
And that is just for the cameras.
But hey, it is just tax payer money, so who cares right? And we can keep electing and appointing folks who keep up the same policies while we're at it.
$17.3 million for every other cop in the US? Do it. fething do it.
I actually calculated that, with 1.1million officers in the US(each of them needs his own cam, no sharing) it would cost about $88 million for the Cameras alone(assuming a 40% discount over retail)
Then you have the salaries of the individuals uploading, archiving, and general handling the video feeds and any spare cameras in case they break. That is going to get REALLY expensive. Well into the hundreds of millions.
And you're going to have to replace these cameras fairly regularly as they're going to get broken or just wear out.
This is something that i got into a very heated debate with my sister. When she mentioned that it is said gays might be getting farther along in civil rights than black civil rights.
I said something that very much might be completely and utterly a hated opinion. ITs because gay rights was never an Us vs. Them mentality. But the Blacklivesmatter and other such movements have very much made it an "Us Vs. Them mentality"
Its that rather than working with those in power, they seek hatred and contempt of those in power. I remember hearing that white people shouldn't be part of the movement and if they are not part of orginizing at all but just feet on the ground. If you have that sort of exclusionary towards people and that hated(Think of black brunch) then its likely you will get push back
Do you think all of that could be prevented, if Michael Brown was on video, in charging the officer? Would the riots still happened?
Besides, in any local/state budgets, you can re-prioritize spending w/o asking for new tax increases to support this proposal. Missouri does it all the time... (ie, hold off buying new office equipment/montiors/cars for a year to address something more immediate).
Ha... Considering I value human lives over budgets... and I see safety of our police and citizens as a 'good thing' to pay for via taxes... I am fine with the costs.
But looking at my state and local payouts due to violence... the two lawsuits for the two people who had spines broken and paralyzed in Baltimore alone would cover the camera budget for all of Baltimore, officers and vehicles. Let alone the hundreds of other excessive force settlements we had here.
Calling people's lives, their future and avoiding unnecessary destruction by criminalizing some of our most vulnerable population for no reason "minor gains" shows a inhuman detachment which is part of the problem... The people who would potentially be protected and the change it would cause are seen as not having value.
In 2008, 12,501 local police departments with the equivalent of at least one full-time officer were operating in the U.S.
In 2008, local police departments had about 593,000 full-time employees, including 461,000 sworn officers. About 60% of all state and local sworn personnel were local police officers.
At $75 per camera, buying one for every two cops comes out to $17.3 million (rounded to get the 3).
That is just local cops (where money is tightest).
And that is just for the cameras.
But hey, it is just tax payer money, so who cares right? And we can keep electing and appointing folks who keep up the same policies while we're at it.
Using Cpt. Jake's numbers... each of the 12,501 local PDs would be paying just a hair under $1400 for the captain's "one camera per pair of officers"
So, while Some people are getting hung up on the hundred million for the entire country, it really isn't so expensive when you average it out. Plus, as many ideas have already come up, if you have the State pay for it, with state oversight and recording/storage, etc. That does ease some of the burden on the smallest of the local PDs.
I think when you break it down, and look at things long term, it really is cheaper to have the cameras than to pay wrongful suits all the time
Do you think all of that could be prevented, if Michael Brown was on video, in charging the officer? Would the riots still happened?
Considering the witness in the grand jury has a dubious past and conflicts with the 12 other witnesses, and the physical evidence didn't physically match Wilson+witnesses accounts and also was based around the 21ft rule which has come under fire as never being a legitimate threshold for force, there is enough ambiguity where Pro-Police people going to say it was a good shoot and those who distrust the police are going to say it was manufactured witness and what was said and done was re-ordered to suit the police.
If they had a live audio and visual recording of the entire event, I do feel the aftermath and the way the grand jury was run would have been totally different, even if it had the same result. Or we would have seen a different trail of events, or maybe the entire thing wouldn't have happened at all if some of the involved parties was being recorded.
In no scenario, do I feel like it would have made things 'worse'.
hotsauceman1 wrote: This is something that i got into a very heated debate with my sister. When she mentioned that it is said gays might be getting farther along in civil rights than black civil rights.
I said something that very much might be completely and utterly a hated opinion. ITs because gay rights was never an Us vs. Them mentality. But the Blacklivesmatter and other such movements have very much made it an "Us Vs. Them mentality"
Its that rather than working with those in power, they seek hatred and contempt of those in power. I remember hearing that white people shouldn't be part of the movement and if they are not part of orginizing at all but just feet on the ground. If you have that sort of exclusionary towards people and that hated(Think of black brunch) then its likely you will get push back
I think that you are, in many ways right, but it's not that simple.... I think that, by and large, the LGBT community has really taken to the MLK message of "We're Americans, we have rights, and they should be the same as yours". Whereas when you look at the racial issues, you still have many people who, whether they know it or not, are following Malcolm X's lines of reasoning.
And when you get down to it... who would you rather work with toward a "solution", someone who wants to sit down, talk things over and be a reasonable human being; or someone who, at the slightest provocation is going to become heated, and possibly violent and destructive?
If/When body/Helmet cams become standard issue to multiple levels of LEO's. A infrastructure has to be in placed to support, maintain, and to operate at those levels. For what good are body/helmet cams when storage get corrupted, drives lost or misplaced, and gear malfunction happens.
Do you think all of that could be prevented, if Michael Brown was on video, in charging the officer? Would the riots still happened?
Considering the witness in the grand jury has a dubious past and conflicts with the 12 other witnesses, and the physical evidence didn't physically match Wilson+witnesses accounts and also was based around the 21ft rule which has come under fire as never being a legitimate threshold for force, there is enough ambiguity where Pro-Police people going to say it was a good shoot and those who distrust the police are going to say it was manufactured witness and what was said and done was re-ordered to suit the police.
If they had a live audio and visual recording of the entire event, I do feel the aftermath and the way the grand jury was run would have been totally different, even if it had the same result. Or we would have seen a different trail of events, or maybe the entire thing wouldn't have happened at all if some of the involved parties was being recorded.
In no scenario, do I feel like it would have made things 'worse'.
I strenuously disagree with you... had a charging Brown, as corraborated by witnesses and evidence, been recorded on camera. We would NOT fething have had these riots. That "Hands up don't shoot" lie would be buried.
I strenuously disagree with you... had a charging Brown, as corraborated by witnesses and evidence, been recorded on camera. We would NOT fething have had these riots. That "Hands up don't shoot" lie would be buried.
Last month, when two city police officers shot Donyale Rowe to death after they had pulled him over for changing lanes without signaling, Cincinnati’s police chief immediately named the officers involved and published their performance reviews, described how Rowe had pulled a gun on the cops and released video of the incident from the squad car’s camera. The shooting resulted in minimal news coverage and no signs of anger on the streets. Leaders of the 2001 protests said the police had apparently acted appropriately.
Do you think all of that could be prevented, if Michael Brown was on video, in charging the officer? Would the riots still happened?
Considering the witness in the grand jury has a dubious past and conflicts with the 12 other witnesses, and the physical evidence didn't physically match Wilson+witnesses accounts and also was based around the 21ft rule which has come under fire as never being a legitimate threshold for force, there is enough ambiguity where Pro-Police people going to say it was a good shoot and those who distrust the police are going to say it was manufactured witness and what was said and done was re-ordered to suit the police.
If they had a live audio and visual recording of the entire event, I do feel the aftermath and the way the grand jury was run would have been totally different, even if it had the same result. Or we would have seen a different trail of events, or maybe the entire thing wouldn't have happened at all if some of the involved parties was being recorded.
In no scenario, do I feel like it would have made things 'worse'.
I strenuously disagree with you... had a charging Brown, as corraborated by witnesses and evidence, been recorded on camera. We would NOT fething have had these riots. That "Hands up don't shoot" lie would be buried.
I have read it, and have you read the reports on Witness 40? She wasn't even fething there. She had no reason to be there, and there was no evidence she was there and other witnesses disagreed with her testimony. And the physical evidence and other witnesses showed different distances than Wilson and Witness 40. And there is ACTUAL evidence that show she wasn't there and it was all a manufactured lie... which changed to become more in lock-step with Wilson's accounts as she heard further news coverage. That was their key witness!!! She would have never be used at a real trial, she had no business in a grand jury.
There is a lot of evidence that Witness 40 was a manufactured fraud and potentially officials knew it. And while Brown very well may have still been charging, and since the Tueller drill was directly cited for the justification of lethal force, the distance DOES matter. Without Witness 40's testimony, the other witnesses and physical evidence show it is very likely that while Brown was charging he was outside the 21ft at the time of the shots which means there could have been legitimate reason to have a trial. (besides, the Tueller drill is bad and been discredited and Tueller himself evens aid it was never meant to be used as a hard rule for justifying lethal force.)
My problem is, we have a grand jury which the key witness was fraudulent with fabricated testimony, and people knew it both then and now... They intentionally presented fraudulent witnesses to throw the case. Which is a real problem. So instead of clear innocence with good-faith prosecution, we have what smells of dirty pool to make the case bad.
If there was a recording of the entire encounter, I do say that there would have been no involvement in the fraudulent witness and the prosecutor wouldn't have had to intentionally ruin the case... Just show the recording and be done with it. I think it would have been way different, but any prosecutor who allowed Witness 40 to purger herself on the stand like that should be thrown off the bar.
(I feel video would have prevent riots... because we wouldn't have had a fraudulent grand jury case and any misconduct would have been prevented or recorded. So I want Videos.)
(I feel video would have prevent riots... because we wouldn't have had a fraudulent grand jury case and any misconduct would have been prevented or recorded. So I want Videos.)
I still believe you're misinformed on the Ferguson grand jury proceeding, but I'll drop it as I don't want to derail this thread even more.
However, I agree with you, that we should at the very least, investigate the possibility of having recording devices available for the PD. Mind you, it's not a 100% fail safe. But I think it'd do way more good than not.
hotsauceman1 wrote: This is something that i got into a very heated debate with my sister. When she mentioned that it is said gays might be getting farther along in civil rights than black civil rights.
I said something that very much might be completely and utterly a hated opinion. ITs because gay rights was never an Us vs. Them mentality. But the Blacklivesmatter and other such movements have very much made it an "Us Vs. Them mentality"
Its that rather than working with those in power, they seek hatred and contempt of those in power. I remember hearing that white people shouldn't be part of the movement and if they are not part of orginizing at all but just feet on the ground. If you have that sort of exclusionary towards people and that hated(Think of black brunch) then its likely you will get push back
I think that you are, in many ways right, but it's not that simple.... I think that, by and large, the LGBT community has really taken to the MLK message of "We're Americans, we have rights, and they should be the same as yours". Whereas when you look at the racial issues, you still have many people who, whether they know it or not, are following Malcolm X's lines of reasoning.
And when you get down to it... who would you rather work with toward a "solution", someone who wants to sit down, talk things over and be a reasonable human being; or someone who, at the slightest provocation is going to become heated, and possibly violent and destructive?
Nothing is simple. In reality we know very little of problems. My social inequality proff said "In reality, sociology knows very little, more like 30% of the problem then anything else" and while Im not sure I agree, it is something to ponder. That if people who dedicate their lives to researching inequality know very little of it, then how can the lay man?
Police charges in Freddie Gray case are incompetent at best
Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby's "quick" and "decisive" action in charging six Baltimore police officers a mere two weeks after the death of Freddie Gray reflects either incompetence or an unethical recklessness.
Alan Dershowitz, the noted defense attorney, sharply criticized her for using her charging power as "crowd control." John Banzahf, a George Washington University law professor, predicted the eventual dismissal of most if not all the charges. The breadth of the charges, Ms. Mosby's overreaching, is all-too-obvious.
Any prosecutor interested in the truth and in justice would have used all the tools at her disposal to find them. Ms. Mosby ignored them. She has one of the most experienced homicide prosecutors in the state of Maryland as chief of her homicide unit, but did not ask him to investigate. She had the police report all of one day before filing charges, her mind already made up. And she failed to make use of the grand jury to gather, probe and test the evidence before a group of average citizens.
In fact, Ms. Mosby was so hasty it appears she locked up two completely innocent officers. She charged Freddie Gray’s arresting officers with “false imprisonment” because she said the knife that Gray had on him was legal. In fact, as The Sun reported, the Police Task Force found it to be illegal after all. It was Ms. Mosby who had no probable cause to lock the arresting officers up, an injustice she could have easily avoided by taking her time.
The Fraternal Office of Police called Ms. Mosby's charges an "egregious rush to judgment." It smacks more of a calculated push to the spotlight, filing charges after a mere two weeks. She conducted her own "parallel" investigation using her police integrity unit (the only unit listed on her published staffing tree missing the name of a supervisor.) She had no time to evaluate the crucial autopsy report, or consult with experts about its implications. In her haste to step into the national limelight, she circumvented normal charging procedures by grabbing a member of the sheriff's office to swear to their truth and file them for her. She calculated her actions for surprise and maximum effect, and she got it.
Published ethical standards prohibit the use of a prosecutor's powers for political (crowd control) or personal (career ambition) purposes. They demand that prosecutors be fair and objective and protect the innocence. Instead Ms. Mosby, without all of the evidence yet available to her, pandered to the public by promising "justice" for Freddie Gray.
In the long run, Ms. Mosby may be undermining the cause of justice rather than promoting it. She has created an expectation of guilt and conviction. If that does not happen, many will blame the system as unfair or unjust, when it may have been Ms. Mosby's own lack of competence and/or arrogance in bringing charges so quickly.
And she has created a new expectation in the city: that police officers who arrest without what she considers to be probable cause (a subjective standard) are subject not just to civil action (the current norm) but criminal action. Mere mistakes, or judgments exercised under duress, can land them in the pokey.
If I were a Baltimore police officer, I'd be looking for another job immediately. And as a Baltimore citizen, I may start looking for someplace else to live. When the police cannot depend upon the state's attorney to be as thorough, competent, non-political and fair with them as she is supposed to be with all citizens, none of us will be safe.
Page Croyder spent 21 years in the Baltimore state's attorneys office, most recently as a deputy state's attorney. Her blog can be seen here: http://pagecroyder.blogspot.com.
TL;DR:
Mosby’s charging of the officers “reflects either incompetence or an unethical recklessness.”
Alan Dershowitz predicts the eventual dismissal of most or all the charges.
Mosby declined use of most experienced homicide prosector in Maryland, as well as the services of a grand jury.
She may well have arrested two completely innocent officers on the basis of false imprisonment [AFB: in which case one wonders if Mosby might find herself charged with false imprisonment].
Mosby circumvented normal charging procedures and simply had several sheriff’s deputies, with no personal knowledge of the events, swear to the truth of the charges and file them on her behalf.
It appears Mosby set aside the fairness and objectivity demanded of prosecutors in a pursuit of personal and political gain.
Mosby may now have laid the foundation for a catastrophic backlash by outraged residents of Baltimore–whom she had led to believe would see officers convicted of murder and manslaughter–should her charges be dismissed because of a paucity of evidence.
Mosby has established a new de facto standard for police conduct in which normal errors of judgment exercised under the duress of a street cop’s daily job can be used not merely to hold them civilly liable but to put them in prison.
Police charges in Freddie Gray case are incompetent at best
Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby's "quick" and "decisive" action in charging six Baltimore police officers a mere two weeks after the death of Freddie Gray reflects either incompetence or an unethical recklessness.
Alan Dershowitz, the noted defense attorney, sharply criticized her for using her charging power as "crowd control." John Banzahf, a George Washington University law professor, predicted the eventual dismissal of most if not all the charges. The breadth of the charges, Ms. Mosby's overreaching, is all-too-obvious.
Any prosecutor interested in the truth and in justice would have used all the tools at her disposal to find them. Ms. Mosby ignored them. She has one of the most experienced homicide prosecutors in the state of Maryland as chief of her homicide unit, but did not ask him to investigate. She had the police report all of one day before filing charges, her mind already made up. And she failed to make use of the grand jury to gather, probe and test the evidence before a group of average citizens.
In fact, Ms. Mosby was so hasty it appears she locked up two completely innocent officers. She charged Freddie Gray’s arresting officers with “false imprisonment” because she said the knife that Gray had on him was legal. In fact, as The Sun reported, the Police Task Force found it to be illegal after all. It was Ms. Mosby who had no probable cause to lock the arresting officers up, an injustice she could have easily avoided by taking her time.
The Fraternal Office of Police called Ms. Mosby's charges an "egregious rush to judgment." It smacks more of a calculated push to the spotlight, filing charges after a mere two weeks. She conducted her own "parallel" investigation using her police integrity unit (the only unit listed on her published staffing tree missing the name of a supervisor.) She had no time to evaluate the crucial autopsy report, or consult with experts about its implications. In her haste to step into the national limelight, she circumvented normal charging procedures by grabbing a member of the sheriff's office to swear to their truth and file them for her. She calculated her actions for surprise and maximum effect, and she got it.
Published ethical standards prohibit the use of a prosecutor's powers for political (crowd control) or personal (career ambition) purposes. They demand that prosecutors be fair and objective and protect the innocence. Instead Ms. Mosby, without all of the evidence yet available to her, pandered to the public by promising "justice" for Freddie Gray.
In the long run, Ms. Mosby may be undermining the cause of justice rather than promoting it. She has created an expectation of guilt and conviction. If that does not happen, many will blame the system as unfair or unjust, when it may have been Ms. Mosby's own lack of competence and/or arrogance in bringing charges so quickly.
And she has created a new expectation in the city: that police officers who arrest without what she considers to be probable cause (a subjective standard) are subject not just to civil action (the current norm) but criminal action. Mere mistakes, or judgments exercised under duress, can land them in the pokey.
If I were a Baltimore police officer, I'd be looking for another job immediately. And as a Baltimore citizen, I may start looking for someplace else to live. When the police cannot depend upon the state's attorney to be as thorough, competent, non-political and fair with them as she is supposed to be with all citizens, none of us will be safe.
Page Croyder spent 21 years in the Baltimore state's attorneys office, most recently as a deputy state's attorney. Her blog can be seen here: http://pagecroyder.blogspot.com.
TL;DR:
Mosby’s charging of the officers “reflects either incompetence or an unethical recklessness.”
Alan Dershowitz predicts the eventual dismissal of most or all the charges.
Mosby declined use of most experienced homicide prosector in Maryland, as well as the services of a grand jury.
She may well have arrested two completely innocent officers on the basis of false imprisonment [AFB: in which case one wonders if Mosby might find herself charged with false imprisonment].
Mosby circumvented normal charging procedures and simply had several sheriff’s deputies, with no personal knowledge of the events, swear to the truth of the charges and file them on her behalf.
It appears Mosby set aside the fairness and objectivity demanded of prosecutors in a pursuit of personal and political gain.
Mosby may now have laid the foundation for a catastrophic backlash by outraged residents of Baltimore–whom she had led to believe would see officers convicted of murder and manslaughter–should her charges be dismissed because of a paucity of evidence.
Mosby has established a new de facto standard for police conduct in which normal errors of judgment exercised under the duress of a street cop’s daily job can be used not merely to hold them civilly liable but to put them in prison.
What? You didn't think this was going to happen against Prosecution? It was a goat rope right at the beginning when she laid down charges on Day 0
Jihadin wrote: If/When body/Helmet cams become standard issue to multiple levels of LEO's. A infrastructure has to be in placed to support, maintain, and to operate at those levels. For what good are body/helmet cams when storage get corrupted, drives lost or misplaced, and gear malfunction happens.
Yep, and my numbers were low (only looked at local cops, not state and fed, and even then the Wiki article I linked to had a much higher number for local cops).
And it is a cost that in SOME places may be worth it. But let the municipalities and counties figure out if it makes sense for them. It sure as hell should not be a federally mandated thing.
And again, it is buying 'stuff' as a bandaid to cover a symptom and not treating the real problem.
Keep electing and appointing officials who allow the attitudes and polices to continue while expecting the attitudes and policies to change is just stupid. At the municipality and county level folks need to elect/appoint folks who are gonna look out for the interests of the local population and not look to CYA. Fire those who don't want to get with the program. Destroy unions who see their mission as protecting the bad along with the good unless the unions can change and only accept the good and come down on the bad themselves.
You can spend tax dollars on 'stuff' all day long. It really will not end up fixing these problems. If throwing money at the problem was always the solution the Baltimore schools would be a whole lot better than they are.
I know as Americans throwing money at problems is becoming The Way, but the problems we are throwing it at are still there, and don't look like they'll be getting fixed anytime soon. Part of this is we continue to misidentify symptoms as The Problem and then only treat the symptom. Pat of it is $$$$ don't seem to always work when it comes to fixing institutionalized attitudes and policies (formal or not). Look at the $$$$ spent on host nation governance in Iraq and Afghanistan. Doing the same in Baltimore or any other US city nets you similar results, no real change and a lot of debt.
Police charges in Freddie Gray case are incompetent at best
Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby's "quick" and "decisive" action in charging six Baltimore police officers a mere two weeks after the death of Freddie Gray reflects either incompetence or an unethical recklessness.
Alan Dershowitz, the noted defense attorney, sharply criticized her for using her charging power as "crowd control." John Banzahf, a George Washington University law professor, predicted the eventual dismissal of most if not all the charges. The breadth of the charges, Ms. Mosby's overreaching, is all-too-obvious.
Any prosecutor interested in the truth and in justice would have used all the tools at her disposal to find them. Ms. Mosby ignored them. She has one of the most experienced homicide prosecutors in the state of Maryland as chief of her homicide unit, but did not ask him to investigate. She had the police report all of one day before filing charges, her mind already made up. And she failed to make use of the grand jury to gather, probe and test the evidence before a group of average citizens.
In fact, Ms. Mosby was so hasty it appears she locked up two completely innocent officers. She charged Freddie Gray’s arresting officers with “false imprisonment” because she said the knife that Gray had on him was legal. In fact, as The Sun reported, the Police Task Force found it to be illegal after all. It was Ms. Mosby who had no probable cause to lock the arresting officers up, an injustice she could have easily avoided by taking her time.
The Fraternal Office of Police called Ms. Mosby's charges an "egregious rush to judgment." It smacks more of a calculated push to the spotlight, filing charges after a mere two weeks. She conducted her own "parallel" investigation using her police integrity unit (the only unit listed on her published staffing tree missing the name of a supervisor.) She had no time to evaluate the crucial autopsy report, or consult with experts about its implications. In her haste to step into the national limelight, she circumvented normal charging procedures by grabbing a member of the sheriff's office to swear to their truth and file them for her. She calculated her actions for surprise and maximum effect, and she got it.
Published ethical standards prohibit the use of a prosecutor's powers for political (crowd control) or personal (career ambition) purposes. They demand that prosecutors be fair and objective and protect the innocence. Instead Ms. Mosby, without all of the evidence yet available to her, pandered to the public by promising "justice" for Freddie Gray.
In the long run, Ms. Mosby may be undermining the cause of justice rather than promoting it. She has created an expectation of guilt and conviction. If that does not happen, many will blame the system as unfair or unjust, when it may have been Ms. Mosby's own lack of competence and/or arrogance in bringing charges so quickly.
And she has created a new expectation in the city: that police officers who arrest without what she considers to be probable cause (a subjective standard) are subject not just to civil action (the current norm) but criminal action. Mere mistakes, or judgments exercised under duress, can land them in the pokey.
If I were a Baltimore police officer, I'd be looking for another job immediately. And as a Baltimore citizen, I may start looking for someplace else to live. When the police cannot depend upon the state's attorney to be as thorough, competent, non-political and fair with them as she is supposed to be with all citizens, none of us will be safe.
Page Croyder spent 21 years in the Baltimore state's attorneys office, most recently as a deputy state's attorney. Her blog can be seen here: http://pagecroyder.blogspot.com.
TL;DR:
Mosby’s charging of the officers “reflects either incompetence or an unethical recklessness.”
Alan Dershowitz predicts the eventual dismissal of most or all the charges.
Mosby declined use of most experienced homicide prosector in Maryland, as well as the services of a grand jury.
She may well have arrested two completely innocent officers on the basis of false imprisonment [AFB: in which case one wonders if Mosby might find herself charged with false imprisonment].
Mosby circumvented normal charging procedures and simply had several sheriff’s deputies, with no personal knowledge of the events, swear to the truth of the charges and file them on her behalf.
It appears Mosby set aside the fairness and objectivity demanded of prosecutors in a pursuit of personal and political gain.
Mosby may now have laid the foundation for a catastrophic backlash by outraged residents of Baltimore–whom she had led to believe would see officers convicted of murder and manslaughter–should her charges be dismissed because of a paucity of evidence.
Mosby has established a new de facto standard for police conduct in which normal errors of judgment exercised under the duress of a street cop’s daily job can be used not merely to hold them civilly liable but to put them in prison.
What? You didn't think this was going to happen against Prosecution? It was a goat rope right at the beginning when she laid down charges on Day 0
It appears they'll be needing more space for the rioters. I wonder where in the city the mayor will let them have at it next time?
hotsauceman1 wrote: This is something that i got into a very heated debate with my sister. When she mentioned that it is said gays might be getting farther along in civil rights than black civil rights.
I said something that very much might be completely and utterly a hated opinion. ITs because gay rights was never an Us vs. Them mentality. But the Blacklivesmatter and other such movements have very much made it an "Us Vs. Them mentality"
Blacklivesmatter in no way an us versus them mentality. It in no way says that other people's lives don't matter.
hotsauceman1 wrote: This is something that i got into a very heated debate with my sister. When she mentioned that it is said gays might be getting farther along in civil rights than black civil rights.
I said something that very much might be completely and utterly a hated opinion. ITs because gay rights was never an Us vs. Them mentality. But the Blacklivesmatter and other such movements have very much made it an "Us Vs. Them mentality"
Blacklivesmatter in no way an us versus them mentality. It in no way says that other people's lives don't matter.
When the people who back blacklivesmatter get offended by alllivesmatter, it certainly gives that impression.
and when you see the blackbrunch people blaming people who are eating brunch who are not part of the problem, it very much seems like its very much an us versus them.
hotsauceman1 wrote: This is something that i got into a very heated debate with my sister. When she mentioned that it is said gays might be getting farther along in civil rights than black civil rights.
I said something that very much might be completely and utterly a hated opinion. ITs because gay rights was never an Us vs. Them mentality. But the Blacklivesmatter and other such movements have very much made it an "Us Vs. Them mentality"
Blacklivesmatter in no way an us versus them mentality. It in no way says that other people's lives don't matter.
When the people who back blacklivesmatter get offended by alllivesmatter, it certainly gives that impression.
Alllivesmatter totally misses the point of blacklivesmatter...people don't need to be reminded that all lives matter....but people tend to forget that black lives matter.
I dont think people need to be reminded that black lives matter becuase we know this. Just like how there have been several shootings of cops killing white people, but no riots over those.
hotsauceman1 wrote: This is something that i got into a very heated debate with my sister. When she mentioned that it is said gays might be getting farther along in civil rights than black civil rights.
I said something that very much might be completely and utterly a hated opinion. ITs because gay rights was never an Us vs. Them mentality. But the Blacklivesmatter and other such movements have very much made it an "Us Vs. Them mentality"
Blacklivesmatter in no way an us versus them mentality. It in no way says that other people's lives don't matter.
When the people who back blacklivesmatter get offended by alllivesmatter, it certainly gives that impression.
hotsauceman1 wrote:I dont think people need to be reminded that black lives matter becuase we know this. Just like how there have been several shootings of cops killing white people, but no riots over those.
I'm not sure whether this has already been posted or not, but I feel that it illustrates the issue quite nicely:
hotsauceman1 wrote: This is something that i got into a very heated debate with my sister. When she mentioned that it is said gays might be getting farther along in civil rights than black civil rights.
I said something that very much might be completely and utterly a hated opinion. ITs because gay rights was never an Us vs. Them mentality. But the Blacklivesmatter and other such movements have very much made it an "Us Vs. Them mentality"
Blacklivesmatter in no way an us versus them mentality. It in no way says that other people's lives don't matter.
When the people who back blacklivesmatter get offended by alllivesmatter, it certainly gives that impression.
Alllivesmatter totally misses the point of blacklivesmatter...people don't need to be reminded that all lives matter....but people tend to forget that black lives matter.
Which brings out the divisive nature of blacklivesmatter matter, since all lives would indicate Black lives as well as everyone else. It's a victim card movement.
And the Lymphoma and Leukemia Society doesn't give a gak about people with colon cancer or else they would simply merge into the American Cancer Society...
hotsauceman1 wrote: This is something that i got into a very heated debate with my sister. When she mentioned that it is said gays might be getting farther along in civil rights than black civil rights.
I said something that very much might be completely and utterly a hated opinion. ITs because gay rights was never an Us vs. Them mentality. But the Blacklivesmatter and other such movements have very much made it an "Us Vs. Them mentality"
Blacklivesmatter in no way an us versus them mentality. It in no way says that other people's lives don't matter.
When the people who back blacklivesmatter get offended by alllivesmatter, it certainly gives that impression.
hotsauceman1 wrote:I dont think people need to be reminded that black lives matter becuase we know this. Just like how there have been several shootings of cops killing white people, but no riots over those.
I'm not sure whether this has already been posted or not, but I feel that it illustrates the issue quite nicely:
What im saying is that the movement itself have become what is in essence an anti-white movement. I have been to the meetings and seminars. It really is. Its about "Disrupting the white power dynamic and putting them in place"
Baltimore (CNN)The Baltimore police investigation into the death of Freddie Gray doesn't support some of the charges, including the most serious, filed by the Baltimore City State's Attorney, potentially allowing lawyers representing the police officers the opportunity to undercut the prosecution, according to officials briefed on the separate probes conducted by the State's Attorney and police.
Already, defense attorneys are filing motions seeking to exploit differences between the separate state attorney and police investigations.
Lawyers for two officers have challenged a key finding of State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby's case: that a knife found on Freddie Gray was legal in Maryland and therefore the officers didn't have a right to arrest Gray. The police investigation found that the knife is illegal under Baltimore city code.
Officials familiar with the probes also say the homicide investigation run by police investigators at most contemplated a manslaughter charge, not second degree murder as Mosby charged one of the officers, Caesar Goodson. To win conviction for murder, prosecutors must prove intent to kill. Manslaughter relates to unintentional killings.
In addition, homicide investigators who were briefed by the medical examiner's office believed the examiner's autopsy report would likely find the cause of death to fall short of homicide, according to one official familiar with the case.
Instead, Mosby said that the medical examiner concluded that Gray's death was a homicide and that Gray's fatal injury to the head occurred in a police transport van that was taking him to the police precinct.
According to an official with Maryland's office of the chief medical examiner, where Gray's autopsy was performed, information was shared with police investigators throughout the process, a common practice. But the official said there is only one conclusion on manner of death and that was contained in the final autopsy report delivered to Mosby on the same day she announced her decision to bring charges.
Another issue could arise from the team Mosby relied on to lead her case: one of her top investigators, Avon Mackel, is a former high-ranking Baltimore police officer who was stripped of his command post in 2009 for failing to follow through on a robbery investigation that two of his officers mishandled and did not report. A Baltimore Sun report said police in the district were accused of classifying serious crimes as lesser in order to log lower crime rates.
In October 2009, four months after his demotion, Baltimore County police sent a SWAT team to Mackel's home, responding a drunken incident in which he was seen holding a gun, according to a police report of the incident obtained by CNN.
Officers said an intoxicated Mackel refused to cooperate and was visibly upset, according to the report provided in response to a public records request. An officer then "observed the barrel of Mackel's handgun hanging over the edge of the molding at the top of the steps and saw Mackel pull the gun out of sight," the report said.
Police used a Taser on Mackel while he was on the phone with his father "crying and yelling," before he barricaded himself in his bedroom. The report doesn't say how the incident ended, but police said there was no arrest. A spokesman for the Baltimore County Police Department said "the [SWAT] tactical unit did assist with this incident, which ended peacefully."
Mackel didn't respond to calls and emails seeking comment. No one answered at his home.
Defense attorneys working on the case are already digging for ways to attack weaknesses in Mosby's case, according to defenders of the officers. Mackel's past, and whether he holds it against the police department, could present opportunities for the defense.
That has lead to concerns among some city officials that if Mosby's case fails to hold up, community reaction could explode again.
"If this case falls apart, then does Baltimore burn?" one official said.
Mosby took pains to distance herself from the police with her separate probe, including using her own investigators and not relying on the 40-plus member police task force set up to look in the death of Freddie Gray.
But that separation could cut both ways.
The police findings -- including those that contradict some of Mosby's investigation -- will now be part of the evidence provided to defense attorneys.
The Baltimore police department has declined to comment on the investigation since it is now in Mosby's hands.
A spokeswoman provided a statement on behalf of Mosby defending the charges.
"While the evidence we have obtained through our independent investigation does substantiate the elements of the charges filed, I refuse to litigate this case through the media," she said in the statement. "The evidence we have collected cannot ethically be disclosed, relayed or released to the public before trial. As I've previously indicated, I strongly condemn anyone in law enforcement with access to trial evidence, who has or continues to leak information prior to the resolution of this case. These unethical disclosures are only damaging our ability to conduct a fair and impartial process for all parties involved."
Mosby has good reason to separate her probe from the police.
There is widespread community distrust of the police. And many critics say letting police departments investigate themselves is partly why alleged excessive use of force incidents by officers rarely draw serious punishment.
Police Commissioner Anthony Batts told CNN in an exclusive interview on Tuesday that Mosby called him about 10 minutes before she told the world about the charges.
However, Batts had an inkling that Mosby was preparing for a surprise move, according to people familiar with the matter, which is why he turned over his department's findings a day ahead of the deadline he had set.
hotsauceman1 wrote: This is something that i got into a very heated debate with my sister. When she mentioned that it is said gays might be getting farther along in civil rights than black civil rights.
I said something that very much might be completely and utterly a hated opinion. ITs because gay rights was never an Us vs. Them mentality. But the Blacklivesmatter and other such movements have very much made it an "Us Vs. Them mentality"
Blacklivesmatter in no way an us versus them mentality. It in no way says that other people's lives don't matter.
When the people who back blacklivesmatter get offended by alllivesmatter, it certainly gives that impression.
Alllivesmatter totally misses the point of blacklivesmatter...people don't need to be reminded that all lives matter....but people tend to forget that black lives matter.
I don't think that's true at all, and that doesn't even make sense. If people believe that all lives matter and don't need to be reminded of that, then by definition they can't forget that black lives matter because black lives are included in all lives. How would one truly believe that life matters but "forget" that black lives matter?
hotsauceman1 wrote: and when you see the blackbrunch people blaming people who are eating brunch who are not part of the problem, it very much seems like its very much an us versus them.
Like all true canines, mess with me eating and I'll bite your face. Woof.
hotsauceman1 wrote: and when you see the blackbrunch people blaming people who are eating brunch who are not part of the problem, it very much seems like its very much an us versus them.
Like all true canines, mess with me eating and I'll bite your face. Woof.
OT, I just got a new chihuahua, and I tried to take his place from him. I got bit so hard.
Never take from a chihuahua
hotsauceman1 wrote: and when you see the blackbrunch people blaming people who are eating brunch who are not part of the problem, it very much seems like its very much an us versus them.
Like all true canines, mess with me eating and I'll bite your face. Woof.
OT, I just got a new chihuahua, and I tried to take his place from him. I got bit so hard.
Never take from a chihuahua
skyth wrote: Because blacks have been dehumanized in American culture. Thus the need for the reminder that they are human and matter as well.
How have they been dehumanized in American culture and who has done this? Which American culture are you talking about? How do you define American culture? You are making a very extreme claim with very loose parameters. Do you have sources for this or are you basing it off of how you feel or what you have seen personally?
skyth wrote: Because blacks have been dehumanized in American culture. Thus the need for the reminder that they are human and matter as well.
How have they been dehumanized in American culture and who has done this? Which American culture are you talking about? How do you define American culture? You are making a very extreme claim with very loose parameters. Do you have sources for this or are you basing it off of how you feel or what you have seen personally?
hotsauceman1 wrote: and when you see the blackbrunch people blaming people who are eating brunch who are not part of the problem, it very much seems like its very much an us versus them.
Like all true canines, mess with me eating and I'll bite your face. Woof.
Ours were trained from an early age not to be aggressive with food
Six police officers have been indicted in the death of Freddie Gray, Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby said Thursday.
The officers are scheduled to be arraigned on July 2, she said.
Gray’s death last month after allegedly suffering a devastating injury while in police custody sparked protests and riots in Baltimore.
Earlier this month, Mosby said that charges had been filed against six officers in Gray’s death, an unexpected announcement that brought cheers from protesters and words of protest from the police union.
Attorneys for the officers have called for Mosby to be taken off the case, arguing that she has conflicts of interest — an accusation Mosby denies.
That's the easy part... the hard part is proving it.
Relapse wrote: I think, though that anyone who engages in such mayhem deserves the term, no matter their color. It's just an example of another word being put down the memory hole and a version of an attempt at thought control.
Yeah, it could be that... or it could be that the term has become racial charged (because it has).
Oh noes, one less racial-charged word used to disparage an entire group of people? Whatever will we do now? Never mind, it should be okay... we live in "post-racial" America, right?
Now now, I am sure that if you jump into the other thread dealing with two rival criminal gangs engaging in a shootout between the two sides as well as the police and trashing a public restaurant in the process you will find plenty of instances of this non-racially cbarged word to describe these criminal and violent white gang members.
Relapse wrote: I think, though that anyone who engages in such mayhem deserves the term, no matter their color. It's just an example of another word being put down the memory hole and a version of an attempt at thought control.
Yeah, it could be that... or it could be that the term has become racial charged (because it has).
Oh noes, one less racial-charged word used to disparage an entire group of people? Whatever will we do now? Never mind, it should be okay... we live in "post-racial" America, right?
Now now, I am sure that if you jump into the other thread dealing with two rival criminal gangs engaging in a shootout between the two sides as well as the police and trashing a public restaurant in the process you will find plenty of instances of this non-racially cbarged word to describe these criminal and violent white gang members.
Relapse wrote: I think, though that anyone who engages in such mayhem deserves the term, no matter their color. It's just an example of another word being put down the memory hole and a version of an attempt at thought control.
Yeah, it could be that... or it could be that the term has become racial charged (because it has).
Oh noes, one less racial-charged word used to disparage an entire group of people? Whatever will we do now? Never mind, it should be okay... we live in "post-racial" America, right?
Now now, I am sure that if you jump into the other thread dealing with two rival criminal gangs engaging in a shootout between the two sides as well as the police and trashing a public restaurant in the process you will find plenty of instances of this non-racially cbarged word to describe these criminal and violent white gang members.
You mean the groups of gentlemen at the eating establishment settling their falling out in accepted gentlemanly fashion?
The OT has become the Facebook of dakka, full of the most idiotic and nonsensical postings that are just a "share" button away. And I would be one thing if I would think that you guys are idiots who don't know any better, then I could just chalk it up to "idiots, what are you gonna do about them...".
But I know that you guys are too damn smart to post gak that is this idiotic. Which means that smart people are willingly checking their brains at the door to accept explanations with logical plot holes worse than the Prequels, or that I'm dealing with people who think that I am an idiot myself.
I might stick around for the couple of threads in the DCM section and to follow news and rumors; but there is zero reason to participate in this idiocy anymore. If I want to elevate my blood pressure by reading stulid gak I'll just read my crazy uncle's Facebook feed.
The OT has become the Facebook of dakka, full of the most idiotic and nonsensical postings that are just a "share" button away. And I would be one thing if I would think that you guys are idiots who don't know any better, then I could just chalk it up to "idiots, what are you gonna do about them...".
But I know that you guys are too damn smart to post gak that is this idiotic. Which means that smart people are willingly checking their brains at the door to accept explanations with logical plot holes worse than the Prequels, or that I'm dealing with people who think that I am an idiot myself.
I might stick around for the couple of threads in the DCM section and to follow news and rumors; but there is zero reason to participate in this idiocy anymore. If I want to elevate my blood pressure by reading stulid gak I'll just read my crazy uncle's Facebook feed.
Seriously, if you come in loaded for bear like you did, the bear might get you instead, even if it was unintentional on the bear's part.
Across from a CVS drugstore in West Baltimore that remains shuttered and charred from last month's riots, two high-top tennis shoes remained on the sidewalk Monday, surrounded by police detectives and crime tape.
It was the scene of the city's 164th nonfatal shooting this year.
While police and city officials deal with continued fallout from the death of Freddie Gray, they also are confronting escalating violence. Homicides are up nearly 40 percent compared with the same time last year, while nonfatal shootings are up 60 percent.
Most of the homicides have occurred in the Police Department's Western District, where Gray was arrested. The 25-year-old died a week later, on April 19, of injuries sustained while in police custody. His death sparked the rioting and weeks of protests and continues to reverberate as some criticize — and others defend — the decision to charge six officers in the case.
Alarming surge in murders and shootings in Baltimore
City crime spike. A dramatic increase in violence in Baltimore. Dozens of shooting and murders in the last few weeks following the riots last month.
On Monday, minutes after reports of the shooting near CVS, two of the department's highest-ranking officers arrived at North and Pennsylvania avenues to look over the crime scene. Their presence underscored concern about the uptick in violence. Recent incidents have included five people wounded in an East Baltimore shooting Saturday and two homicides Sunday.
"This is equally as unacceptable to the people here as it is to us," said Deputy Commissioner Kevin Davis as customers popped into carryouts and basement shops around him.
"Definitely, some people in the community are just as frustrated," added Deputy Commissioner Dean Palmere.
As he spoke, a man rode by on his bike, calling out to police: "All day, every day, we will fight for Freddie Gray."
Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said detectives are working to arrest suspects and that police "have to keep adjusting our tactics to stay ahead of the violent repeat offenders that are causing this violence."
"What we've seen over the past few weeks will not be tolerated," she said. "I want to assure the community that every available resource will be utilized to make our community safer."
Rawlings-Blake also downplayed concerns expressed by some Baltimore officers that members of the force are hesitant to make arrests after prosecutors brought charges in the Gray case, and that criminals might take advantage.
"People have said, 'Well, it's because morale is down,' or, 'It's because the officers were charged,'" Rawlings-Blake said of the violence. "We don't know that, and we have to follow the information that we're getting through those investigations, and that is what the Police Department is doing."
Meanwhile, the Baltimore chapter of the NAACP said Monday that the Baltimore police union's rhetoric against Rawlings-Blake and Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby has been "distasteful and disrespectful" and "borderline racist." In a letter to police union president Gene Ryan, the NAACP said that Baltimore needs to unite to fight the surging violence.
The police union has criticized Rawlings-Blake for poor leadership in recent weeks and Mosby for over-reaching in the charges she has filed. Prosecutors said officers refused Gray medical help multiple times, and charges range from misconduct in office to second-degree murder.
"It bothers us greatly to have the integrity of these strong African-American female leaders questioned by someone who has never served a day in elective office, and yet is pushing a personal agenda in the face of clear injustice, regardless of the possible irreparable harm it may have on our city in the long run — especially during this time of extreme peril in our city," the NAACP said in the letter.
Ryan did not return a call seeking comment.
The NAACP plans to launch a #BmoreCIVIL social media campaign and scheduled a "Stop the Violence 'By Any Means Necessary' rally" on Tuesday to coincide with the 90th birthday of late civil rights leader Malcolm X.
Munir Bahar, one of the founders of the 300 Men March, is calling for 30 men in 10 Baltimore neighborhoods to become block leaders in the crime fight. He said his group plans to train new volunteers and will hold an "Occupy Our Corners" anti-violence rally on Thursday.
"We always love to blame somebody else. It's always the police's fault. How is it the police's problem that 'Mike' kills 'Mike?'" Bahar said.
While he looked to residents for change, he said, city leaders are not exempt from the blame. The shootings, riots and protests have exposed the failures of elected leaders for not providing youth with the tools they need to succeed and escape a violent street life, Bahar said
Police commanders said gang disputes may be driving some of the violence, especially on the city's west side. Palmere said he met with patrol commanders Monday to review strategies and that federal and other local law enforcement agencies are helping with investigations.
Davis said people are taking advantage of the turmoil following Gray's death to settle old scores.
"The most violent of any society will take moments like this to exact revenge, and it's our job to stop it," he said.
West Baltimore has been one of the city's most violent regions, but last year the number of killings were cut in half, to 21, compared with the previous year.
Rawlings-Blake attributed much of that success to Operation Ceasefire, an anti-violence initiative that began in 2014. The program monitors people with violent criminal records or the propensity for violence.
In recent weeks, Ceasefire has been operating without program manager Levar Michaels, who left for a new job, according to city officials. Kevin Harris, Rawlings-Blake's spokesman, said the program has been run since then by the Mayor's Office on Criminal Justice, and the city plans to hire a new program manager in two or three weeks.
A total of 20 people have been killed in the Western District this year.
"Ceasefire is a tool, we believe a very effective tool, in the crime fight, but crime is not static," Harris said. "For every new reform or new initiative you put in place, people doing violence, they adjust their tactics as well."
Among the 34 people killed in the past 30 days in Baltimore was Tahlil Yasin, 39, who was shot Thursday in the 2100 block of Edmondson Ave.
Nathan Thomas, 38, grew up with Yasin and said his cousin was funny and loyal but looked to the streets for opportunity.
"He was making a lot of bad decisions, he was living a lifestyle that was not conducive to positive growth," Thomas said. "He was caught up in the lifestyle I used to be caught up in years ago. I just made a conscious decision to stop taking from the community."
Thomas, who is helping to start a rental assistance program at Health Care for the Homeless, said the city's "lack of resources" and Yasin's lack of education limited Yasin's future.
But Thomas said that's not the city's only problem."It's a lack of respect for human life, and specifically, a lot of folk may not want to admit it, but for a lot of youths — a lot of black youths — they look at one another as the enemy," Thomas said. The violence "just shows to the majority of us that black lives don't matter."
But, if the police can't get the support they need... I don't blame 'em.
1. Its human nature.
2. having said that, it sounds like their their training and culture sucked. If they don't do the job fire the lot of them and replace them with those who will. (Judging from the Cleveland-or Cincinnati consent decree, I'd fire the whole force frankly and start from scratch) .
But, if the police can't get the support they need... I don't blame 'em.
1. Its human nature.
2. having said that, it sounds like their their training and culture sucked. If they don't do the job fire the lot of them and replace them with those who will. (Judging from the Cleveland-or Cincinnati consent decree, I'd fire the whole force frankly and start from scratch) .
Hard to do the job, if they're afraid of going to jail for the rest of their lives, or being attacked by the populace, like has been happening recently.
Frazzled wrote: Hard to do your job when you cover for people who kill suspects in transport vans too.
Innocent until proven guilty.
How easily people always seem to forget that key pillar of our justice system.
No. Guilty. He entered the van ok. He died. Guilt is proven.
translation give me a fething break. Unless someone ninja'd in an beat him to death inside the locked van ITS THEIR FAULT-at least the driver. The fact this was being covered up, seals it.
The fact this has happened several times, despite policy practice shows a pattern and practice.
Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby plans to seek a protective order that would block the release of Freddie Gray's autopsy report and other "sensitive" documents as she prosecutes the six police officers involved in his arrest.
Mosby told The Baltimore Sun that prosecutors "have a duty to ensure a fair and impartial process for all parties involved" and "will not be baited into litigating this case through the media."
But an attorney for one of the officers said the effort shows that "there is something in that autopsy report that they are trying to hide."
"Mrs. Mosby is the one who did an announcement discussing what she said the evidence was in a nationally televised speech," said Ivan Bates, who represents Sgt. Alicia White. "Now that it is time to turn over the evidence, to ask for a protective order is beyond disingenuous.
"It's as if she wants to do everything to make sure our clients do not get a fair trial."
Gray, 25, died in April after suffering a severe spinal cord injury in police custody. Mosby has charged the officers with violations ranging from misconduct in office to, in one case, second-degree murder.
Baltimore's chief prosecutor declared her intention to seek the protective order in a court filing Monday. She also asked for more time to respond to defense motions that she and her office be removed from the case and that the case be tried outside Baltimore.
The move is the latest effort by Mosby's office to restrict information in the high-profile case. Her office has also sought a gag order to prevent participants from discussing the case in public, and has broken with a long-standing practice by not giving a copy of the autopsy report to Baltimore police.
In a response to Mosby's latest filing, defense attorneys said Wednesday that they have been denied an outline of evidence and claims against the officers, and have not been allowed to inspect a knife that was taken from Gray during his arrest.
Bates said the protective order would allow only prosecutors and defense attorneys to see the documents, and could require the court to seal all new filings that make reference to information in the documents.
In that way, he said, it would be more restrictive than a gag order.
"Nobody would know anything but the state and the defense, so they would totally hide it from the public," Bates said. "If your case is as good as you said it was, why don't you just show the evidence? … You can't holler and say, 'I'm about accountability for the citizens,' and then run around filing for a protective order."
The Sun is one of 19 news organizations contesting Mosby's gag order request.
Gray's death on April 19, amid a national debate over police brutality, touched off days of protests. On the day of his funeral, the city erupted into several hours of riots, arson and looting.
Mosby filed charges against the officers on May 1 based on what she said was an independent investigation conducted by her office. A grand jury indicted White, Lt. Brian Rice and Officers Caesar Goodson, William Porter, Edward Nero and Garrett Miller three weeks later.
In her filing Monday, Mosby said prosecutors had "attempted to reach an agreement" with defense attorney Michael Belsky for more time to respond to the defense motions. Belsky is defending Rice and serving as the "designated contact attorney" for all of the officers.
Belsky agreed to give the state more time to respond to defense motions to dismiss the case, Mosby said, but only "in exchange for the State releasing certain discovery," including Gray's autopsy report, medical records and "all statements made by the defendants."
He did not agree to give the state more time to respond to the motion to remove the case from Baltimore, Mosby said.
Mosby said her office did not agree to "barter" over the documents.
"Because the State intends to seek a protective order to restrict the dissemination of such sensitive discovery in this matter," she wrote, "the State was not willing to so barter, and so no agreement could be reached."
The deadline for the state to respond to the defense motions is June 11. Mosby is asking for an extension until July 10.
"Defendants' Motions in total span over 150 pages, setting forth a multitude of legal arguments and factual allegations that the State intends to answer diligently," she wrote.
Last month, Deputy State's Attorney Michael Schatzow called a defense motion to dismiss the case or have Mosby recused from it "premature, frivolous, illogical, and unsupported by authority when it is not contradicted by authority."
Mosby said the officers would "suffer no prejudice" from an extension because arraignments aren't scheduled in the case until July 2.
The officers' attorneys, in their response, said prosecutors mischaracterized conversations between the sides and failed to provide a reason why an extension is needed. They said the arraignment date has "no impact" on the need for timely responses to their motions.
They noted Mosby's office took less than two weeks to conduct an investigation into the officers, and said they had "deep-seated concerns" about Mosby attending public events such as a Prince concert and a circus and doing interviews with outlets such as Vogue Magazine while the lives and careers of the officers "remain in jeopardy."
"It is the position of the Defendants that they have been unlawfully charged, that the charges are the by-product of a State's Attorney's Office with deep conflicts of interest, and that the charges are mired by prosecutorial misconduct, which is ongoing in nature," the defense attorneys wrote. "These issues are impairing the Defendants' rights of due process — rights which continue to be injured with each passing day."
The attorneys added that time "is not a luxury as the careers, livelihoods, and liberty of the Defendants hang in the balance, four of whom are charged with felonies and thus are no longer receiving the salaries necessary to support themselves and their families."
White, Rice, Goodson and Porter have been charged with felonies.
"It's very disconcerting that six [defense] lawyers were able to write these motions in two weeks, and the state's attorney's office has over 200 or some attorneys and they need an extension," Bates said. "To me, it's almost as if the state's attorney's office is playing games."
Gregg Leslie, legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said judges sometimes grant gag orders or restrictions on evidence in high-profile cases because they feel the heightened scrutiny amounts to a "big headache" for those involved in the case.
But that isn't how the law should work, Leslie said, and Mosby's office should explain why it believes a protective order is warranted — especially considering that Gray's death removed standard concerns about his medical privacy.
"They should have to show there is a compelling state interest served by keeping this confidential, and that their solution is the most narrowly tailored one," Leslie said.
That could include redacting only certain details in the documents, he said.
It's been... how long since the indictment? And the defense attorney still haven't seen the evidence / statement lists that the prosecution is using???
I'd like to believe her when she says she does not want trial by media, but I hope that the defense will have timely access to the evidence to review it before trial
Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby plans to seek a protective order that would block the release of Freddie Gray's autopsy report and other "sensitive" documents as she prosecutes the six police officers involved in his arrest.
Mosby told The Baltimore Sun that prosecutors "have a duty to ensure a fair and impartial process for all parties involved" and "will not be baited into litigating this case through the media."
But an attorney for one of the officers said the effort shows that "there is something in that autopsy report that they are trying to hide."
"Mrs. Mosby is the one who did an announcement discussing what she said the evidence was in a nationally televised speech," said Ivan Bates, who represents Sgt. Alicia White. "Now that it is time to turn over the evidence, to ask for a protective order is beyond disingenuous.
"It's as if she wants to do everything to make sure our clients do not get a fair trial."
Gray, 25, died in April after suffering a severe spinal cord injury in police custody. Mosby has charged the officers with violations ranging from misconduct in office to, in one case, second-degree murder.
Baltimore's chief prosecutor declared her intention to seek the protective order in a court filing Monday. She also asked for more time to respond to defense motions that she and her office be removed from the case and that the case be tried outside Baltimore.
The move is the latest effort by Mosby's office to restrict information in the high-profile case. Her office has also sought a gag order to prevent participants from discussing the case in public, and has broken with a long-standing practice by not giving a copy of the autopsy report to Baltimore police.
In a response to Mosby's latest filing, defense attorneys said Wednesday that they have been denied an outline of evidence and claims against the officers, and have not been allowed to inspect a knife that was taken from Gray during his arrest.
Bates said the protective order would allow only prosecutors and defense attorneys to see the documents, and could require the court to seal all new filings that make reference to information in the documents.
In that way, he said, it would be more restrictive than a gag order.
"Nobody would know anything but the state and the defense, so they would totally hide it from the public," Bates said. "If your case is as good as you said it was, why don't you just show the evidence? … You can't holler and say, 'I'm about accountability for the citizens,' and then run around filing for a protective order."
The Sun is one of 19 news organizations contesting Mosby's gag order request.
Gray's death on April 19, amid a national debate over police brutality, touched off days of protests. On the day of his funeral, the city erupted into several hours of riots, arson and looting.
Mosby filed charges against the officers on May 1 based on what she said was an independent investigation conducted by her office. A grand jury indicted White, Lt. Brian Rice and Officers Caesar Goodson, William Porter, Edward Nero and Garrett Miller three weeks later.
In her filing Monday, Mosby said prosecutors had "attempted to reach an agreement" with defense attorney Michael Belsky for more time to respond to the defense motions. Belsky is defending Rice and serving as the "designated contact attorney" for all of the officers.
Belsky agreed to give the state more time to respond to defense motions to dismiss the case, Mosby said, but only "in exchange for the State releasing certain discovery," including Gray's autopsy report, medical records and "all statements made by the defendants."
He did not agree to give the state more time to respond to the motion to remove the case from Baltimore, Mosby said.
Mosby said her office did not agree to "barter" over the documents.
"Because the State intends to seek a protective order to restrict the dissemination of such sensitive discovery in this matter," she wrote, "the State was not willing to so barter, and so no agreement could be reached."
The deadline for the state to respond to the defense motions is June 11. Mosby is asking for an extension until July 10.
"Defendants' Motions in total span over 150 pages, setting forth a multitude of legal arguments and factual allegations that the State intends to answer diligently," she wrote.
Last month, Deputy State's Attorney Michael Schatzow called a defense motion to dismiss the case or have Mosby recused from it "premature, frivolous, illogical, and unsupported by authority when it is not contradicted by authority."
Mosby said the officers would "suffer no prejudice" from an extension because arraignments aren't scheduled in the case until July 2.
The officers' attorneys, in their response, said prosecutors mischaracterized conversations between the sides and failed to provide a reason why an extension is needed. They said the arraignment date has "no impact" on the need for timely responses to their motions.
They noted Mosby's office took less than two weeks to conduct an investigation into the officers, and said they had "deep-seated concerns" about Mosby attending public events such as a Prince concert and a circus and doing interviews with outlets such as Vogue Magazine while the lives and careers of the officers "remain in jeopardy."
"It is the position of the Defendants that they have been unlawfully charged, that the charges are the by-product of a State's Attorney's Office with deep conflicts of interest, and that the charges are mired by prosecutorial misconduct, which is ongoing in nature," the defense attorneys wrote. "These issues are impairing the Defendants' rights of due process — rights which continue to be injured with each passing day."
The attorneys added that time "is not a luxury as the careers, livelihoods, and liberty of the Defendants hang in the balance, four of whom are charged with felonies and thus are no longer receiving the salaries necessary to support themselves and their families."
White, Rice, Goodson and Porter have been charged with felonies.
"It's very disconcerting that six [defense] lawyers were able to write these motions in two weeks, and the state's attorney's office has over 200 or some attorneys and they need an extension," Bates said. "To me, it's almost as if the state's attorney's office is playing games."
Gregg Leslie, legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said judges sometimes grant gag orders or restrictions on evidence in high-profile cases because they feel the heightened scrutiny amounts to a "big headache" for those involved in the case.
But that isn't how the law should work, Leslie said, and Mosby's office should explain why it believes a protective order is warranted — especially considering that Gray's death removed standard concerns about his medical privacy.
"They should have to show there is a compelling state interest served by keeping this confidential, and that their solution is the most narrowly tailored one," Leslie said.
That could include redacting only certain details in the documents, he said.
It's been... how long since the indictment? And the defense attorney still haven't seen the evidence / statement lists that the prosecution is using???
o.O
Criminal procedure is different than civil procedure. Discovery is much different, but they can't hide evidence. Well they often do, but thats a different thread.
Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby plans to seek a protective order that would block the release of Freddie Gray's autopsy report and other "sensitive" documents as she prosecutes the six police officers involved in his arrest.
Mosby told The Baltimore Sun that prosecutors "have a duty to ensure a fair and impartial process for all parties involved" and "will not be baited into litigating this case through the media."
But an attorney for one of the officers said the effort shows that "there is something in that autopsy report that they are trying to hide."
"Mrs. Mosby is the one who did an announcement discussing what she said the evidence was in a nationally televised speech," said Ivan Bates, who represents Sgt. Alicia White. "Now that it is time to turn over the evidence, to ask for a protective order is beyond disingenuous.
"It's as if she wants to do everything to make sure our clients do not get a fair trial."
Gray, 25, died in April after suffering a severe spinal cord injury in police custody. Mosby has charged the officers with violations ranging from misconduct in office to, in one case, second-degree murder.
Baltimore's chief prosecutor declared her intention to seek the protective order in a court filing Monday. She also asked for more time to respond to defense motions that she and her office be removed from the case and that the case be tried outside Baltimore.
The move is the latest effort by Mosby's office to restrict information in the high-profile case. Her office has also sought a gag order to prevent participants from discussing the case in public, and has broken with a long-standing practice by not giving a copy of the autopsy report to Baltimore police.
In a response to Mosby's latest filing, defense attorneys said Wednesday that they have been denied an outline of evidence and claims against the officers, and have not been allowed to inspect a knife that was taken from Gray during his arrest.
Bates said the protective order would allow only prosecutors and defense attorneys to see the documents, and could require the court to seal all new filings that make reference to information in the documents.
In that way, he said, it would be more restrictive than a gag order.
"Nobody would know anything but the state and the defense, so they would totally hide it from the public," Bates said. "If your case is as good as you said it was, why don't you just show the evidence? … You can't holler and say, 'I'm about accountability for the citizens,' and then run around filing for a protective order."
The Sun is one of 19 news organizations contesting Mosby's gag order request.
Gray's death on April 19, amid a national debate over police brutality, touched off days of protests. On the day of his funeral, the city erupted into several hours of riots, arson and looting.
Mosby filed charges against the officers on May 1 based on what she said was an independent investigation conducted by her office. A grand jury indicted White, Lt. Brian Rice and Officers Caesar Goodson, William Porter, Edward Nero and Garrett Miller three weeks later.
In her filing Monday, Mosby said prosecutors had "attempted to reach an agreement" with defense attorney Michael Belsky for more time to respond to the defense motions. Belsky is defending Rice and serving as the "designated contact attorney" for all of the officers.
Belsky agreed to give the state more time to respond to defense motions to dismiss the case, Mosby said, but only "in exchange for the State releasing certain discovery," including Gray's autopsy report, medical records and "all statements made by the defendants."
He did not agree to give the state more time to respond to the motion to remove the case from Baltimore, Mosby said.
Mosby said her office did not agree to "barter" over the documents.
"Because the State intends to seek a protective order to restrict the dissemination of such sensitive discovery in this matter," she wrote, "the State was not willing to so barter, and so no agreement could be reached."
The deadline for the state to respond to the defense motions is June 11. Mosby is asking for an extension until July 10.
"Defendants' Motions in total span over 150 pages, setting forth a multitude of legal arguments and factual allegations that the State intends to answer diligently," she wrote.
Last month, Deputy State's Attorney Michael Schatzow called a defense motion to dismiss the case or have Mosby recused from it "premature, frivolous, illogical, and unsupported by authority when it is not contradicted by authority."
Mosby said the officers would "suffer no prejudice" from an extension because arraignments aren't scheduled in the case until July 2.
The officers' attorneys, in their response, said prosecutors mischaracterized conversations between the sides and failed to provide a reason why an extension is needed. They said the arraignment date has "no impact" on the need for timely responses to their motions.
They noted Mosby's office took less than two weeks to conduct an investigation into the officers, and said they had "deep-seated concerns" about Mosby attending public events such as a Prince concert and a circus and doing interviews with outlets such as Vogue Magazine while the lives and careers of the officers "remain in jeopardy."
"It is the position of the Defendants that they have been unlawfully charged, that the charges are the by-product of a State's Attorney's Office with deep conflicts of interest, and that the charges are mired by prosecutorial misconduct, which is ongoing in nature," the defense attorneys wrote. "These issues are impairing the Defendants' rights of due process — rights which continue to be injured with each passing day."
The attorneys added that time "is not a luxury as the careers, livelihoods, and liberty of the Defendants hang in the balance, four of whom are charged with felonies and thus are no longer receiving the salaries necessary to support themselves and their families."
White, Rice, Goodson and Porter have been charged with felonies.
"It's very disconcerting that six [defense] lawyers were able to write these motions in two weeks, and the state's attorney's office has over 200 or some attorneys and they need an extension," Bates said. "To me, it's almost as if the state's attorney's office is playing games."
Gregg Leslie, legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said judges sometimes grant gag orders or restrictions on evidence in high-profile cases because they feel the heightened scrutiny amounts to a "big headache" for those involved in the case.
But that isn't how the law should work, Leslie said, and Mosby's office should explain why it believes a protective order is warranted — especially considering that Gray's death removed standard concerns about his medical privacy.
"They should have to show there is a compelling state interest served by keeping this confidential, and that their solution is the most narrowly tailored one," Leslie said.
That could include redacting only certain details in the documents, he said.
It's been... how long since the indictment? And the defense attorney still haven't seen the evidence / statement lists that the prosecution is using???
o.O
Criminal procedure is different than civil procedure. Discovery is much different, but they can't hide evidence. Well they often do, but thats a different thread.
Indeed...
All you have to do is look at the official Michael Brown autopsy that obliterated the ongoing narratives.
Well unless illegally hide evidence (which...well again thats another thread) this will come out at actual trial. They cannot hide exculpatory evidence.
Recent DNA and revelations about prosecutor misconduct/FBI controversies are what drove me off of the death penalty. While I agree with it philosophically, I can't realistically.
Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby plans to seek a protective order that would block the release of Freddie Gray's autopsy report and other "sensitive" documents as she prosecutes the six police officers involved in his arrest.
Mosby told The Baltimore Sun that prosecutors "have a duty to ensure a fair and impartial process for all parties involved" and "will not be baited into litigating this case through the media."
But an attorney for one of the officers said the effort shows that "there is something in that autopsy report that they are trying to hide."
"Mrs. Mosby is the one who did an announcement discussing what she said the evidence was in a nationally televised speech," said Ivan Bates, who represents Sgt. Alicia White. "Now that it is time to turn over the evidence, to ask for a protective order is beyond disingenuous.
"It's as if she wants to do everything to make sure our clients do not get a fair trial."
Gray, 25, died in April after suffering a severe spinal cord injury in police custody. Mosby has charged the officers with violations ranging from misconduct in office to, in one case, second-degree murder.
Baltimore's chief prosecutor declared her intention to seek the protective order in a court filing Monday. She also asked for more time to respond to defense motions that she and her office be removed from the case and that the case be tried outside Baltimore.
The move is the latest effort by Mosby's office to restrict information in the high-profile case. Her office has also sought a gag order to prevent participants from discussing the case in public, and has broken with a long-standing practice by not giving a copy of the autopsy report to Baltimore police.
In a response to Mosby's latest filing, defense attorneys said Wednesday that they have been denied an outline of evidence and claims against the officers, and have not been allowed to inspect a knife that was taken from Gray during his arrest.
Bates said the protective order would allow only prosecutors and defense attorneys to see the documents, and could require the court to seal all new filings that make reference to information in the documents.
In that way, he said, it would be more restrictive than a gag order.
"Nobody would know anything but the state and the defense, so they would totally hide it from the public," Bates said. "If your case is as good as you said it was, why don't you just show the evidence? … You can't holler and say, 'I'm about accountability for the citizens,' and then run around filing for a protective order."
The Sun is one of 19 news organizations contesting Mosby's gag order request.
Gray's death on April 19, amid a national debate over police brutality, touched off days of protests. On the day of his funeral, the city erupted into several hours of riots, arson and looting.
Mosby filed charges against the officers on May 1 based on what she said was an independent investigation conducted by her office. A grand jury indicted White, Lt. Brian Rice and Officers Caesar Goodson, William Porter, Edward Nero and Garrett Miller three weeks later.
In her filing Monday, Mosby said prosecutors had "attempted to reach an agreement" with defense attorney Michael Belsky for more time to respond to the defense motions. Belsky is defending Rice and serving as the "designated contact attorney" for all of the officers.
Belsky agreed to give the state more time to respond to defense motions to dismiss the case, Mosby said, but only "in exchange for the State releasing certain discovery," including Gray's autopsy report, medical records and "all statements made by the defendants."
He did not agree to give the state more time to respond to the motion to remove the case from Baltimore, Mosby said.
Mosby said her office did not agree to "barter" over the documents.
"Because the State intends to seek a protective order to restrict the dissemination of such sensitive discovery in this matter," she wrote, "the State was not willing to so barter, and so no agreement could be reached."
The deadline for the state to respond to the defense motions is June 11. Mosby is asking for an extension until July 10.
"Defendants' Motions in total span over 150 pages, setting forth a multitude of legal arguments and factual allegations that the State intends to answer diligently," she wrote.
Last month, Deputy State's Attorney Michael Schatzow called a defense motion to dismiss the case or have Mosby recused from it "premature, frivolous, illogical, and unsupported by authority when it is not contradicted by authority."
Mosby said the officers would "suffer no prejudice" from an extension because arraignments aren't scheduled in the case until July 2.
The officers' attorneys, in their response, said prosecutors mischaracterized conversations between the sides and failed to provide a reason why an extension is needed. They said the arraignment date has "no impact" on the need for timely responses to their motions.
They noted Mosby's office took less than two weeks to conduct an investigation into the officers, and said they had "deep-seated concerns" about Mosby attending public events such as a Prince concert and a circus and doing interviews with outlets such as Vogue Magazine while the lives and careers of the officers "remain in jeopardy."
"It is the position of the Defendants that they have been unlawfully charged, that the charges are the by-product of a State's Attorney's Office with deep conflicts of interest, and that the charges are mired by prosecutorial misconduct, which is ongoing in nature," the defense attorneys wrote. "These issues are impairing the Defendants' rights of due process — rights which continue to be injured with each passing day."
The attorneys added that time "is not a luxury as the careers, livelihoods, and liberty of the Defendants hang in the balance, four of whom are charged with felonies and thus are no longer receiving the salaries necessary to support themselves and their families."
White, Rice, Goodson and Porter have been charged with felonies.
"It's very disconcerting that six [defense] lawyers were able to write these motions in two weeks, and the state's attorney's office has over 200 or some attorneys and they need an extension," Bates said. "To me, it's almost as if the state's attorney's office is playing games."
Gregg Leslie, legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said judges sometimes grant gag orders or restrictions on evidence in high-profile cases because they feel the heightened scrutiny amounts to a "big headache" for those involved in the case.
But that isn't how the law should work, Leslie said, and Mosby's office should explain why it believes a protective order is warranted — especially considering that Gray's death removed standard concerns about his medical privacy.
"They should have to show there is a compelling state interest served by keeping this confidential, and that their solution is the most narrowly tailored one," Leslie said.
That could include redacting only certain details in the documents, he said.
It's been... how long since the indictment? And the defense attorney still haven't seen the evidence / statement lists that the prosecution is using???
o.O
Criminal procedure is different than civil procedure. Discovery is much different, but they can't hide evidence. Well they often do, but thats a different thread.
Indeed...
All you have to do is look at the official Michael Brown autopsy that obliterated the ongoing narratives.
In my circle, it didnt. People still believe hands up dont shoot.
All this stuff with police has made me very hesitant to continue with me and my buddies plan to go into the FBI after college.
Why are you taking sociology? I was advised to take accounting or finance. If I wanted to get into the lab side I was advised to get a (now called ) STEM degree.
Frazzled wrote: Why are you taking sociology? I was advised to take accounting or finance. If I wanted to get into the lab side I was advised to get a (now called ) STEM degree.
Because, It is what I love. I took several other classes, Bio, Geology, Psych, History, and several others.
When I was young an Naive, I though with sociology I could change the world. Now I realize that you cant really affect the world. Now Im going to use what I know to my advantage.
I might go onto working in Diversity training TBH. Companies are under more and more pressure to have a "Diverse Workforce" and often people are brought it to help make that transistion and make sure the workforce gets along, that or human Resources.
The FBI thing was something I was considering. IT happened when a friend of a friend who is in the FBI said my background in sociology could help with racial based crimes and research.
Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby plans to seek a protective order that would block the release of Freddie Gray's autopsy report and other "sensitive" documents as she prosecutes the six police officers involved in his arrest.
Mosby told The Baltimore Sun that prosecutors "have a duty to ensure a fair and impartial process for all parties involved" and "will not be baited into litigating this case through the media."
But an attorney for one of the officers said the effort shows that "there is something in that autopsy report that they are trying to hide."
"Mrs. Mosby is the one who did an announcement discussing what she said the evidence was in a nationally televised speech," said Ivan Bates, who represents Sgt. Alicia White. "Now that it is time to turn over the evidence, to ask for a protective order is beyond disingenuous.
"It's as if she wants to do everything to make sure our clients do not get a fair trial."
Gray, 25, died in April after suffering a severe spinal cord injury in police custody. Mosby has charged the officers with violations ranging from misconduct in office to, in one case, second-degree murder.
Baltimore's chief prosecutor declared her intention to seek the protective order in a court filing Monday. She also asked for more time to respond to defense motions that she and her office be removed from the case and that the case be tried outside Baltimore.
The move is the latest effort by Mosby's office to restrict information in the high-profile case. Her office has also sought a gag order to prevent participants from discussing the case in public, and has broken with a long-standing practice by not giving a copy of the autopsy report to Baltimore police.
In a response to Mosby's latest filing, defense attorneys said Wednesday that they have been denied an outline of evidence and claims against the officers, and have not been allowed to inspect a knife that was taken from Gray during his arrest.
Bates said the protective order would allow only prosecutors and defense attorneys to see the documents, and could require the court to seal all new filings that make reference to information in the documents.
In that way, he said, it would be more restrictive than a gag order.
"Nobody would know anything but the state and the defense, so they would totally hide it from the public," Bates said. "If your case is as good as you said it was, why don't you just show the evidence? … You can't holler and say, 'I'm about accountability for the citizens,' and then run around filing for a protective order."
The Sun is one of 19 news organizations contesting Mosby's gag order request.
Gray's death on April 19, amid a national debate over police brutality, touched off days of protests. On the day of his funeral, the city erupted into several hours of riots, arson and looting.
Mosby filed charges against the officers on May 1 based on what she said was an independent investigation conducted by her office. A grand jury indicted White, Lt. Brian Rice and Officers Caesar Goodson, William Porter, Edward Nero and Garrett Miller three weeks later.
In her filing Monday, Mosby said prosecutors had "attempted to reach an agreement" with defense attorney Michael Belsky for more time to respond to the defense motions. Belsky is defending Rice and serving as the "designated contact attorney" for all of the officers.
Belsky agreed to give the state more time to respond to defense motions to dismiss the case, Mosby said, but only "in exchange for the State releasing certain discovery," including Gray's autopsy report, medical records and "all statements made by the defendants."
He did not agree to give the state more time to respond to the motion to remove the case from Baltimore, Mosby said.
Mosby said her office did not agree to "barter" over the documents.
"Because the State intends to seek a protective order to restrict the dissemination of such sensitive discovery in this matter," she wrote, "the State was not willing to so barter, and so no agreement could be reached."
The deadline for the state to respond to the defense motions is June 11. Mosby is asking for an extension until July 10.
"Defendants' Motions in total span over 150 pages, setting forth a multitude of legal arguments and factual allegations that the State intends to answer diligently," she wrote.
Last month, Deputy State's Attorney Michael Schatzow called a defense motion to dismiss the case or have Mosby recused from it "premature, frivolous, illogical, and unsupported by authority when it is not contradicted by authority."
Mosby said the officers would "suffer no prejudice" from an extension because arraignments aren't scheduled in the case until July 2.
The officers' attorneys, in their response, said prosecutors mischaracterized conversations between the sides and failed to provide a reason why an extension is needed. They said the arraignment date has "no impact" on the need for timely responses to their motions.
They noted Mosby's office took less than two weeks to conduct an investigation into the officers, and said they had "deep-seated concerns" about Mosby attending public events such as a Prince concert and a circus and doing interviews with outlets such as Vogue Magazine while the lives and careers of the officers "remain in jeopardy."
"It is the position of the Defendants that they have been unlawfully charged, that the charges are the by-product of a State's Attorney's Office with deep conflicts of interest, and that the charges are mired by prosecutorial misconduct, which is ongoing in nature," the defense attorneys wrote. "These issues are impairing the Defendants' rights of due process — rights which continue to be injured with each passing day."
The attorneys added that time "is not a luxury as the careers, livelihoods, and liberty of the Defendants hang in the balance, four of whom are charged with felonies and thus are no longer receiving the salaries necessary to support themselves and their families."
White, Rice, Goodson and Porter have been charged with felonies.
"It's very disconcerting that six [defense] lawyers were able to write these motions in two weeks, and the state's attorney's office has over 200 or some attorneys and they need an extension," Bates said. "To me, it's almost as if the state's attorney's office is playing games."
Gregg Leslie, legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said judges sometimes grant gag orders or restrictions on evidence in high-profile cases because they feel the heightened scrutiny amounts to a "big headache" for those involved in the case.
But that isn't how the law should work, Leslie said, and Mosby's office should explain why it believes a protective order is warranted — especially considering that Gray's death removed standard concerns about his medical privacy.
"They should have to show there is a compelling state interest served by keeping this confidential, and that their solution is the most narrowly tailored one," Leslie said.
That could include redacting only certain details in the documents, he said.
It's been... how long since the indictment? And the defense attorney still haven't seen the evidence / statement lists that the prosecution is using???
o.O
Criminal procedure is different than civil procedure. Discovery is much different, but they can't hide evidence. Well they often do, but thats a different thread.
Indeed...
All you have to do is look at the official Michael Brown autopsy that obliterated the ongoing narratives.
In my circle, it didnt. People still believe hands up dont shoot.
Those circle simple refuse to acknowledge the hard evidences.
All this stuff with police has made me very hesitant to continue with me and my buddies plan to go into the FBI after college.
Good luck. And be prepared to move anywhere in the states if you're hired.
Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby plans to seek a protective order that would block the release of Freddie Gray's autopsy report and other "sensitive" documents as she prosecutes the six police officers involved in his arrest.
Mosby told The Baltimore Sun that prosecutors "have a duty to ensure a fair and impartial process for all parties involved" and "will not be baited into litigating this case through the media."
But an attorney for one of the officers said the effort shows that "there is something in that autopsy report that they are trying to hide."
"Mrs. Mosby is the one who did an announcement discussing what she said the evidence was in a nationally televised speech," said Ivan Bates, who represents Sgt. Alicia White. "Now that it is time to turn over the evidence, to ask for a protective order is beyond disingenuous.
"It's as if she wants to do everything to make sure our clients do not get a fair trial."
Gray, 25, died in April after suffering a severe spinal cord injury in police custody. Mosby has charged the officers with violations ranging from misconduct in office to, in one case, second-degree murder.
Baltimore's chief prosecutor declared her intention to seek the protective order in a court filing Monday. She also asked for more time to respond to defense motions that she and her office be removed from the case and that the case be tried outside Baltimore.
The move is the latest effort by Mosby's office to restrict information in the high-profile case. Her office has also sought a gag order to prevent participants from discussing the case in public, and has broken with a long-standing practice by not giving a copy of the autopsy report to Baltimore police.
In a response to Mosby's latest filing, defense attorneys said Wednesday that they have been denied an outline of evidence and claims against the officers, and have not been allowed to inspect a knife that was taken from Gray during his arrest.
Bates said the protective order would allow only prosecutors and defense attorneys to see the documents, and could require the court to seal all new filings that make reference to information in the documents.
In that way, he said, it would be more restrictive than a gag order.
"Nobody would know anything but the state and the defense, so they would totally hide it from the public," Bates said. "If your case is as good as you said it was, why don't you just show the evidence? … You can't holler and say, 'I'm about accountability for the citizens,' and then run around filing for a protective order."
The Sun is one of 19 news organizations contesting Mosby's gag order request.
Gray's death on April 19, amid a national debate over police brutality, touched off days of protests. On the day of his funeral, the city erupted into several hours of riots, arson and looting.
Mosby filed charges against the officers on May 1 based on what she said was an independent investigation conducted by her office. A grand jury indicted White, Lt. Brian Rice and Officers Caesar Goodson, William Porter, Edward Nero and Garrett Miller three weeks later.
In her filing Monday, Mosby said prosecutors had "attempted to reach an agreement" with defense attorney Michael Belsky for more time to respond to the defense motions. Belsky is defending Rice and serving as the "designated contact attorney" for all of the officers.
Belsky agreed to give the state more time to respond to defense motions to dismiss the case, Mosby said, but only "in exchange for the State releasing certain discovery," including Gray's autopsy report, medical records and "all statements made by the defendants."
He did not agree to give the state more time to respond to the motion to remove the case from Baltimore, Mosby said.
Mosby said her office did not agree to "barter" over the documents.
"Because the State intends to seek a protective order to restrict the dissemination of such sensitive discovery in this matter," she wrote, "the State was not willing to so barter, and so no agreement could be reached."
The deadline for the state to respond to the defense motions is June 11. Mosby is asking for an extension until July 10.
"Defendants' Motions in total span over 150 pages, setting forth a multitude of legal arguments and factual allegations that the State intends to answer diligently," she wrote.
Last month, Deputy State's Attorney Michael Schatzow called a defense motion to dismiss the case or have Mosby recused from it "premature, frivolous, illogical, and unsupported by authority when it is not contradicted by authority."
Mosby said the officers would "suffer no prejudice" from an extension because arraignments aren't scheduled in the case until July 2.
The officers' attorneys, in their response, said prosecutors mischaracterized conversations between the sides and failed to provide a reason why an extension is needed. They said the arraignment date has "no impact" on the need for timely responses to their motions.
They noted Mosby's office took less than two weeks to conduct an investigation into the officers, and said they had "deep-seated concerns" about Mosby attending public events such as a Prince concert and a circus and doing interviews with outlets such as Vogue Magazine while the lives and careers of the officers "remain in jeopardy."
"It is the position of the Defendants that they have been unlawfully charged, that the charges are the by-product of a State's Attorney's Office with deep conflicts of interest, and that the charges are mired by prosecutorial misconduct, which is ongoing in nature," the defense attorneys wrote. "These issues are impairing the Defendants' rights of due process — rights which continue to be injured with each passing day."
The attorneys added that time "is not a luxury as the careers, livelihoods, and liberty of the Defendants hang in the balance, four of whom are charged with felonies and thus are no longer receiving the salaries necessary to support themselves and their families."
White, Rice, Goodson and Porter have been charged with felonies.
"It's very disconcerting that six [defense] lawyers were able to write these motions in two weeks, and the state's attorney's office has over 200 or some attorneys and they need an extension," Bates said. "To me, it's almost as if the state's attorney's office is playing games."
Gregg Leslie, legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said judges sometimes grant gag orders or restrictions on evidence in high-profile cases because they feel the heightened scrutiny amounts to a "big headache" for those involved in the case.
But that isn't how the law should work, Leslie said, and Mosby's office should explain why it believes a protective order is warranted — especially considering that Gray's death removed standard concerns about his medical privacy.
"They should have to show there is a compelling state interest served by keeping this confidential, and that their solution is the most narrowly tailored one," Leslie said.
That could include redacting only certain details in the documents, he said.
It's been... how long since the indictment? And the defense attorney still haven't seen the evidence / statement lists that the prosecution is using???
o.O
Criminal procedure is different than civil procedure. Discovery is much different, but they can't hide evidence. Well they often do, but thats a different thread.
Indeed...
All you have to do is look at the official Michael Brown autopsy that obliterated the ongoing narratives.
In my circle, it didnt. People still believe hands up dont shoot.
Those circle simple refuse to acknowledge the hard evidences.
Its not exactly that. When I went to a panel on ferguson, it was about how alot of these people see EVERY part of the justice system as out to get african americans. Every part. Alot where for the tearing down of prisons and the abolishment of prisons, saying they where created specifically to imprison black people. They also believe that the police are a throwback to slavery times and are used the same way. I even met some who said gynecologists are part of a problem why black infants have a 2.5% less chance of surviving than white infants.
There is very much a truth that there is problems with police, but its not ALL race related like people think.
Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby plans to seek a protective order that would block the release of Freddie Gray's autopsy report and other "sensitive" documents as she prosecutes the six police officers involved in his arrest.
Mosby told The Baltimore Sun that prosecutors "have a duty to ensure a fair and impartial process for all parties involved" and "will not be baited into litigating this case through the media."
But an attorney for one of the officers said the effort shows that "there is something in that autopsy report that they are trying to hide."
"Mrs. Mosby is the one who did an announcement discussing what she said the evidence was in a nationally televised speech," said Ivan Bates, who represents Sgt. Alicia White. "Now that it is time to turn over the evidence, to ask for a protective order is beyond disingenuous.
"It's as if she wants to do everything to make sure our clients do not get a fair trial."
Gray, 25, died in April after suffering a severe spinal cord injury in police custody. Mosby has charged the officers with violations ranging from misconduct in office to, in one case, second-degree murder.
Baltimore's chief prosecutor declared her intention to seek the protective order in a court filing Monday. She also asked for more time to respond to defense motions that she and her office be removed from the case and that the case be tried outside Baltimore.
The move is the latest effort by Mosby's office to restrict information in the high-profile case. Her office has also sought a gag order to prevent participants from discussing the case in public, and has broken with a long-standing practice by not giving a copy of the autopsy report to Baltimore police.
In a response to Mosby's latest filing, defense attorneys said Wednesday that they have been denied an outline of evidence and claims against the officers, and have not been allowed to inspect a knife that was taken from Gray during his arrest.
Bates said the protective order would allow only prosecutors and defense attorneys to see the documents, and could require the court to seal all new filings that make reference to information in the documents.
In that way, he said, it would be more restrictive than a gag order.
"Nobody would know anything but the state and the defense, so they would totally hide it from the public," Bates said. "If your case is as good as you said it was, why don't you just show the evidence? … You can't holler and say, 'I'm about accountability for the citizens,' and then run around filing for a protective order."
The Sun is one of 19 news organizations contesting Mosby's gag order request.
Gray's death on April 19, amid a national debate over police brutality, touched off days of protests. On the day of his funeral, the city erupted into several hours of riots, arson and looting.
Mosby filed charges against the officers on May 1 based on what she said was an independent investigation conducted by her office. A grand jury indicted White, Lt. Brian Rice and Officers Caesar Goodson, William Porter, Edward Nero and Garrett Miller three weeks later.
In her filing Monday, Mosby said prosecutors had "attempted to reach an agreement" with defense attorney Michael Belsky for more time to respond to the defense motions. Belsky is defending Rice and serving as the "designated contact attorney" for all of the officers.
Belsky agreed to give the state more time to respond to defense motions to dismiss the case, Mosby said, but only "in exchange for the State releasing certain discovery," including Gray's autopsy report, medical records and "all statements made by the defendants."
He did not agree to give the state more time to respond to the motion to remove the case from Baltimore, Mosby said.
Mosby said her office did not agree to "barter" over the documents.
"Because the State intends to seek a protective order to restrict the dissemination of such sensitive discovery in this matter," she wrote, "the State was not willing to so barter, and so no agreement could be reached."
The deadline for the state to respond to the defense motions is June 11. Mosby is asking for an extension until July 10.
"Defendants' Motions in total span over 150 pages, setting forth a multitude of legal arguments and factual allegations that the State intends to answer diligently," she wrote.
Last month, Deputy State's Attorney Michael Schatzow called a defense motion to dismiss the case or have Mosby recused from it "premature, frivolous, illogical, and unsupported by authority when it is not contradicted by authority."
Mosby said the officers would "suffer no prejudice" from an extension because arraignments aren't scheduled in the case until July 2.
The officers' attorneys, in their response, said prosecutors mischaracterized conversations between the sides and failed to provide a reason why an extension is needed. They said the arraignment date has "no impact" on the need for timely responses to their motions.
They noted Mosby's office took less than two weeks to conduct an investigation into the officers, and said they had "deep-seated concerns" about Mosby attending public events such as a Prince concert and a circus and doing interviews with outlets such as Vogue Magazine while the lives and careers of the officers "remain in jeopardy."
"It is the position of the Defendants that they have been unlawfully charged, that the charges are the by-product of a State's Attorney's Office with deep conflicts of interest, and that the charges are mired by prosecutorial misconduct, which is ongoing in nature," the defense attorneys wrote. "These issues are impairing the Defendants' rights of due process — rights which continue to be injured with each passing day."
The attorneys added that time "is not a luxury as the careers, livelihoods, and liberty of the Defendants hang in the balance, four of whom are charged with felonies and thus are no longer receiving the salaries necessary to support themselves and their families."
White, Rice, Goodson and Porter have been charged with felonies.
"It's very disconcerting that six [defense] lawyers were able to write these motions in two weeks, and the state's attorney's office has over 200 or some attorneys and they need an extension," Bates said. "To me, it's almost as if the state's attorney's office is playing games."
Gregg Leslie, legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said judges sometimes grant gag orders or restrictions on evidence in high-profile cases because they feel the heightened scrutiny amounts to a "big headache" for those involved in the case.
But that isn't how the law should work, Leslie said, and Mosby's office should explain why it believes a protective order is warranted — especially considering that Gray's death removed standard concerns about his medical privacy.
"They should have to show there is a compelling state interest served by keeping this confidential, and that their solution is the most narrowly tailored one," Leslie said.
That could include redacting only certain details in the documents, he said.
It's been... how long since the indictment? And the defense attorney still haven't seen the evidence / statement lists that the prosecution is using???
o.O
Criminal procedure is different than civil procedure. Discovery is much different, but they can't hide evidence. Well they often do, but thats a different thread.
Indeed...
All you have to do is look at the official Michael Brown autopsy that obliterated the ongoing narratives.
In my circle, it didnt. People still believe hands up dont shoot.
Those circle simple refuse to acknowledge the hard evidences.
Its not exactly that. When I went to a panel on ferguson, it was about how alot of these people see EVERY part of the justice system as out to get african americans. Every part. Alot where for the tearing down of prisons and the abolishment of prisons, saying they where created specifically to imprison black people. They also believe that the police are a throwback to slavery times and are used the same way. I even met some who said gynecologists are part of a problem why black infants have a 2.5% less chance of surviving than white infants.
There is very much a truth that there is problems with police, but its not ALL race related like people think.
I've been saying that we'd need to reform not only the Judicial / Incarceration system... but, also the idea that the city treats it's citizen as a ticketing revenue system. That's what we need to do...
Santa Cruz. This is Santa Cruz. The Panel I went to was headed by the women who started "Black Brunch" I remember, one person asked a question of the announcher(A very Smart person from the looks of it) "Do you think The Micheal Brown, Eric Garner and other cases are related to the fugitive slave act?" He said "Yes, I dont even have to give why, just yes"
Also, I personally believe the money generated by tickets the go towards charity You get a ticket for speeding, the money goes to help rehabilitate people who go hurt in speeding accidents. Etc.
The FBI thing was something I was considering. IT happened when a friend of a friend who is in the FBI said my background in sociology could help with racial based crimes and research.
OK. I was asking specifically as it pertained to the FBI tryout, not a general statement or criticism.
I've been saying that we'd need to reform not only the Judicial / Incarceration system... but, also the idea that the city treats it's citizen as a ticketing revenue system. That's what we need to do...
So much of 'the system' requires inmates and offenders... if we only put violent offenders in jail, we would see we would need only like 1/3rd of the infrastructure which is millions in jobs and infrastructure 'gone'. Local politicians actually run on putting more people into the system to make the system larger to grow jobs.
The parts about un-affordable bail and public defenders being basically equivalent to a guilty plea shows how simply being poor means you are going to prison. 95% of people currently in jail never have a trial, and upwards of 8% of that is innocent people with no knowledge of their rights being tricked into confessing or agreeing to pleas.
Funny how 'plea bargains' virtually didn't exist pre-Civil war until there was a new target population to control. Charge people with a worse crime, and instead of having to prove your case, scare them into accepting a lesser charge if they admit it. Basically 'Avoid the noose'. It is also not common in the rest of the world for plea bargains to happen. There are a lot of changes in how law enforcement and our judicial system 'changed' after the civil war which still haunt us today.
I highly recommend reading the whole article and the provided links for all 40 points. Regardless where you stand, there is a very real truth: "Today, a criminal record serves as both a direct cause and consequence of poverty." and the sad fact is being a minority means you have a higher chance of being born into both a criminal record and poverty.
Frazzled wrote: Recent DNA and revelations about prosecutor misconduct/FBI controversies are what drove me off of the death penalty. While I agree with it philosophically, I can't realistically.
Frazzled wrote: Well unless illegally hide evidence (which...well again thats another thread) this will come out at actual trial. They cannot hide exculpatory evidence.
Recent DNA and revelations about prosecutor misconduct/FBI controversies are what drove me off of the death penalty. While I agree with it philosophically, I can't realistically.
Holy crap. Are you sure you are Texan enough to live in Texas?
Frazzled wrote: Well unless illegally hide evidence (which...well again thats another thread) this will come out at actual trial. They cannot hide exculpatory evidence.
Recent DNA and revelations about prosecutor misconduct/FBI controversies are what drove me off of the death penalty. While I agree with it philosophically, I can't realistically.
Holy crap. Are you sure you are Texan enough to live in Texas?
Dude I live where people think Jade Helm = Obama/UN invasion.
Such a fine city. Maybe the mayor thinks this is a good thing because business goes on in some form, even if the brick and morter stores have been looted and burned.
The judge presiding over the prosecution of six Baltimore Police officers involved in the arrest of Freddie Gray struck the state's motion for a gag order in the case.
Judge Charles J. Peters ruled the motion lacked standing in an actual proceeding, as it was filed by Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby's office in Circuit Court on May 14. At that time, the officers' cases were still in District Court. They weren't transferred to Circuit Court until May 21, when the officers were indicted.
Rochelle Ritchie, a Mosby spokeswoman, declined to say whether the state planned to file a new gag order motion, which Peters' ruling did not preclude.
"We're not going to litigate this case in the media and discuss our trial strategy," Ritchie said.
Gray, 25, died April 19, one week after being arrested and sustaining a severe spinal cord injury while being transported in a police van, according to Mosby's office.
Officer Caesar Goodson Jr., the driver of the transport van, has been charged with second-degree murder, and Lt. Brian Rice, Sgt. Alicia White and Officer William Porter have been charged with manslaughter.
Officers Edward Nero and Garrett Miller, the two officers who along with Rice were involved in Gray's initial arrest, face lesser charges, including second-degree assault.
The attorneys for the six officers had asked the court to strike the state's gag order motion on procedural grounds.
Nineteen media outlets, including The Baltimore Sun, also filed a motion opposing the gag order.
Nathan Siegel, an attorney representing The Sun and other media outlets, noted Mosby's office could still file a new gag order motion, but said Peters' decision "is good for the transparency of this case, at least for now."
I can only imagine what would happen had Ferguson's DA asked for a gag order. o.O
I mean, it sounds like the cops did do something wrong. The question is who is at fault here. I doubt all 6 are to blame. I wonder what will happen or be revealed
hotsauceman1 wrote: I mean, it sounds like the cops did do something wrong. The question is who is at fault here. I doubt all 6 are to blame. I wonder what will happen or be revealed
hotsauceman1 wrote: I mean, it sounds like the cops did do something wrong. The question is who is at fault here. I doubt all 6 are to blame. I wonder what will happen or be revealed
Sheeples believe all six were involved
In a 40k Inquisitor sort of way, all six were involved Though I sort of agree with hotsauce... while all six may be guilty of "something" that something isn't universal, and the individual charges should be treated as such (as in, just because one person may get 1st degree murder, doesn't mean the other 5 do as well... not that anyone here is getting murder in the first, just an example)
About three weeks before Freddie Gray was chased from a West Baltimore corner by three Baltimore police officers — the start of a fatal encounter — the office of prosecutor Marilyn Mosby asked police to target the intersection with "enhanced" drug enforcement efforts, court documents show.
"State's Attorney Mosby asked me to look into community concerns regarding drug dealing in the area of North Ave and Mount St," Joshua Rosenblatt, division chief of Mosby's Crime Strategies Unit, wrote in a March 17 email to a Western District police commander.
The email was disclosed for the first time Tuesday in a motion filed in Baltimore Circuit Court by defense attorneys for the six officers being prosecuted in Gray's arrest and death. The attorneys said Mosby's involvement in the police initiative means that she should be removed from the case.
"Mrs. Mosby herself is now an integral part of the story and as such is a central witness," the defense attorneys argued. "This is a case where the witness and the prosecutor are one and the same."
Mosby, through spokeswoman Rochelle Ritchie, said, "Consistent with our prosecutorial obligations, we will litigate this case in the courtroom and not in the media." Mosby's office received the motion Tuesday afternoon, Ritchie said.
Mosby's office has dismissed previous defense calls for her recusal, including those based on conflict-of-interest allegations stemming from her husband's post as city councilman in the district where Gray was arrested.
In their motion Tuesday, defense attorneys said the email exchange shows that Mosby knew the area where Gray was chased was a high-crime location. They said that bolsters their argument that officers were within their rights to detain and handcuff Gray — even before finding a knife and officially arresting him.
"It must be understood that Mrs. Mosby was directing these officers to one of the highest crime intersections in Baltimore City and asking them to make arrests, conduct surveillance, and stop crime," the defense attorneys wrote. "Now, the State is apparently making the unimaginable argument that the police officers are not allowed to use handcuffs to protect their safety and prevent flight in an investigatory detention where the suspect fled in a high crime area and actually had a weapon on him."
In the March 17 email to Maj. Osborne Robinson, Rosenblatt wrote that Mosby's office wanted to build on the success in reducing crime in the West Baltimore neighborhood through the Operation Ceasefire program by "targeting that intersection for enhanced prosecutorial (and hopefully police) attention." In that program, prosecutors, police and community groups work together to persuade criminals to reform.
On March 20, Robinson forwarded Rosenblatt's email to several Western District officers, including Lt. Brian W. Rice. He was one of the three officers who arrested Gray and one of the six later charged in Gray's arrest and death.
Robinson told Rice and the other officers to begin a "daily narcotics initiative" focused on North Avenue and Mount Street, according to the email, and said he would be collecting "daily measurables" from them on their progress.
"This is effective immediately," Robinson wrote, noting that the officers should use cameras, informants and other covert policing tactics to get the job done.
Lt. Kenneth Butler, president of the Vanguard Justice Society, a group for minority and female Baltimore police officers, said that when orders such as Robinson's come down to target a specific corner, the response is consistent. "They want increased productivity, whether it be car stops, field interviews, arrests — that's what they mean by measurables," he said.
Butler, who said he has been a shift commander on and off for the past 15 years, added, "You have to use whatever tools you have — whether it be bike officers, cameras, foot officers, whatever you have — to abate that problem. So you're going to have to be aggressive."
Butler said that he has never seen such orders come from the state's attorney's office but that they come at the request of politicians and community leaders all the time.
"Once you're given an order, you have to carry it out. It's just that simple," he said.
Kinji Scott, a longtime community activist, defended Mosby's crime-fighting efforts. He said she did not order police to "put Freddie Gray in a situation where he had his spine severed. ... We cannot fault her for doing her job and being involved in the community."
Gray, 25, was arrested April 12 a couple of blocks south of North Avenue and Mount Street after making eye contact with police and running away, according to police. Mosby's office said Gray sustained a severe spinal cord injury while being transported in a police van.
His death a week later, April 19, touched off days of protests that culminated in looting, arson and rioting in a number of neighborhoods, forcing city officials to call in the National Guard and implement a curfew.
Officer Caesar R. Goodson Jr., the driver of the police van, was charged with second-degree depraved heart murder; Rice, Sgt. Alicia D. White and Officer William G. Porter have been charged with manslaughter.
Officers Edward M. Nero and Garrett E. Miller, the two others involved in Gray's arrest, face lesser charges, including second-degree assault.
Under Operation Ceasefire, which tries to break the cycle of recidivism by offering repeat offenders social services to leave crime behind, police and prosecutors sometimes share ideas and coordinate to keep the worst offenders off city streets.
According to Rosenblatt's email, Mosby had been contacted for help in addressing drug dealing at North and Mount by a "mentoring group" that described a "drug shop located directly outside of their facilities." Rosenblatt, a former city detective, said Mosby had received photographs from a resident of drug dealing at the corner.
"I realize that resources are thin for a long-term investigation, but hopefully we can combine community involvement with [the state's attorney's office and Police Department] cooperation to make something happen," Rosenblatt wrote.
Rosenblatt's Crime Strategies Unit, according to the state's attorney's website, uses "technology, data analysis, and intelligence-gathering to identify trends in crime, focus in on the offenders driving that crime, and target those offenders for enforcement."
Rosenblatt could not be reached for comment.
Defense attorneys for the six officers have argued previously that Mosby should not handle the case because of alleged conflicts of interest, including "the seizing of political and personal gain by" Mosby and her husband, City Councilman Nick Mosby, and close ties between her and attorney William H. "Billy" Murphy Jr., who represents Gray's family.
Nick Mosby represents the district where the worst of the rioting occurred after Gray's death. Murphy supported Marilyn Mosby's election campaign, served on her transition committee and represented her in a matter before the Attorney Grievance Commission.
Murphy declined to comment Tuesday; Nick Mosby did not respond to a request for comment.
Mosby and her office have dismissed the alleged conflicts as baseless.
In a state filing, Chief Deputy State's Attorney Michael Schatzow called the suggestion that Nick Mosby's position was a conflict that should prevent her from trying cases in an entire city district "truly a breathtaking non-sequitur."
Schatzow also wrote that the "notion that Mrs. Mosby would bring baseless criminal charges with the entire nation watching just so that Mr. Murphy might have some advantage in the civil case is ludicrous."
In the same filing, Schatzow said Gray's arrest was illegal.
"Mr. Gray was arrested well before the arresting officers knew he possessed a knife," Schatzow wrote. "Mr. Gray was handcuffed at his surrendering location, moved a few feet away, and placed in a prone position with his arms handcuffed behind his back, all before the arresting officers found the knife."
Defense attorneys said in their filing Tuesday that Mosby's office had come up with this "new theory" to support otherwise unfounded charges against the arresting officers. They wrote that the involuntary detention of a suspect using handcuffs prior to an arrest — known commonly as a "stop and frisk" — is legal according to decisions by the Supreme Court and Maryland appeals courts, as well as the Baltimore Police Department's general orders.
Stop-and-frisk policies have long been controversial in Baltimore, where a decade of "zero-tolerance" policing, including under then-Mayor Martin O'Malley, sparked resentment from residents, especially in predominantly African-American neighborhoods where residents say young men are harassed by police.
In 2013, Baltimore police stopped using the term "stop-and-frisk" to describe their tactics, but continued stopping and searching individuals suspected of criminal activity.
Under a 2006 general order that was valid until April of this year, officers were told they could use handcuffs during "involuntary detentions" based on "reasonable suspicion" — a standard that "is more than mere suspicion, but less than probable cause."
In April, a revised policy was issued, but it did not change the department's basic stance on the use of handcuffs during such stops. According to the policy, "investigative stops" can involve the "delay or hindrance of an individual's freedom of movement" when an officer has a "reasonable, articulable suspicion" to justify it.
Such a suspicion can be based on a variety of actions, the policy says, including "furtive behavior," "evasive conduct or unprovoked flight" and "presence in a high crime area."
Byron Warnken, a law professor at the University of Baltimore, said there is "an amorphous sliding scale between a stop and an arrest." It is based on overall circumstances, including how long a person is detained, use of force and the factors that led the officers to become suspicious.
Warnken's firm was hired by Mosby's office before Gray's arrest to train Baltimore officers on Fourth Amendment issues. He said he will be teaching nuances of the law to officers enrolled in his training courses in the coming weeks.
The defense attorneys said Gray was only detained long enough for officers to protect their safety with a weapons check and confirm their suspicions of criminal activity through the discovery of the knife.
A couple of standouts...
Had Mosby’s gag order been successful (it wasn't because she filed in the wrong court), we would never have known about this. We would never have known about her office instructing the police to target the exact area where she now says they had no reason to target.
That email shows that Mosby herself was the one who asked the police to aggressively target the area where Gray was trying to deal. In essence, the officers she now accuses of being too aggressive, were aggressive specifically because Mosby asked them to be.
Oi... it's no wonder why the Police is pushing back.
Stark contrast to what happened to McKinny, where that officer immediately resigned.
Saying 'we need more cops' in an area in no way equates to 'and be sure to abuse and kill your arrestees.'
Relates in a sense that she's too close to the case. Her office ordered a more aggressive stance.
Turns out the BPD went too far and she's trying to back away as far as you can.
The ethical thing would be for her to recuse herself and have a special prosecutor conduct this case.
I'm looking at this and all I'm seeing is a redux on how the Travon Martin case was conducted.
ordering more people is not aggression, nor can she order anyone. She's prosecution, not police.
That dog don't hunt.
Did you read that Baltimore Sun article?
Look... Grey died due to obvious negligence, because one's spine doesn't "sever" by itself. I want those responsible held to account. (the driver / or other po-po who may have beaten the handcuff'ed Grey).
Wasn't there an attempt to coverup by deleting some store videos that may have more info? If so, that person need the book thrown at them.
I'm worried that the DA isn't up to conducting a rigorous, legally-sound prosecution... such that, these officer's could go scotts free on technicality.
She fething tried to get that gag order place in the wrong court. Which, rightfully so, got thrown out on technicality.
At a fething minimum, there's an involuntary manslaughter charge there.
But, this DA isn't inspiring any confidence at the moment. I sincerely, really, really hope she proves me wrong.
I've been saying that we'd need to reform not only the Judicial / Incarceration system... but, also the idea that the city treats it's citizen as a ticketing revenue system. That's what we need to do...
Very much this. The functional role of law enforcement officers in modern society, coupled with the fact that they've put undue effort into selling the public on the myth that they have the "most dangerous job in America," has reduced my respect for police officers to literally zero.
Autopsy of Freddie Gray shows 'high-energy' impact
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.
The state medical examiner's office concluded that Gray's death could not be ruled an accident, and was instead a homicide, because officers failed to follow safety procedures "through acts of omission."
Though Gray was loaded into the van on his belly, the medical examiner surmised that he may have gotten to his feet and was thrown into the wall during an abrupt change in direction. He was not belted in, but his wrists and ankles were shackled, putting him "at risk for an unsupported fall during acceleration or deceleration of the van."
The medical examiner compared Gray's injury to those seen in shallow-water diving incidents.
Gray, 25, was arrested April 12 following a foot pursuit by officers in the Gilmor Homes area, and he suffered a severe spinal injury while in police custody. His death a week later sparked protests over police brutality and unrest in the city — including looting and rioting — that drew international attention to the case.
The Baltimore state's attorney's office charged the six officers involved in Gray's arrest and transport. Officer Caesar R. Goodson Jr. the driver of the van, is charged with second-degree depraved-heart murder, while Sgt. Alicia D. White, Officer William F. Porter and Lt. Brian W. Rice are charged with manslaughter. Officers Edward M. Nero and Garrett E. Miller face lesser charges, including second-degree assault.
All of the officers have pleaded not guilty, and a trial has been set for October.
The autopsy report was completed April 30, the day before State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby announced criminal charges against the officers. The autopsy has not been made public, and the deadline for releasing evidence in the case to defense lawyers is Friday. A copy of the autopsy was obtained and verified by sources who requested anonymity because of the high-profile nature of the case.
The chief medical examiner, Dr. David Fowler, declined to comment, as did the defense attorneys for the officers, who said they have not received the autopsy.
In a statement, Mosby denounced the release of the report. She has sought a protective order to keep evidence in the case out of public view. "I strongly condemn anyone with access to trial evidence who has leaked information prior to the resolution of this case," Mosby said.
Baltimore police union president Lt. Gene Ryan said details in the autopsy raise questions about the charges, demonstrating why the union didn't want prosecutors to "rush to a decision."
"Why not wait till all the facts are in before you make a decision?" he asked. "Let's just sit back and take a breath and let's see everything unfold. I want to see all the evidence come out, because I believe our guys have nothing to hide."
The autopsy details a chronology of the events surrounding Gray's arrest that helped inform the medical examiner's conclusion. The medical examiner relied upon witness statements, videos and an examination of the transport van.
Gray tested positive for opiates and cannabinoid when he was admitted to Maryland Shock Trauma Center, according to the autopsy. The report makes no further reference to the drugs found in his system.
The report does not note any previous injuries to Gray's spine.
In concluding his death was a homicide, Assistant Medical Examiner Carol H. Allan wrote that it was "not an unforeseen event that a vulnerable individual was injured during operation of the vehicle, and that without prompt medical attention, the injury would prove fatal."
While bystanders captured his arrest on video showing Gray moaning for help, the autopsy concluded that he suffered no injuries suggesting a neck hold or stemming from physical restraint. Allan noted that Gray could be seen bearing weight on his legs and speaking as he was loaded into the van.
Officers placed Gray on a metal bench running from front to back along the outside wall of the van. He was not belted in, which is a violation of Baltimore police policy. After the doors were closed, he could be heard yelling and banging, "causing the van to rock," the autopsy noted.
The van made several stops. The second stop occurred a few blocks away on Baker Street, where officers placed an identification band and leg restraints on Gray.
"Reportedly, Mr. Gray was still yelling and shaking the van," the medical examiner wrote. "He was removed from the van and placed on the ground in a kneeling position, facing the van doors, while ankle cuffs were placed, and then slid onto the floor of the van, belly down and head first, reportedly still verbally and physically active."
Authorities previously said the third stop in the area of Fremont and Mosher streets was captured on video, which showed the van driver, Goodson, getting out and looking in the back.
During a fourth stop, at Dolphin Street and Druid Hill Avenue, authorities said, Goodson called for assistance, at which point Porter got involved.
"The assisting officer opened the doors and observed Mr. Gray lying belly down on the floor with his head facing the cabin compartment, and reportedly he was asking for help, saying he couldn't breathe, couldn't get up, and needed a medic," the autopsy says. "The officer assisted Mr. Gray to the bench and the van continued on its way."
The van made a fifth stop at North and Pennsylvania avenues to pick up a second arrestee, where Mosby has said White helped check on Gray.
"Mr. Gray was found kneeling on the floor, facing the front of the van and slumped over to his right against the bench, and reportedly appeared lethargic with minimal responses to direct questions," the report says.
The medical examiner concluded that Gray's most significant injury was to the lower left part of his head. Given the descriptions of his demeanor and positioning in the van, it most likely occurred between the second and fourth stops made by the van driver, and possibly before the third stop, according to the autopsy.
While it's possible Gray was hurt while lying on the floor and moving back and forth, Allan determined that his body likely couldn't have moved in that position with enough force to cause his injuries.
Allan surmised that Gray could have gotten to his feet using the bench and opposite wall. With his hands and ankles restrained, and unable to see out of the van and anticipate turns, she said, he was at a high risk for an unsupported fall.
She also noted the possibility that Gray's neck injury occurred "with him in a partially reclining position or as he was changing his position on the floor of the van," if the van moved abruptly enough.
The injury to Gray's spinal cord would have caused loss of function of his limbs, and would have "direct effects" on his ability to breathe, according to the autopsy.
Police had said in a court filing that the second passenger reported hearing Gray banging and kicking through the metal divider. Allan said that would not have been possible given Gray's injuries, but he may have been suffering a seizure at the time, which could have caused the noise, she said.
Failure to secure Freddy Grey with seatbelts is what the Medical Examiner determined this death as "homicide" as opposed to "accidential".
CptJake wrote: I wonder how this works for the 5 cops charged. I would hate to be the driver...
Initial arresters-they are off. It was asinine grandstanding to charge them with something the first place.
The ones in charge of the prisoner in transport-they are in trouble.
CptJake wrote: I wonder how this works for the 5 cops charged. I would hate to be the driver...
Initial arresters-they are off. It was asinine grandstanding to charge them with something the first place.
The ones in charge of the prisoner in transport-they are in trouble.
Indeed... one's neck doesn't snap on its own. Whomever's responsible to secure the passenger should face at least, involuntary manslaughter.
(CNN)Baltimore officials approved a $6.4 million deal Wednesday to settle all civil claims tied to the death of Freddie Gray.
Gray suffered a fatal spinal injury while he was transported in a Baltimore police van in April.
The settlement does not "represent any judgment" on the guilt or innocence of the six police officers charged in the case, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said. "This settlement represents an opportunity to bring closure to the Gray family, the community and the city."
Rawlings-Blake is part of a five-person panel called the Board of Estimates that handles the city's financial affairs and approved the settlement.
Gray's family negotiated the deal with city attorneys, a source close to the family told CNN.
"All of us realize that money cannot, will not -- there's no possibility -- to bring back a loved one," the mayor said. "I hope that this settlement will bring a level of closure for the family, for the police department and for our city."
She and others on the panel said that the decision to settle with the family was weighed against the high cost of fighting an anticipated civil suit.
"We can avoid years and years of protracted civil litigation," Rawlings-Blake said, which would be a "significant expense."
The officers charged in Gray's death are not named in the settlement, said City Solicitor George Nilson.
The agreement "spares us all having the scab of April of this year picked over and over and over for five and six years to come," he said.
Prosecutor Marilyn Mosby has said Gray's injury in April occurred because he was handcuffed and shackled -- but not buckled in -- in the police van. Six officers will stand trial on charges ranging from assault to murder. All six have pleaded not guilty.
Gray family attorney Billy Murphy said settling potential civil claims without litigation was "an extraordinary result." Litigation, he said, puts family members "through hell."
If a civil case went to court, he added, "it could easily have taken three years to resolve, and no grieving family wants to go through that," he said. "And our city would not want to go through that."
Police disapprove of settlement
But the head of Baltimore's police union, which represents the six accused officers, said before the announcement that a settlement would be premature.
"To suggest that there is any reason to settle prior to the adjudication of the pending criminal cases is obscene and without regard to the fiduciary responsibility owed to (taxpayers)," said Gene Ryan, president of the Baltimore Fraternal Order of Police.
"There has been no civil litigation filed, nor has there been any guilt determined that would require such a ridiculous reaction."
Ryan had urged the city committee to reject the settlement pact.
"This news threatens to interrupt any progress made toward restoring the relationship between the members of the Baltimore Police Department and the Baltimore city government," he said.
In comments to reporters later Wednesday morning, the mayor reacted to Ryan's comments.
"Gene's statements continue to baffle me, because what this settlment does is remove any (civil) liability from the six officers," she said.
The settlement, she said, ensures that however each officer's criminal trial plays out, they cannot be sued in civil court.
Gray's death sparked outrage that led to days of massive protests, including some that turned violent. Buildings went up in flames, and local businesses were devastated by vandalism and looting -- despite the Gray family's pleas for peace.
The mayor and Murphy said they welcome the city police department using body cameras. Murphy said a body camera program could be implemented as early as this month.
Complete Freddie Gray coverage
So the city settled for something that wasn't proven yet? Weird...
One could argue that they have just completely poisoned the well as far as the jury pool for the officers...
You settle because you know that years of litigation is more trouble than it's worth and you would rather have a known result instead of uncertainty in the future. You don't settle because you know what you did or didn't do.
Medium of Death wrote: One thing that perplexes me is why the curfew isn't being imposed this evening but tomorrow?
These rioters need shooting.
Rubber bullets are extremely inefficient against such a mob. A water cannon has more shock value and is more effective at clearing large amounts of hostiles at short range.
CS gas takes the piss right out of 95% of "spirited protesters." Water cannons will NEVER be used in the US due to the history of firehoses and the civil rights stuff in the 60's.
Medium of Death wrote: One thing that perplexes me is why the curfew isn't being imposed this evening but tomorrow?
These rioters need shooting.
Rubber bullets are extremely inefficient against such a mob. A water cannon has more shock value and is more effective at clearing large amounts of hostiles at short range.
CS gas takes the piss right out of 95% of "spirited protesters." Water cannons will NEVER be used in the US due to the history of firehoses and the civil rights stuff in the 60's.
The WTO riots, and those of us who were in them, would like to offer a counter-claim.
Jihadin wrote: I was at Lewis at that time. I recall no water cannons being used.
I'm talking about the effectiveness of CS. Get exposed to it enough, and it's just refreshingly-spicy.
Yeah, in boot camp we had a guy that grew up somewhere in South America that apparently had a bunch of riots, who, when we did the gas training, just stood there and walked out when it was his turn. Everyone was outside coughing up their guts and this guy was just tearing up a little like he had just seen a very sad movie but was too manly to cry too much about it. When asked, he just said you eventually build up a tolerance and at this point it just helped clear up his sinuses a bit. On that note, after I got out of there and my face stopped leaking I had never been able to breath through my nose better lol.
Ouze wrote: Beyond the fact that of course, litigation brings with it discovery, sworn testimony, and other things the corrupt would prefer to avoid.
It's not like it's their money, after all.
Of course... we know *why* they did this...
It's just that, they just made the prosecutor's job more difficult by potentially poisoning the jury pool (which is pretty poisoned if you ask me).
I want a rigorous and fair trial for those officers (and hoping for at least a negligence charge).
How does it make it more difficult? wouldnt a jury hearing about this mean they are more likely to be swayed to the prosecuters?
Unless you mean it makes it more likely a mistrial will come out of it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: How does it make it more difficult? wouldnt a jury hearing about this mean they are more likely to be swayed to the prosecuters?
That's the point. The defence will argue that the jury are already affected by hearing about this, and are therefore more likely to convict regardless of the events during the trial.
It just assumes that a city this huge is unable to find less than 100 people who are able to actually listen to facts and evidence. Will there be people who think that the settlement by the city means that the officers are guilty? Probably. But that is why you do the whole thing where you ask jurors questions before the trials. If they are unable to find unbiased jurors after actually interviewing them they can always move the trial then.
BALTIMORE (AP) — A judge acquitted a police driver of all charges on Thursday in the death of 25-year-old arrestee Freddie Gray, whose broken neck on the way to the station set off Baltimore's worst riots in decades.
Six officers were charged in Gray's death, but only Officer Caesar Goodson was accused of "depraved heart" murder. Gray was fatally injured after officers bound his hands and feet and Goodson left him unprotected by a seat belt that prosecutors say would have kept him from slamming into the van's metal walls.
Baltimore Circuit Judge Barry Williams also found Goodson not guilty of manslaughter, assault, misconduct in office, and reckless endangerment after five days of testimony in the non-jury trial.
Williams said the state failed to show that Goodson knew he'd harm Gray by leaving him unbuckled, or that he was aware of the injury.
"The state failed to prove the defendant knew or should have known that Mr. Gray needed medical care," the judge said.
"Unlike in a shooting or a stabbing, or a car accident, this injury manifests itself internally," Williams said, citing conflicting testimony from medical experts. "If the doctors weren't clear, how would a person without medical training know?"
The judge also said the state failed to prove Goodson gave Gray a "rough ride."
"The state had a duty to show the defendant corruptly failed in his duty, not just that he made a mistake," the judge said.
Outside the courthouse, a small group of protesters chanted: "We can't stop. We won't stop, till killer cops are in cell blocks."
Protests and rioting after Gray's death on April 19, 2015 set the city on fire, forcing Maryland to bring in the National Guard. The unrest forced the city's mayor to abandon her re-election campaign, and the Department of Justice opened an investigation into allegations of widespread police abuse.
The Democratic nominee to become Baltimore's next mayor, State Sen. Catherine Pugh, issued a statement pleading for patience.
"Protests are a vital part of democracy, but to destroy the homes and businesses many people have worked very hard to build is unacceptable. Although people may disagree with the verdict, it is important to respect each other and to respect our neighborhoods and our communities," Pugh said.
Prosecutors said Goodson was criminally negligent when he failed to buckle Gray into a seat belt or call for medical aid after Gray indicated that he wanted to go to a hospital. But Goodson wouldn't talk to investigators or take the stand at trial, leaving the state with slim evidence of intent to harm.
The acquittal of Goodson, 46, is perhaps the most significant blow to State Attorney Marilyn Mosby's efforts to hold police accountable for Gray's death.
Last month, the same judge acquitted Officer Edward Nero of misdemeanor charges, and in December, he declared a mistrial after a jury failed to agree on manslaughter and other charges against Officer William Porter.
Porter faces a retrial in September, and three other officers have yet to be tried.
Gray was arrested April 12 after running from an officer on bike patrol outside a public housing project not far from the Western District station house. A neighbor's video showed him handcuffed behind his back and hoisted into Goodson's van.
The van made a total of six stops that day, and Gray was unresponsive on arrival at the station house 45 minutes later. Prosecutors said Goodson was there throughout and checked on Gray during the third and fourth stops, so he should have known Gray was in distress. They said his failure to call a medic amounts to murder.
A prosecution expert testified that Gray could not possibly have broken his own neck. Prosecutors said the injury happened somewhere between the second and fourth stops, when Goodson and Porter lifted Gray off the floor.
Porter testified that Gray was lethargic, but could breathe and speak, and didn't seem injured. Prosecutors countered that the initial injury became critical as the trip continued.
Second-degree "depraved heart" murder, which carries up to 30 years in jail, would mean that Goodson was so negligent in his inaction that he cast aside any consideration for Gray's life.
During opening statements, prosecutors for the first time accused Goodson of giving Gray a "rough ride," intentionally leaving him unbuckled "to bounce him around in the back of the van."
But by closing arguments, they all but abandoned the theory, saying Goodson's failure to belt Gray in under the circumstances was sufficient to prove the intent necessary for a murder conviction.
"Officer Goodson never calls a medic, he never takes Freddie Gray to the hospital," said Deputy State's Attorney Jan Bledsoe. "He has breached his duty, and because of that breach Freddie Gray's life was shortened."
The judge seemed skeptical, peppering prosecutors with questions and asking what evidence they had supporting the "rough ride" theory. What if Gray had emerged from the van unhurt, despite being unbuckled, and was found to be falsely claiming injury in order to avoid jail?
Chief Deputy State's Attorney Michael Schatzow said the failure to belt him in would still be a crime, although a difficult one to prosecute.
Goodson's attorney Matthew Fraling fiercely rejected the allegations, telling the judge that Goodson was a "gentle" officer who didn't buckle him in because Gray was exhibiting "violent and erratic" behavior, citing witness testimony that he was making the wagon shake back and forth by kicking and flailing inside.
Fraling also said Gray said yes when Porter asked if he wanted to go to a hospital only because Gray hoped to avoid jail.
"They have failed to cobble together any type of case with reasonable inferences, let alone evidence," he said. "The mere fact that harm resulted doesn't mean the Officer Goodson's conduct is the cause of that harm."
Goodson's acquittal may impact the remaining cases. Officer Garrett Miller and Lt. Brian Rice are scheduled to stand trial in July on charges of assault, reckless endangerment and misconduct in office; Rice also faces a manslaughter charge.
All the officers but Goodson have filed defamation lawsuits against Mosby and Maj. Sam Cogen of the sheriff's office, who signed the charging documents. The officers claim the criminal charges amounted to false and damaging information.
It *is* interesting that the driver asked for a "bench trial"...
Also, Mosby and the prosecution ain't looking too sharp here.
I'm not sure it is surprising. If I remember correctly the DA was hell bent on confirming the guilty sentence she passed on the cops way before the trials started.
I don't understand how the police can scoop up a dude for "running from the cops" - which is not a crime - then detain him for having a knife the State's Attorney said was lawful - then fail to secure him properly despite him being in custody - and then functionally bludgeon him to death, without anyone involved being responsible for his death.
I mean, I don't expect equal standards of justice in this country, or that police are generally held responsible for their actions, but even for the US this is a bit much to swallow.
Ouze wrote: I don't understand how the police can scoop up a dude for "running from the cops" - which is not a crime - then detain him for having a knife the State's Attorney said was lawful - then fail to secure him properly despite him being in custody - and then functionally bludgeon him to death, without anyone involved being responsible for his death.
I mean, I don't expect equal standards of justice in this country, or that police are generally held responsible for their actions, but even for the US this is a bit much to swallow.
I believe this is the impetus for the city settling the wrongful death lawsuit.
Ouze wrote: I don't understand how the police can scoop up a dude for "running from the cops" - which is not a crime - then detain him for having a knife the State's Attorney said was lawful - then fail to secure him properly despite him being in custody - and then functionally bludgeon him to death, without anyone involved being responsible for his death.
I mean, I don't expect equal standards of justice in this country, or that police are generally held responsible for their actions, but even for the US this is a bit much to swallow.
1. Running is reasonable suspicion to pursue.
2. Supposedly its a switchblade. Please find me a place in the US where a switchblade is legal. Mine was a family heirloom, just a mere paper weight...
3. Fail to secure: Now thats a situation. Mischarged perhaps.
More to the point, it was not a switchblade. Although the police dispute this, what I said was that the State's Attorney said it was a lawful knife, and that is accurate. It was a spring assisted knife which pops once you flick it partially open which is not legally a switchblade. Switchblades are automatic knives which operate via a button or switch.
Frazzled wrote: . Fail to secure: Now thats a situation. Mischarged perhaps.
Anyway, 2 of the charges the driver skated on were misconduct in office and reckless endangerment (added by the grand jury) which again seems pretty incredible.
We always like to think that putting cameras on cops will alleviate misconduct, but what's the point? The cops that killed a guy with an illegal choke hold, on video, all skated, and in this case the basic facts - that he was not secured in the van, was not given medical attention, and was treated so roughly his neck broke and he died - aren't in dispute. So the real problem seems like our reluctance to convict police officers who perform criminal acts.
Ouze wrote: More to the point, it was not a switchblade. Although the police dispute this, what I said was that the State's Attorney said it was a lawful knife, and that is accurate. It was a spring assisted knife which pops once you flick it partially open which is not legally a switchblade. Switchblades are automatic knives which operate via a button or switch.
Frazzled wrote: . Fail to secure: Now thats a situation. Mischarged perhaps.
Anyway, 2 of the charges the driver skated on were misconduct in office and reckless endangerment (added by the grand jury) which again seems pretty incredible.
We always like to think that putting cameras on cops will alleviate misconduct, but what's the point? The cops that killed a guy with an illegal choke hold, on video, all skated, and in this case the basic facts - that he was not secured in the van, was not given medical attention, and was treated so roughly his neck broke and he died - aren't in dispute. So the real problem seems like our reluctance to convict police officers who perform criminal acts.
According to a recent Supreme Court ruling, cops have no requirement to know the law before either pulling you over, questioning you, or charging you. If they thought the blade was illegal, even if it wasn't, that's good enough. (Heien V North Carolina)
If you are referring to Eric Garner, no choke hold was used. The maneuver used is an approved take-down move that is taught to police, and has been shown in several other videos. Or at least that's how it started. If you watch, the officer places the back of his hand under Garner's chin, which does not give the leverage needed for a "choke". Did it turn into more as the struggle continued, who knows.
The initial medial examiner did list the "choke hold" as a partial cause of the death. However, this was disputed by other experts. Not even the initial examiner could find ANY injury to Garner from such an action. The combination of extreme obesity, age, heart disease, lung disease, being forced to lay on concrete with handcuffs, and having three grown men kneel on his back was most likely the cause, and a jury agreed.
cuda1179 wrote: [If you are referring to Eric Garner, no choke hold was used. (snip). Did it turn into more as the struggle continued, who knows.
The initial medial examiner did list the "choke hold" as a partial cause of the death. However, this was disputed by other experts. Not even the initial examiner could find ANY injury to Garner from such an action. The combination of extreme obesity, age, heart disease, lung disease, being forced to lay on concrete with handcuffs, and having three grown men kneel on his back was most likely the cause, and a jury agreed.
You're really having it both ways with the first part there, imo. There wasn't a choke hold, except maybe it turned into one, who knows? Come on.
Same with the latter element. It wasn't a choke hold, except where the medical examiner listed it as a cause of death and classified it as a homicide. Yes, I know the police union said it wasn't a choke hold, but I'm going to have to go with the ME on this one. So far as the age, obesity, etc, looking at the additional aggravating factors to discount the primary one seems a bit like like spackling over inconvenient facts,
cuda1179 wrote: [If you are referring to Eric Garner, no choke hold was used. (snip). Did it turn into more as the struggle continued, who knows.
The initial medial examiner did list the "choke hold" as a partial cause of the death. However, this was disputed by other experts. Not even the initial examiner could find ANY injury to Garner from such an action. The combination of extreme obesity, age, heart disease, lung disease, being forced to lay on concrete with handcuffs, and having three grown men kneel on his back was most likely the cause, and a jury agreed.
You're really having it both ways with the first part there, imo. There wasn't a choke hold, except maybe it turned into one, who knows? Come on.
Same with the latter element. It wasn't a choke hold, except where the medical examiner listed it as a cause of death and classified it as a homicide. Yes, I know the police union said it wasn't a choke hold, but I'm going to have to go with the ME on this one. So far as the age, obesity, etc, looking at the additional aggravating factors to discount the primary one seems a bit like like spackling over inconvenient facts,
What about the part where other experts disagreed about the chokehold? How about even the ME admitted that there was NO INJURY caused by the chokehold? The ME didn't list the choke hold as the sole cause of death either. He listed it as a contributing factor, along with the health problems and weight of three officers on top of him.
You seemed totally in disbelief that there could be a not-guilty verdict. My point was that the move was, and still is, considered an acceptable take-down method. Could it have turned into a contributing factor due to the circumstances? Perhaps, but the intent of the officer was to use an authorized move. The situation could have made that authorized move dangerous, but that would be an accidental death, not what the officer was charged with, thus a not guilty verdict.
Don't get me wrong here, Eric Garner's death was a tragedy and was pretty pointless. More training of officers is needed. However, I don't believe it met the requirements for criminal conviction.
cuda1179 wrote: [What about the part where other experts disagreed about the chokehold? How about even the ME admitted that there was NO INJURY caused by the chokehold?
An autopsy was performed the next day. “On external examination of the neck, there are no visible injuries,” according to the final report. On the inside, however, were telltale signs of choking: strap muscle hemorrhages in his neck and petechial hemorrhages in his eyes. No drugs or alcohol were in his system.
cuda1179 wrote: [What about the part where other experts disagreed about the chokehold? How about even the ME admitted that there was NO INJURY caused by the chokehold?
An autopsy was performed the next day. “On external examination of the neck, there are no visible injuries,” according to the final report. On the inside, however, were telltale signs of choking: strap muscle hemorrhages in his neck and petechial hemorrhages in his eyes. No drugs or alcohol were in his system.
Huh, I didn't know about the strap hemorrhages. The petechial hemorrhages I knew about, but could have also been cause by the compression suffocation with three men's weight on him. I'll concede that point.
I do think that the officer was charged a little over zealously and a lower, more proper, charge would have stuck.
On this, we can agree. In the Eric Garner case we don't ultimately know what charges were available to the grand jury, which segues back nicely to the Freddie Grey case in which I will remain surprised that not even misconduct in office or reckless endangerment stuck. The switchblade vs spring assist knife seems an open question so I'm not as rustled about the false imprisonment charges, but when you're the driver, you don't strap in your suspect, and he dies to a broken neck due to your actions, reckless endangerment seems like a slam dunk to me.
Ouze wrote: I thought I was as disappointed in our legal system as I could be but look, here we are.
I guess the police can scoop a guy up, functionally bludgeon him to death, and no crime was committed. Terrific.
If only there was enough evidence (or more accurately ANY evidence) to support the charge the cops 'functionally bludgeon him to death' the prosecution may have had a chance. Sometimes (the OJ and Casey Anthony trials also come to mind) the prosecution can't make a case. In this specific example, they never had a case, they over charged with no evidence, hoping they could get one cop to plea and out the others. But, they didn't have enough evidence to elicit a plea in any of them.
Said differently, perhaps if the prosecutor charged based on actual evidence rather than politics there would be a different ending.
CptJake wrote: If only there was enough evidence (or more accurately ANY evidence) to support the charge the cops 'functionally bludgeon him to death'
The cops put him in a car. He was in their custody and they were responsible for him. This is not in dispute.
The cops did not secure him. This is not in dispute.
When he came out of the car, his neck was broken from a high energy impact. This is not in dispute.
His death was ruled a homicide. This is not in dispute.
However, when you add all of that up, no one is responsible, there is "no evidence" that a crime was committed, the cops are the good guys, and the prosecutor is the villain.
CptJake wrote: If only there was enough evidence (or more accurately ANY evidence) to support the charge the cops 'functionally bludgeon him to death'
The cops put him in a car. He was in their custody and they were responsible for him. This is not in dispute.
The cops did not secure him. This is not in dispute.
When he came out of the car, his neck was broken from a high energy impact. This is not in dispute.
His death was ruled a homicide. This is not in dispute.
However, when you add all of that up, no one is responsible, there is "no evidence" that a crime was committed, the cops are the good guys, and the prosecutor is the villain.
The full might of the Baltimore District Attorney's office, with backing from outside agencies where unable to prove a "crime" was committed. What have you got that they were missing out on?
I'm curious to see how the lawsuit against the Prosecutor turns out.
CptJake wrote: If only there was enough evidence (or more accurately ANY evidence) to support the charge the cops 'functionally bludgeon him to death'
The cops put him in a car. He was in their custody and they were responsible for him. This is not in dispute.
The cops did not secure him. This is not in dispute.
When he came out of the car, his neck was broken from a high energy impact. This is not in dispute.
His death was ruled a homicide. This is not in dispute.
However, when you add all of that up, no one is responsible, there is "no evidence" that a crime was committed, the cops are the good guys, and the prosecutor is the villain.
I don't think I ever called the cops good guys, though you can quote the post I did so in if I have forgotten. Prosecutor as villain? How about as politically motivated over reaching incompetent? Even you would have to agree with incompetent since you are positive there was enough evidence to convict and yet she failed, right? And the case for over reaching seems pretty solid when you look at what she charged each of the 5 cops with and the results she got. I guess you can disagree with politically motivated. What do you think her motivation was?
CptJake wrote: If only there was enough evidence (or more accurately ANY evidence) to support the charge the cops 'functionally bludgeon him to death'
The cops put him in a car. He was in their custody and they were responsible for him. This is not in dispute.
The cops did not secure him. This is not in dispute.
When he came out of the car, his neck was broken from a high energy impact. This is not in dispute.
His death was ruled a homicide. This is not in dispute.
However, when you add all of that up, no one is responsible, there is "no evidence" that a crime was committed, the cops are the good guys, and the prosecutor is the villain.
The 'issue' was the multiple undocumented stops, and witness evidence of how rough and intentional the ride was, if someone intentionally ordered and executed a 'rough ride' and what the responses to the dead man's actions and words during the ride. Things which all would have been captured with Bodycams and vancams.
All of that was basically covered up and destroyed by the Blue Wall of Silence... so without evidence, it was 6 lying cops vs a deadman and they couldn't make much of a case out of it. They watched too much Law and Order and tried to play the 'first one to roll on the others gets a walk' and charged them all super high and no one rolled.
All this shows me is all police interactions with the general public should be recorded at all points of the process. Apparently after the arrest you are not safe as they can kill you in the van, in transport and in the jail and totally falsify/cover-up what happened and get away with it. If it was a malicious act, it would have been recorded, if it was a freak accident, it also would have been recorded.
CptJake wrote: If only there was enough evidence (or more accurately ANY evidence) to support the charge the cops 'functionally bludgeon him to death'
The cops put him in a car. He was in their custody and they were responsible for him. This is not in dispute.
The cops did not secure him. This is not in dispute.
When he came out of the car, his neck was broken from a high energy impact. This is not in dispute.
His death was ruled a homicide. This is not in dispute.
However, when you add all of that up, no one is responsible, there is "no evidence" that a crime was committed, the cops are the good guys, and the prosecutor is the villain.
The full might of the Baltimore District Attorney's office, with backing from outside agencies where unable to prove a "crime" was committed. What have you got that they were missing out on?
I'm curious to see how the lawsuit against the Prosecutor turns out.
I think the lawsuit filed by the cops against the prosecutor will result in the city paying out another settlement. They've already paid the Gray family a $6.4 million settlement and I'm sure the settlement with the cops' lawsuit will also be in the millions. I have a modicum of hope that there will be a silver lining to this tragedy in that Baltimore will start to require police to use body cameras, van cameras, etc. if for not other reason than because their insurance company will demand it be done if the city doesn't want to have to pay insane premiums.
Not sure if it would be different in Baltimore but here locally in the aftermath of the Duke lacrosse fiasco the prosecutor was successfully sued because he lost his absolute immunity by making false statements in press conferences and other instances of legal malfeasance that led to his disbarment. It doesn't seem like Mosby is in danger of being disbarred but if the Baltimore cops can show that Mosby knowingly lied to the press and filed charges that couldn't be supported by the evidence (or lack thereof) she might not be able to claim absolute immunity.
Depends on her Federal Appellate Circuit. The 7th recently held prosecutors could be liable if they swore to their charges. Since that ruling my office makes cops come in and sign that line. I've seen a lot of other offices that still take that risk. I can't remember the case off the top of my head. The prosecutor in it got sued after dismissing the charges. Mosby tried some of her cases, so the damages would be higher. Or she could try to pawn it off on her assistants if they actually did the charges.
Not sure if it would be different in Baltimore but here locally in the aftermath of the Duke lacrosse fiasco the prosecutor was successfully sued because he lost his absolute immunity by making false statements in press conferences and other instances of legal malfeasance that led to his disbarment. It doesn't seem like Mosby is in danger of being disbarred but if the Baltimore cops can show that Mosby knowingly lied to the press and filed charges that couldn't be supported by the evidence (or lack thereof) she might not be able to claim absolute immunity.
Weren't there allegations of the Prosecutors witholding evidence? There is also the accusations of the Prosecutor making (allegedly) false statements, such as her saying the knife he possessed was legal, when it (allegedly) wasn't.
I'm not fully spun up on this, but I've been hearing more rumbles about how the prosecutors have done more wrong, then right.
Mosby rushed to the microphones and cameras and made promises before the evidence was ever in. It looks like they tried to alter reports made by investigators and get the lead investigator to change his testimony. There are similar allegations regarding the medical examiner. Heck, it was one of the investigators who contacted the defense attorney to let them know that the DA hadn't turned over exculpatory reports, a clear Brady violation.
Not only should these officers sue her, but the state bar should be reviewing her conduct for sanctions or disbarment. Ironically, if a normal citizen's case would have been handled like this, the outrage would be deafening.
jmurph wrote: Mosby rushed to the microphones and cameras and made promises before the evidence was ever in. It looks like they tried to alter reports made by investigators and get the lead investigator to change his testimony. There are similar allegations regarding the medical examiner. Heck, it was one of the investigators who contacted the defense attorney to let them know that the DA hadn't turned over exculpatory reports, a clear Brady violation.
Not only should these officers sue her, but the state bar should be reviewing her conduct for sanctions or disbarment. Ironically, if a normal citizen's case would have been handled like this, the outrage would be deafening.
The issue also is the police assigned 'eye witness' officers to the investigation team to make it impossible for them to testify. And they were leaking information to the defense before it was due to them. There is plenty of lies and bs to go around on the side of the police too. Easy to claim lack of evidence when you are seeing the Prosecutors hands, and are running the investigation and destroying the evidence as fast as they discover it.
Our Deputy State's attorney said there was falsified testimony from a specific detective who then 'became' a witness for the defense, the police refused to execute search warrants for officer's cell phones, Some intentionally screwed up immunity deals that made witness statements invalid by the investigation team. The police's hands were dirty in all of this too.
The major mistake was failure to hand all of this off to the feds for independent investigation and the States attorney for prosecution. One of the officer's lawyer even said his client was ready to give a statement to the states attorney and roll on the others for immunity but Mosby refused and charged them before even discussing it and cutting the states attorney out. If she would have just handed it off, at least one of those officers would be sitting in a cell for the next 10 years no question.
A Crime was committed, she just thought she would easily prove it. But it isn't about what really happened, it is what you can prove and she failed to understand how the Blue wall of silence works.
jmurph wrote: Mosby rushed to the microphones and cameras and made promises before the evidence was ever in. It looks like they tried to alter reports made by investigators and get the lead investigator to change his testimony. There are similar allegations regarding the medical examiner. Heck, it was one of the investigators who contacted the defense attorney to let them know that the DA hadn't turned over exculpatory reports, a clear Brady violation.
Not only should these officers sue her, but the state bar should be reviewing her conduct for sanctions or disbarment. Ironically, if a normal citizen's case would have been handled like this, the outrage would be deafening.
The issue also is the police assigned 'eye witness' officers to the investigation team to make it impossible for them to testify. And they were leaking information to the defense before it was due to them. There is plenty of lies and bs to go around on the side of the police too. Easy to claim lack of evidence when you are seeing the Prosecutors hands, and are running the investigation and destroying the evidence as fast as they discover it.
The major mistake was failure to hand all of this off to the feds for independent investigation and the States attorney for prosecution. One of the officer's lawyer even said his client was ready to give a statement to the states attorney and roll on the others for immunity but Mosby refused and charged them before even discussing it and cutting the states attorney out. If she would have just handed it off, at least one of those officers would be sitting in a cell for the next 10 years no question.
A Crime was committed, she just thought she would easily prove it. But it isn't about what really happened, it is what you can prove and she failed to understand how the Blue wall of silence works.
You have a decent source for any of that? Seems to contradict the Judge's take.
The police investigative team and Dawnyell Taylor are hardly clean in all of this. Refusing to execute warrants to let them expire, putting witnesses on the investigation team to prevent testifying, being leading the investigation, then manufacturing evidence and testifying for the defense. Witnesses which 'suddenly forget' to regurgitate what he was told to say by police.
It all needed to be done by the Feds at an independent level. The investigation is as corrupt as the prosecutor was incompetent.
That story does not seem to back up your statements.
You stated: "the issue also is the police assigned 'eye witness' officers to the investigation team to make it impossible for them to testify. And they were leaking information to the defense before it was due to them"
I'm not seeing that in your link. Maybe I'm missing it.
jmurph wrote: Mosby rushed to the microphones and cameras and made promises before the evidence was ever in. It looks like they tried to alter reports made by investigators and get the lead investigator to change his testimony. There are similar allegations regarding the medical examiner. Heck, it was one of the investigators who contacted the defense attorney to let them know that the DA hadn't turned over exculpatory reports, a clear Brady violation.
Not only should these officers sue her, but the state bar should be reviewing her conduct for sanctions or disbarment. Ironically, if a normal citizen's case would have been handled like this, the outrage would be deafening.
The issue also is the police assigned 'eye witness' officers to the investigation team to make it impossible for them to testify. And they were leaking information to the defense before it was due to them. There is plenty of lies and bs to go around on the side of the police too. Easy to claim lack of evidence when you are seeing the Prosecutors hands, and are running the investigation and destroying the evidence as fast as they discover it.
Our Deputy State's attorney said there was falsified testimony from a specific detective who then 'became' a witness for the defense, the police refused to execute search warrants for officer's cell phones, Some intentionally screwed up immunity deals that made witness statements invalid by the investigation team. The police's hands were dirty in all of this too.
The major mistake was failure to hand all of this off to the feds for independent investigation and the States attorney for prosecution. One of the officer's lawyer even said his client was ready to give a statement to the states attorney and roll on the others for immunity but Mosby refused and charged them before even discussing it and cutting the states attorney out. If she would have just handed it off, at least one of those officers would be sitting in a cell for the next 10 years no question.
A Crime was committed, she just thought she would easily prove it. But it isn't about what really happened, it is what you can prove and she failed to understand how the Blue wall of silence works.
If an officer falsified testimony, that would be perjury, yet nothing indicates that any witness has faced such allegations. Likewise evidence tampering is a felony, and such evidence can still be presented if it is shown that the Defendant has made it unavailable (see forfeiture by wrongdoing). Again, none of that is indicated in the trial records. Indeed, the judge has indicated that the State had failed to provide sufficient evidence that any crime occurred.
You can say a crime occurred, but we have a very specific legal system that defines what that actually means. The feds could have gotten involved if they wanted- nothing precluded their investigation. As to leaking evidence before due, criminal defendants are entitled to any exculpatory evidence. Prosecutors can't hide it; this is an old rule from Brady v. Maryland that every prosecutor is (or should be) aware of. The judge determined that the prosecution withheld evidence improperly, specifically material witness statements. That is a big deal.
Again, if this was a normal citizen being prosecuted for murder and the prosecution had withheld evidence on an already thin case after making a public statement to prosecute before the evidence was in, would that be okay? Justice should be based on evidence, not politics.
CptJake wrote: If only there was enough evidence (or more accurately ANY evidence) to support the charge the cops 'functionally bludgeon him to death'
The cops put him in a car. He was in their custody and they were responsible for him. This is not in dispute.
The cops did not secure him. This is not in dispute.
When he came out of the car, his neck was broken from a high energy impact. This is not in dispute.
His death was ruled a homicide. This is not in dispute.
However, when you add all of that up, no one is responsible, there is "no evidence" that a crime was committed, the cops are the good guys, and the prosecutor is the villain.
Have you simply considered the possibility that the police killing people is not a crime and there is therefore nothing for anyone to be held responsible for?
Have you simply considered the possibility that the police killing people is not a crime and there is therefore nothing for anyone to be held responsible for?
Have you simply considered the possibility that in this case the prosecutor failed due to lack of evidence, over charging and political motivations?
CptJake wrote: If only there was enough evidence (or more accurately ANY evidence) to support the charge the cops 'functionally bludgeon him to death'
The cops put him in a car. He was in their custody and they were responsible for him. This is not in dispute.
The cops did not secure him. This is not in dispute.
When he came out of the car, his neck was broken from a high energy impact. This is not in dispute.
His death was ruled a homicide. This is not in dispute.
However, when you add all of that up, no one is responsible, there is "no evidence" that a crime was committed, the cops are the good guys, and the prosecutor is the villain.
According to the lead investigator and police notes that were originally not turned over to defense, the medical examiner twice stated that the incident was an accident.
Was this a tragic death that was probably avoidable? Yes.
Does Baltimore need to work on it's policies regarding securing suspects in custody? Definitely- it just cost them millions of dollars.
Does that mean this was an intentional, criminal act? No.
It's not good guys and bad guys, it's what the evidence shows, department policies, and political agendas. You know, the usual ugly realities that don't lend themselves to easy side taking.
According to the lead investigator and police notes that were originally not turned over to defense, the medical examiner twice stated that the incident was an accident.
Was this a tragic death that was probably avoidable? Yes.
If someone isn't secured, and is banged around so hard they break their neck, that's not an accident. It is negligence, and I think it's criminal negligence.
According to the lead investigator and police notes that were originally not turned over to defense, the medical examiner twice stated that the incident was an accident.
Was this a tragic death that was probably avoidable? Yes.
If someone isn't secured, and is banged around so hard they break their neck, that's not an accident. It is negligence, and I think it's criminal negligence.
At the absolute minimum, the one responsible for securing the passenger should lose his job. As for criminal negligence... alas, the prosecution tried.
Ouze wrote: If someone isn't secured, and is banged around so hard they break their neck, that's not an accident. It is negligence, and I think it's criminal negligence.
It appears you espousing an opinion that isn't really true, and that you have decided you like it and want to keep it without being forced to defend it, rather than that "what you are stating is true and you can show me some pretty good evidence for why that is". It's a very Newt Gringrichian view.
I'm happy to move on because I can't argue with your feelings, which are as Newt said, equally valid as facts and evidence.
Ouze wrote: If someone isn't secured, and is banged around so hard they break their neck, that's not an accident. It is negligence, and I think it's criminal negligence.
It appears you espousing an opinion that isn't really true, and that you have decided you like it and want to keep it without being forced to defend it, rather than that "what you are stating is true and you can show me some pretty good evidence for why that is". It's a very Newt Gringrichian view.
I'm happy to move on because I can't argue with your feelings, which are as Newt said, equally valid as facts and evidence.
I'm happy to defend it, and I have plenty of facts to back it up (like a death certificate labelled as a homicide, and the officers freely admitting they didn't secure him). As edgy as it is copying and pasting an entire post of mine used in a different set of "facts", adding nothing at all of your own, is, it's really not applicable since there was absolute zero evidence DWS rigged the primaries, and enough evidence in this case to secure 6 indictments and prosecutions. There are very few people in this thread or elsewhere who think the officers are innocent, simply that they were overcharged, too hastily charged, and then prosecuted incompetently. How many people here think that OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony are totally guilt free, and the idea they may have committed murders just a fact free opinion, invented solely based on feelings?
However, I now realize that the best way to argue with you guys is to just copy and paste the same insipid arguments word for word until the thread gets locked within a few hours. That's what now passes for discourse here, right?
Ouze wrote: If someone isn't secured, and is banged around so hard they break their neck, that's not an accident. It is negligence, and I think it's criminal negligence.
It appears you espousing an opinion that isn't really true, and that you have decided you like it and want to keep it without being forced to defend it, rather than that "what you are stating is true and you can show me some pretty good evidence for why that is". It's a very Newt Gringrichian view.
I'm happy to move on because I can't argue with your feelings, which are as Newt said, equally valid as facts and evidence.
I'm happy to defend it, and I have plenty of facts to back it up (like a death certificate labelled as a homicide, and the officers freely admitting they didn't secure him). As edgy as it is copying and pasting an entire post of mine used in a different set of "facts", adding nothing at all of your own, is, it's really not applicable since there was absolute zero evidence DWS rigged the primaries, and enough evidence in this case to secure 6 indictments and prosecutions. There are very few people in this thread or elsewhere who think the officers are innocent, simply that they were overcharged, too hastily charged, and then prosecuted incompetently. How many people here think that OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony are totally guilt free, and the idea they may have committed murders just a fact free opinion, invented solely based on feelings?
However, I now realize that the best way to argue with you guys is to just copy and paste the same insipid arguments word for word until the thread gets locked. That's what now passes for discourse here, right?
You are an intelligent poster, you know that the coroner's report is not a legally binding judgement on a criminal case. You also know that not all homicides are criminal. The legal standard applied in a coroner's finding and a criminal trial are not equivalent.
The officer's admitting that they did not secure him seems quite likely to fall into the realm of civil law, and it's lower burden of proof.
So even though the legal system fully reviewed the facts, across several cases and had ample opportunity to review all the facts and evidence is it your contention that they erred in law? You clearly do so you feel they reached the wrong conclusion. You are equating your feelings with the fact of the matter.
I'm happy to move on because I can't argue with your feelings
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So even though the legal system fully reviewed the facts, across several cases and had ample opportunity to review all the facts and evidence is it your contention that they erred in law? You clearly do so you feel they reached the wrong conclusion. You are equating your feelings with the fact of the matter.
I'm happy to move on because I can't argue with your feelings
The police department had revised their seatbelt police to prevent injuries in transports. That policy was not followed. That's a fact, not a feeling.
During the ride, he suffered 3 fractured vertebrae and his spine was almost completely severed. That's a fact, not a feeling.
The police commissioner confirmed that multiple officers knew he needed medical attention and did not get him any. That's a fact, not a feeling.
It's clear that the most important thing here is for you to keep copying and pasting my own posts from a totally unrelated thread, as if they were the same, despite the circumstances being wholly different. Which, really, makes me the donkey-cave, if you think about it.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So even though the legal system fully reviewed the facts, across several cases and had ample opportunity to review all the facts and evidence is it your contention that they erred in law? You clearly do so you feel they reached the wrong conclusion. You are equating your feelings with the fact of the matter.
I'm happy to move on because I can't argue with your feelings
The police department had revised their seatbelt police to prevent injuries in transports. That policy was not followed. That's a fact, not a feeling.
During the ride, he suffered 3 fractured vertebrae and his spine was almost completely severed. That's a fact, not a feeling.
The police commissioner confirmed that multiple officers knew he needed medical attention and did not get him any. That's a fact, not a feeling.
It's clear that the most important thing here is for you to keep copying and pasting my own posts from a totally unrelated thread, as if they were the same, despite the circumstances being wholly different. Which, really, makes me the donkey-cave, if you think about it.
1. In house policy does not equate to law. Maryland law does not in fact require it.
2. What evidence due you have counter to the assertions that Freddie Gray was acting violently in the vehicle, and likely caused the injuries to himself? There has been zero evidence presented that counters this.
3. Per Baltimore Police procedures, they are only required to provide medical attention when "necessary". There being no visible injuries, and him thrashing around at stops leading up to the point they did call for medical assistance, what evidence did the officers have that medical attention was "necessary"?
Again, and Dreadclaw stated, all of the evidence was weighed against the actual laws. An impartial judge on 3 different cases was completely unable to find any evidence that showed they broke a law they were charged for. You keep repeating the same points again and again. If it was that simple, then a different outcome would have occurred.
djones520 wrote: What evidence due you have counter to the assertions that Freddie Gray was acting violently in the vehicle, and likely caused the injuries to himself? There has been zero evidence presented that counters this.
On the one hand, we have some bloggers with a theory. On the other hand, we have:
"I have never seen it before. I’ve never seen somebody self-inflict a spinal cord injury in that way,” says Anand Veeravagu, Chief Neurosurgery Resident at Stanford University Medical Center who specializes in traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries.
“It’s hard for me to understand that, unless those terms [like ‘intentional’ and ‘injure himself’] are being used incorrectly. It’s hard for me to envision how a person could try to do that,” he says. “It would require them to basically hang themselves in a car where there isn’t anything to hang yourself with.”
"Unless somebody jumps off a two-story building and the blunt force breaks (their spinal cord), then no, it is not a viable solution to think someone did this to themselves," says Harminder Singh, a Clinical Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery at Stanford School of Medicine.
Veeravagu says that there are only a few ways you can injure your spine in a similar way to the injuries that ultimately led to Gray’s death. One, he says, is by a sharp injury, which is a direct penetrating injury—either somebody with a knife “who knows what they’re doing, or something else that cuts through, like a gunshot wound.”
The other way, more pertinent to Gray’s case, is by trauma, where the bones are fractured and the ligaments are torn as a result of force or impact.
“It is very difficult to sever your spinal cord without a known fracture,” says Veeravagu. “Often, when patients come in with this kind of injury, you’ll find they’ve been either in a car accident or something similar to that kind of impact.”
While every appeal to authority is fraught with peril, I feel pretty OK with deferring to the expert medical opinions listed above.
So, is this debate about legal culpability alone? It seems like some people are arguing the police did nothing wrong full stop, as opposed to "they committed no provable crime". Can we agree that the police officers bear some moral responsibility for Freddie's death via negligence or indifference?
I guess those doctors never met my neighbor. He had the same kind of injury Freddy Grey did by falling off the third step of a step stool. He was mid 40's at the time.
As Freddy Grey had a history of injuring himself to make police look bad, and they didn't seat belt him in, it isn't beyond belief that a sudden turn or bump during a self-injury attempt could cause a sever injury.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: So, is this debate about legal culpability alone? It seems like some people are arguing the police did nothing wrong full stop, as opposed to "they committed no provable crime". Can we agree that the police officers bear some moral responsibility for Freddie's death via negligence or indifference?
The are lines among illegal activity, liable action, accidents, negligence, and coincidence. I don't think what they did was necessarily illegal. It was probably negligent, but it could also be coincidental if Gray had contributed actions to injure himself as well.
Ouze wrote: The police department had revised their seatbelt police to prevent injuries in transports. That policy was not followed. That's a fact, not a feeling.
Internal police policy documents are not legally binding criminal legislation. In the event that officers broke internal policy documents then civil liability would likely be more applicable, not your feeling of criminal liability. That is a fact.
Ouze wrote: During the ride, he suffered 3 fractured vertebrae and his spine was almost completely severed. That's a fact, not a feeling.
The evidence was before a court and the fact is that it was ruled to not be criminal. Again the facts would support civil liability and not the criminal charges that you feel are appropriate
Ouze wrote: The police commissioner confirmed that multiple officers knew he needed medical attention and did not get him any. That's a fact, not a feeling.
So yet again the fact is that you are highlighting negligence, which is typically associated with..... civil liability. Yet you feel that criminal liability applies when in multiple cases the evidence has been reviewed and it has been ruled that the evidence (otherwise known as fact) do not support criminal charges. But again you are entitled to feel that criminal charges are appropriate. The actual experts disagree with you. And that is a fact
Ouze wrote: It's clear that the most important thing here is for you to keep copying and pasting my own posts from a totally unrelated thread, as if they were the same, despite the circumstances being wholly different. Which, really, makes me the donkey-cave, if you think about it.
I would never dare apply that label to another poster. Should you choose to voluntarily apply it to yourself then that is your right to do so.
If you really think about it you are confusing the facts of criminal liability and civil liability, which I have attempted to explain. I have attempted to explain that the facts of the matter have been reviewed on multiple occasions, and that in all cases the officers involved were acquitted of criminal liability. Could they be liable for civil damages? I think that there is a good likelihood of that based on the facts that we have both outlined and the different standards of proof.
If the facts change and new evidence comes to light that implicates the officers involved I will gladly review my opinions based on those facts.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: So, is this debate about legal culpability alone? It seems like some people are arguing the police did nothing wrong full stop, as opposed to "they committed no provable crime". Can we agree that the police officers bear some moral responsibility for Freddie's death via negligence or indifference?
I guess it depends on if you believe the evidence indicating Gray had previously self injured and may have been doing it again or not. I have certainly seen dumb criminals do dumb things that end up far worse than they anticipated. OTOH, if officers acted with negligence or reckless indifference, that needs to be dealt with in a way that sends a clear message that such behavior is completely unacceptable. I would anticipate that the civil suits will help resolve some of this, but it lurks pretty murky ATM. And our system presumes criminal innocence and even the civil puts the burden on the party asking for relief....
Inadequate training and implementation of safety policies is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed.
How institutionalized and ingrained does something like that really have to be to not even get the slightest feeling of "maybe I should try to hide this behavior from the people investigating us and who are watching me right now"?
Interesting but look which media source wrote the article. The Huffpost could make the cub scouts look like terrorists if it fit their agenda. Not saying these guys are innocent but it has to be looked at objectively.
Some of the info used as examples were poor choices to use in an article. Like the one where some random person claims the cop called him bad names, if it were true or he was really concerned about it, the person would have shown up and given an official statement which he did not.
The crime percentage thing as well is distorting the truth. Its a pretty well known fact that minorities commit a higher proportion of violent crime in the US than their population would indicate for various reasons both cultural and economic. I don't want to hear any BS about racism, that's subjective and emotional but not based in fact. That this city's population is the vast majority therefore using national statistics, it is a pretty safe bet that they commit as high a percentage of crime as the article claims.
As to the mentalities of the cops listed in the article, out of how many thousand cops they could have simply talked to the several hard core guys that believe this. We all know reporters love to talk to the people who look and talk like whack jobs. The DoJ under the instructions of the AG very well might have been looking for these same people for the same reasons, the current justice admin is not the most impartial justice admin we have had and I can easily see the appointees having an agenda.
While I doubt things are as bad as Huffpo makes things out to appear, there is obviously room for improvement. How you get that improvement without losing the experience of veterans and still keeping the streets somewhat safe is above my pay grade.
Well, unfortunately HuffPo is unable to force people to actually read the entire Report. And when people are able to either believe their "spin", or ignore it because they couldn't possibly cover it objectively, because they are unable to read the report that is posted completely at the bottom of the page and which doesn't even require clicking on a single link or opening up a second tab on your browser then it must really be the fault of HuffPo that the truth will never really be known...
Col. Dash wrote: Like the one where some random person claims the cop called him bad names, if it were true or he was really concerned about it, the person would have shown up and given an official statement which he did not.e.
If the police call a citizen a racial slur, but the citizen doesn't go into a police station and file a report with the police officers about one of their coworkers, did anything wrong even happen?
This right here is the Michael Phelps level, gold medal for victim blaming. This is what you guys will have to try and top the next time we have to justify some gakky thing a cop did.
Yep. looks like some serious issues. But you can't address problems until you recognize them. Here, the racial slurs seem to be a symptom of a larger division with the community. The "us v. them" mentality is extremely dangerous, and seems to have spread far beyond just a racial issue as Baltimore seems to have a significant minority representation in its police force. People need to realize that these divisions are based on power, which may be tied to race, but not necessarily. People in positions of authority absolutely must be held accountable for their use of that authority.
Hopefully, BPD will utilize this to improve. It is my understanding that they re seeking to increase community involvement, but also are struggling with personnel shortages. A consistent internal discipline strategy coupled with better training might encourage more and better candidates to apply.
Ultimately, it will be up to voters to make sure the city governance addresses these issues.
And be prepared to move anywhere in the states if you're hired.
in which I will remain surprised that not even misconduct in office or reckless endangerment stuck. The switchblade vs spring assist knife seems an open question so I'm not as rustled about the false imprisonment charges, but when you're the driver, you don't strap in your suspect, and he dies to a broken neck due to your actions, reckless endangerment seems like a slam dunk to me.
