home

Six Officers Indicted for Freddie Gray Death

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Fri May 22, 2015 at 10:27:58 AM EST
Tags: Freddie Gray (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The six officers allegedly involved in the death of Freddie Gray have been indicted by a grand jury. The charges are similar to those brought by Maryland proscecutor Marilyn Mosby.

For the most part, the indictments closely track the charges the Baltimore prosecutor announced in a May 1 press conference. (ABC2’s Christian Schaffer has the full charges here.) In particular, the second-degree depraved-heart murder charge against Officer Caesar Goodson, the most serious of the charges, remains. All six officers were also indicted for reckless endangerment, which was not on the original charge sheet. The big change: None of the officers was indicted for false imprisonment.

< Ireland Rejects Extradition of Terrorist Due to Supermax Conditions | Obama Interview on ISIS, Iraq and Syria >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Six Officers Indicted for Freddie Gray Death | 197 comments (197 topical)
    Couple of things: (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Anne on Wed May 27, 2015 at 10:46:05 AM EST
    Jim is right, and Peter, while not getting into the middle of your argument with jim, did, by correcting your misunderstanding of the meaning of the term, provide you with enough information for you to conclude, on your own, that jim was right.

    Really, Mordy - can you completely blame Peter for not wanting to be perceived as aligning himself with jim, just because jim was right about "homicide?"  And again, without getting into the middle of your back-and-forth with jim, Peter made it clear - at least I thought it was clear - that he generally shares your overall view on the Freddie Gray case.

    He was straddling a line - quite well, I thought - between wanting to educate and indicate philosophical agreement on the one side, and wanting to avoid the whole jim thing - which we all know is like quicksand.

    Peter's a great source of legal information, delivered in a layman-friendly form that never seeks to belittle or blame; how rare is that?

    So...if I could give you one piece of advice, I'd say, don't let your own ego stand in the way of being able to take advantage of that.

    Instead of going into a prolonged dissertation (2.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed May 27, 2015 at 11:17:21 AM EST
    on the subject, all I wanted was a definite answer.

    And if you read my previous comments, I was more interested in the truth than whether or not Peter G decided to be on Jim's side.

     I wouldn't expect the former to be on my side if I made an outrageous statement, like a court trial isn't valid because an Admiralty flag wasn't present in the court.

    You know,  the truth is the truth and doesn't have a side.  That three people, two of whom graduated from law school, can't grasp this simple fact is enough to o make me want to guzzle antifreeze.

    And thank you for not substituting low ratings for discourse when dealing with me on this forum.

    Parent

    Here's what's contributing to your (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Anne on Wed May 27, 2015 at 11:30:40 AM EST
    being seen as unreasonably combative: if you google "legal definition of homicide," it will return site after site that will inform you that while the term refers to the killing of one person at the hands of another, not all homicides are criminal in nature.

    So, really - you didn't even need Peter to weigh in: the answer was there for the finding.  Where you went sideways was to go with the default of Wikipedia which can sometimes be iffy, and in this case, could easily have led anyone astray by the way it was displayed.  

    Maybe you should google "hoist by your own petard."  And take heart from the fact that we've all done it from time to time.

    Parent

    okay, I re-read what's Peter G wrote (2.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed May 27, 2015 at 11:42:24 AM EST
     it he would've been better served if he just made a simple statement with less verbage and at least one example of how an accidental homicide wouldn't necessarily lead to criminal charges in a given case, real or imaginary.

    Anyway, I'll still give Peter G a wide berth, as anyone afraid of thinking that the truth of a matter gives credence to a given speaker.  A college student may be able to give a complete account of how Einstein derived his famous equation, but that doesn't mean that you would be on his side, or that accepting his explanation as correct means that he's correct on other aspects of physics.

    Parent

    For future reference, "accidental" (none / 0) (#176)
    by oculus on Wed May 27, 2015 at 12:28:57 PM EST
    is not a prerequisite for a homicide to not be labelled as a "murder."  For example, an officer-involved shooting may be a homicide but not a murder.

    Parent
    SITE VIOLATION (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 29, 2015 at 02:09:03 PM EST
    Race baiting

    this thread is closed (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 10:49:56 PM EST
    We're also done with this topic unless there is news. Too much race-baiting in comments.

    And this from the NYT: (2.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat May 23, 2015 at 08:52:46 AM EST
    Although an autopsy found bruises and other marks consistent with a fall that could have caused Mr. Gray's spinal cord injury, according to one person with knowledge of the investigation, there was no indication that he had been beaten or otherwise mistreated.

    That person said that without a cellphone video of Mr. Gray's arrest, which shows him turning his neck and apparently supporting his weight while standing outside the back of the van, it would have been virtually impossible to determine that his fatal neck injury occurred in the van.

    "bruises and other marks consistent with a fall ..."

    As in a fall down the steps of the building that he was spotted running into.

    No wonder no autopsy has been released by Mosby&Co.

    So, you think he fell down some steps, (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Anne on Sat May 23, 2015 at 10:31:14 AM EST
    severed his spine, and then got up and continued to run until he was apprehended?  With a severed spine.

    That makes sense to you?

    Oh, right - of course it does.  

    Parent

    Seriously (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:09:02 PM EST
    as sick as it is, at some point you have to laugh.

    Parent
    Not to mention the qualifier (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Yman on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:38:16 PM EST
    "Consistent with".

    Yes, bruises and "other marks" are "consistent with" a fall.  They're also "consistent with" a "rough ride", "beating" and at least a dozen other variations.

    Oy.

    Parent

    severed? (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat May 23, 2015 at 01:21:24 PM EST
    You'll have to take that up with the New York Times and that "one person with knowledge of the investigation" that they talked to.

    He very well may have cracked his vertebrae by jumping/falling down a flight of stairs in his flight from police. He should have listened to his momma in that regard.

    His subsequent thrashing around and head banging in the back of the van would have exacerbated any injuries to his neck from the fall.

    But who knew -- no one saw what he did when he disappeared from sight in flight.

    Even the EMTs didn't recognize the spinal cord injuries, treating him instead for 21 minutes for  cardiac arrest.

    Did that EMT cardiac treatment require leaning his head back to open his air pathway??? That is commonly done and yet could have further exacerbated his spinqal cord injury. Anyone who has taken CPR training should have been taught that.

    And even in the hospital it took another two days to diagnose his broken neck and get him into the OR.

    And when he finally died 5 days after that the reports were that his spinal cord was not fully severed but 80% severed.

    Policemen are not EMTs and they are not trained to diagnose spinal injuries.

    In retrospect the best thing the officers could have done for him is what they did do for him -- let him lie on the floor where he was and don't move him until a trained party did so.

    Mosby&Co should be thanking those officers instead of indicting them.

    Parent

    So, now, you're just completely (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Anne on Sat May 23, 2015 at 03:58:42 PM EST
    inventing a fall down some stairs.  Oh, and not just some stairs, but an entire flight.  Pure invention that you're then building on with even more speculation.

    I'd say it's unbelievable, but after weeks of your breathless confabulation on all aspects of this case, I've pretty much come to expect it.

    The only reference to thrashing around and banging came from Donta Allen, and he mentioned about 4 seconds in an otherwise smooth ride to Western District.  Given that he was reportedly unresponsive at that point, there has been speculation by medical professionals that he may have been having a seizure.

    Something happened in that van.  Gray's position on the floor of the van, and his inability to have the use of his arms and legs in order to stabilize himself against movement of the van, has to have been a factor.  If he's seated on the bench, and belted in, he's stable.  

    And here's where it gets down and dirty: this is a person whose life began to end when he made eye contact with a police officer.  His life began to end because he had a knife in his possession that may or may not have been legal.  Rice made the decision to transport to Central Booking, on the other side of town, rather than transport five blocks to the station.  That's a red flag for me.

    Here's what I would suggest: stick to the facts.  These stories you keep fabricating are only ensuring that no one can or will take anything you say seriously.

    Parent

    Anne (1.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat May 23, 2015 at 04:47:12 PM EST
    Face it, Anne:

    We've been pointing out for weeks that the knife was illegal and thus the arrest was legal.

    And the prosecutor's office by dropping the False Imprisonment charges agrees with us.

    We're the "new information" that she referred to -- the bloggers without law degrees that know more than her whole office does.

    And we'll continue to offer our services to her.

    Parent

    That's pretty funny, Chip... (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Anne on Sat May 23, 2015 at 05:06:21 PM EST
    Some of us have been pointing out to you for weeks that even if the arrest was legal it doesn't make everything that happened from that point forward legal and justifiable.  This is part of the conflation and confabulation you keep engaging in.  And losing at.

    I would caution you not to get too full of yourself - if that is even possible - and restrain your urge to gloat.

    And I'll take the combined legal education, knowledge and experience over whatever you think you've learned on the interwebs.

    But thanks, as always, for the laughs.

    Parent

    Oh, don't be so shy (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Yman on Sat May 23, 2015 at 05:27:17 PM EST
    You offer faaaaarrrr more than that in terms of "services".  You offer fairy tales and specious claims spun from nothing more than the dark recesses of your imagination, all without the benefit of facts, evidence or even basic logic - like your claims in this silly post.

    And your "services" are worth precisely the amount being paid for them.

    Parent

    You might want to put your ego away (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by nycstray on Sun May 24, 2015 at 02:10:26 AM EST
    it seems to be getting in the way of reality . . .

    Parent
    Ego and reality? (none / 0) (#106)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun May 24, 2015 at 07:11:38 AM EST
    Tell that to Mosby&Co.

    Parent
    Really (none / 0) (#83)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 23, 2015 at 01:46:29 PM EST
    you must be assuming the EMT's were as stupid as you are. ,
    treating him instead for 21 minutes for  cardiac arrest.
    Surely you are not suggesting the were treating him for cardiac arrest for no reason?

    Thanks for proving the point that Freddy Gray was probably clinically dead by the time help was provided.

    Parent

    Joe (1.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat May 23, 2015 at 03:39:00 PM EST
    you must be assuming the EMT's were as stupid as you are,

    No -- I'm just assuming that you're as stupid as you are.

    Parent

    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 23, 2015 at 03:46:44 PM EST
    but your argument inferred that the EMT's were totally incompetent.  Your arguments are absurd, I got to call them as I see them.

    Parent
    Hey, back off, FlJoe (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 23, 2015 at 08:59:55 PM EST
    Didn't you hear, Freddie's spine was only 80% severed.

    I mean, who hasn't had their spine 80% severed?

    Ask any kid on the playground, 80% severed spine? Piece 'a cake.

    Quit making a big deal out of this nothing burger, o.k?

    Parent

    So (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:44:46 PM EST
    if you believe the injury occurred  
    As in a fall down the steps of the building that he was spotted running into.
    Then you must concede that they denied Medical help to a mortally injured person for close to an hour. What level of culpability would you assign if that was indeed the case?

    Parent
    Wait (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:47:10 PM EST
    are suggesting it not typical for the MI to call a fall down some stairs a homicide????

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#78)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:54:50 PM EST
    the cops defense team should hire Chip as a consultant.

    Parent
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:58:32 PM EST
    i just realized fir the above comment to be really relevant we would need to know the race of the Medical Examiner.

    Afraid I don't have that information.

    Parent

    They denied? (2.67 / 3) (#82)
    by Redbrow on Sat May 23, 2015 at 01:36:00 PM EST
    It seems the driver was not sure if Gray's requests for medical attention were warranted, so he diligently called in a supervisor with more experience to make the determination.

    As the senior officer on the scene, Sgt. White took over responsibility at that point. It was her call.

    None of these officers are medical experts and there were no obvious wounds or profuse bleeding that would be easy to identify as a medical emergency.

    Parent

    Same (3.00 / 2) (#84)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 23, 2015 at 01:56:00 PM EST
    old excuses
    the driver was not sure
    None of these officers are medical experts


    Parent
    AKA (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Redbrow on Sat May 23, 2015 at 02:05:45 PM EST
    Reasonable doubt.

    Parent
    Maybe (3.00 / 2) (#86)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 23, 2015 at 02:25:39 PM EST
    but "I am not a doctor" sounds like a weak defense to me.

    Parent
    Surprise! Surprise! (1.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue May 26, 2015 at 06:29:00 PM EST
    The number of arrests made by Baltimore police in May has plummeted as shootings and homicides have dramatically increased.

    Data from the US city shows that officers are making about 45% fewer arrests than comparable times in previous years.

    Meanwhile, local media have reported that May has turned out to be the deadliest month in the city since 1999.

    The police department has not explained the decline in arrests.

    And the good news is that as a consequence of this decline, casualties in police vans has fallen to an all time low.

    Can we get a round of applause --

    Message received (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 26, 2015 at 07:04:48 PM EST
    loud and clear, accept some "collateral damage" or we let your city devolve into chaos, say what you will, I call that thugish behavior.

    Of course McBain cheers it all on, almost gleefully celebrating a rise in homicdes.

    Can we get a round of Boos--  

    Parent

    My Apologies (none / 0) (#144)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 26, 2015 at 07:29:28 PM EST
    To McBain, he would never sink to the level of Chip.

    Parent
    Apologies to McBain (1.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue May 26, 2015 at 10:38:20 PM EST
    FlJoe: "My Apologies To McBain"

    Will wonders never cease -- an Apology to McBain by one of those who bully him incessantly with their name-calling, mocking, and false accusations.

    And all it took was posting an article with facts that FlJoe didn't like.

    Hang in there, McBain.

    I'll see if I can get some more apologies for you.

    Parent

    McBain (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by FlJoe on Wed May 27, 2015 at 05:58:38 AM EST
    only enjoys the murder of facts and the maiming of logic, you celebrate  the death of humans. McBain is misguided you are disgusting.
    And all it took was posting an article with facts that FlJoe didn't like.

    Only dirtbags and psychopaths would find anything to "like" about the facts in that article, to you it's good news. Like I said disgusting.

    Parent
    They don't need to apologize to me (none / 0) (#149)
    by McBain on Wed May 27, 2015 at 12:41:43 AM EST
    This is Jeralyn's blog.  They should apologize to her.  They know the rules.

    Parent
    You'd have a hard time (none / 0) (#150)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed May 27, 2015 at 01:22:02 AM EST
    convincing JL that what I've written about you is libelous or defamatory, and, as you may know, truth and facts are always a sufficient defense against such accusations in American jurisprudence.

    Or in other words, it will be a cold day on the daytime side of Mercury before I issue an apology to her for what I've written about you on this blog.

    Parent

    Any evidence that the number of arrests (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Peter G on Tue May 26, 2015 at 10:07:10 PM EST
    for which there was probable cause, no racial profiling, and otherwise in compliance with the Constitution has fallen at all? How about the number of arrests for petty nonsense like marijuana possession, etc.? The gross percentage decline in quantity means little if you don't take the quality of arrests into account.

    Parent
    Everything you need to know about how (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by Anne on Wed May 27, 2015 at 06:39:29 AM EST
    Chip rolls can be found in this description:

    I'm sure that number must include the 6 who failed to buckle a headbanger's seatbelt.

    That's Chip, reducing the death of a young man in a police transport vehicle to "nothing to see here, move along," and just in case anyone does think there's something to see, makes sure to blame Gray for his own injuries by referring to him as a "headbanger."

    Nice, huh?

    The way I hear it - former police commissioner Ed Norris hosts his own sports/talk radio show here - the cops are just plain pi$$ed, and many have adopted an attitude of "okay, Baltimore, you don't want the police to act?  Well, then let's see how you like it when the criminals are running the show."  

    My feeling is that if you're a cop and that's your attitude, you need to find something else to do.

    Here's a link to an excellent Matt Taibbi article that sheds actual light - as opposed to the garbage we get from the likes of Chip - on what's happening in Baltimore and other major cities.

    Parent

    Anne (1.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed May 27, 2015 at 07:11:17 AM EST
    I won't disagree with you that the police are having a temper tantrum and refusing to do their job in response -- despite what Batts said.

    After all they are union labor -- public employees most of whom vote for the same politicians as those they arrest.

    And the more the bad guys misbehave, the more union labor executes its slowdown, the more union labor employees are put on the street to deal with it along with cries for more social services.

    And the bill for all of it goes to the taxpayers in other cities and states.

    In a sense this is just so much kibuki theatre.

    Parent

    Relevant to my comment (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Peter G on Wed May 27, 2015 at 09:03:11 AM EST
    is this post from Anne on Wednesday's Open Thread.

    Parent
    Rolling Stone Magazine (2.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed May 27, 2015 at 10:26:51 AM EST
    Now there's a reliable source -- NOT.

    Parent
    Whatever you do, don't read the (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by Anne on Wed May 27, 2015 at 10:52:13 AM EST
    article, and for God's sake, please don't check out Matt Taibbi; we wouldn't want anything to get in the way of your daily displays of ignorance.

    Parent
    Damn Hippies (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 27, 2015 at 10:54:56 AM EST


    Parent
    If any of this is (none / 0) (#169)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed May 27, 2015 at 11:19:02 AM EST
    going on, then it is happening with the encouragement, blessing and at the behest of the higher ups -- and that includes the mayor, the prosecutor, the police commissioner, the police chief, etc.

    The mayor just announced what she is going to do to reduce the homicides.

    Did she mention any of these things as being part of the problem?

    No -- not even close.

    If anything she wants them doing these things in their targeting of repeat offenders.

    If you have a problem with these things talk to her --

    Parent

    You seem to be missing the point. (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Anne on Wed May 27, 2015 at 12:28:52 PM EST
    I think you can take the "if any of this is going on" out of your equation: it is going on, it's been going on for some time, and there is plenty of documented evidence that it's been going on.

    That a series of mayors, police commissioners and others in city government may have instituted or encouraged these practices doesn't make them okay, but it does - as the article you didn't read points out - explain what's going on here.  

    Which is the point.

    Police are complaining that too many of their interactions with citizens are being recorded, and this, somehow, has made it harder to do their jobs.  Harder to do their jobs the way they're used to doing them, perhaps, but I fail to see how being filmed should make it harder for police to legitimately engage the people in the districts they serve.

    I guess they're ticked off that, even with all the protections built into their contract, protections that make it almost impossible to hold them accountable, a simple thing like a cell phone camera is breaching the blue wall.

    By the way, I didn't see any link to this announcement the mayor made about what she was going to do about the increased violence - did you plan to share that or what?

    Parent

    Link (none / 0) (#179)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed May 27, 2015 at 12:55:47 PM EST
    By the way, I didn't see any link to this announcement the mayor made ...

    You live in Baltimore -- what's a matter with you???

    Anyway here it is:

    Mayor Responds To Deadliest Month In Baltimore In 16 Years

    Would you like me to read it to you too?

    The mayor condemned the shootings and outlined actions being taken after meeting with the commissioner.

    They include more foot patrols, a focus on repeat offenders, and new Western District leader.

    "foot patrols" -- what not more cops on bikes  to chase down the runners?

    "focus on repeat offenders" -- like Freddie Gray and Donta Allen?

    Not one word of condemnation of that "police abuse" that you claim to be so rampant.

    I guess it just slipped her mind.

    Parent

    This is old news; I thought you (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by Anne on Wed May 27, 2015 at 01:20:56 PM EST
    had something more recent.  

    The mayor is on the record supporting reforms to the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights, reforms which the FOP lobbied hard against and were able to defeat.  You are nuts if you think the mayor is going to publicly take the cops to task, but that doesn't mean that she isn't having those kinds of conversations with the police commissioner.

    Clearly, the mayor and the police department are not on the same side in this, which also may be part of the problem and which is being reflected in  the lousy service the police department is rendering to the city.  Cops are pi$$ed at the prosecutor's office, pi$$ed at the mayor for trying to make it easier to hold them accountable, and what I hear from people who have police contacts is that they - the police - are just going through the motions.  Contract negotiations should be a fun time, eh?

    The Mayor's Office on Criminal Justice has seen the departures of four members in the last week, and if anyone knows the reason for the shakeup, no one's talking.

    Challenge for you: try not to be an a$$ when you respond.

    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#183)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed May 27, 2015 at 10:28:20 PM EST
    This is old news;

    So yesterday's news is old news?

    I thought you had something more recent.

    It's recent to you because you hadn't seen it.

    try not to be an a$$ when you respond.

    I wouldn't think of infringing on your territory.

    Parent

    Chip, generally, when you tell (5.00 / 4) (#184)
    by Anne on Thu May 28, 2015 at 06:16:53 AM EST
    someone something is "old news," it's because you've already heard it, read it, were aware of it - hence the "old" part.

    All you said was, the mayor made an announcement.  I asked for a link.  When I saw it, I realized it was nothing new.

    Is this too complicated for you?

    Parent

    That's fine, if it's true -- (none / 0) (#185)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu May 28, 2015 at 06:53:22 AM EST
    But no more Links for you.

    Parent
    I think someone (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by sj on Thu May 28, 2015 at 11:45:08 AM EST
    needs a nap. Sweet dreams, Chippie.

    Parent
    Uncle Chip (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by Zorba on Wed May 27, 2015 at 04:48:42 PM EST
    Now there's a reliable source -- NOT.

    Parent
    Here's a link to the report of (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by Anne on Wed May 27, 2015 at 09:22:39 PM EST
    Samuel Walker, detailing the provisions of the Maryland Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights and the Baltimore police contract that are contributing to a culture of police impunity.

    I mean, does this make sense to you?

    The Maryland Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights, Paragraph 3.106.1, requires each law enforcement agency in the state to maintain a list of officers "who have been found or alleged to have committed acts which bear on credibility, integrity, honesty, or other characteristics that would constitute exculpatory or impeachment evidence."

    The law also prohibits demotion, dismissal, suspension without pay, or reduction in pay for an officer being included on the aforementioned list.

    Commentary

    A police officer who has been determined to have performance problems related to "credibility, integrity, or honesty" should not be retained by the department. Police officers possess the awesome power to deprive people of their liberty through arrest and to take human life. The highest standards of integrity and honesty must be expected of all officers. On one specific point, an officer on the "do not call" is, according to the language of the police union contract, unable to serve as a witness in a criminal case. And if an officer cannot serve as a witness in a criminal case, he or she cannot make arrests.

    It is unbelievable that a police department should have so many officers with "credibility, integrity, or honesty" problems that a "list" is necessary. The very idea of such a list undermines public trust in the department.

    The FOP and the rank and file are going to fight any reform tooth and nail, but if it's possible to get some much-needed reforms, it may also push some of the worst offenders out the door.  


    Parent

    Batts (1.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue May 26, 2015 at 10:29:42 PM EST
    I'm sure that number must include the 6 who failed to buckle a headbanger's seatbelt. And then there is this from Batts:

    Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony Batts has said in media interviews that a work slowdown by officers was not behind the decline in arrests.

    Mr Batts has also said large numbers of protesters and other observers has made it difficult for officers to conduct routine police work.

    Apparently whenever the police stop to make an arrest a hostile crowd gathers and the police just leave.

    Parent

    Baltimore's FEMA Financed Riots (1.00 / 3) (#191)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri May 29, 2015 at 11:13:06 AM EST
    Baltimore's $20 Million Federally Financed Riots

    After encouraging rioters to lay waste to Baltimore, the city's mayor now says she's confident she can get Uncle Sam to pay for the damage. What is this, the new age of federally financed riots?

    One month after the race riots that trashed Baltimore, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said that the city would apply for a $20 million Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant to replenish the "rainy day fund" being used to pay for cleanup and police overtime costs in the wake of the mayhem that she herself is on record as encouraging.
    Are you writing editorials for (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Anne on Fri May 29, 2015 at 11:51:47 AM EST
    Investor's Business Daily now?  

    Short on facts, long on biased, inflammatory language.

    Here's some real information     that perhaps the good folks at IBD might want to be aware of:

    Maryland lawmakers are pressing President Obama to issue a major disaster declaration for Baltimore in the wake of riots late last month.

    "Given the massive impact that the situation in Baltimore is having on the state's resources, we respectfully request that you urgently approve Federal assistance," members of the state's congressional delegation wrote in a letter to Obama, which was sent on Tuesday but released Wednesday.

    The letter was signed by Maryland Democratic Sens. Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin, as well as Democratic Reps. Steny Hoyer, Elijah Cummings, Chris Van Hollen, Dutch Ruppersberger, John Sarbanes, Donna Edwards and John Delaney.

    The lawmakers also offered "strong support" for Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan's (R) request for the major disaster declaration for Baltimore.

    The request comes after protests and riots broke out in Baltimore following last month's funeral for Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old black man who died while in police custody. The violence left buildings and cars damaged.

    If Obama declares a major disaster, the state would be eligible for funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

    The lawmakers said the agency has already received a preliminary assessment for $19 million, adding that the declaration is needed "to address emergency protective measures and public buildings."

    They warned, without additional funding, other public services could be impacted, "given an already strained state budget environment."



    Parent
    re the knife and re an open comment time (none / 0) (#1)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri May 22, 2015 at 11:08:19 AM EST
    I assume that Mosby realized there may be a problem with the claim about the knife being legal or the officers knowing it to be legal, and that results in dropping the false imprisonment charges . . .

    Since Baltimore has a history of some police giving rough rides to some people to beat them up without evidence, this seems to have been the result of one of the rough ride gone worse than usual . . .

    At some point, I would enjoy posting in an open comments area for discussion the recent suppression of the hot-or-not contest at Mount Si HS.  the asst principal called me back, at my request for info, and said that from their point of view, the contest was disrupting education, and therefore could be suppressed per Tinker.  Anyway, when some lawyers or law students wish to comment on that claim/theory, that would be nice . . .

    poisoning the well (none / 0) (#2)
    by thomas rogan on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:32:24 PM EST
    Mosby declared that it was an "illegal arrest".  I guess that's not quite true.  Do you suppose that she has set the stage for a change of venue.  Of course, the best reason to change venues is that a Baltimore jury might be afraid of riots is they acquit, whereas a jury in Pittsburgh won't care what happens in Baltimore.

    A change of venue (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by jbindc on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:42:58 PM EST
    Would only move it around Baltimore.  It's a state crime, so it wouldn't be moved to Pittsburgh or any other place outside of Maryland.

    Parent
    Why aren't you in favor of locking these (4.00 / 3) (#4)
    by scribe on Fri May 22, 2015 at 01:19:28 PM EST
    cops up in a supermax and throwing away the key, Rogan?

    They killed a man, unlike that Irish guy you wanted to toss in Florence.

    Please, square your circle.

    Parent

    The grand jury was likely poisoned (1.40 / 5) (#5)
    by Redbrow on Fri May 22, 2015 at 01:33:32 PM EST
    by Mosby's speech.

    It is very possible that some jurors took her message to heart and made it personal.

    "This is our time!"

    Maybe they even hope to be invited on stage the next time Prince holds a rally.


    Parent

    Or just maybe (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by Peter G on Fri May 22, 2015 at 02:11:03 PM EST
    the grand jurors, like almost all jurors, took their oath and their responsibilities seriously and (in this case) listened to the prosecutor's presentation of evidence and determined by at least a majority vote that there was probable cause to return these charges. The defendants now have the opportunity to plead guilty or not guilty, and if the latter, then to have the benefit of a fair trial by an impartial petit jury. Convicting police of crimes committed while on duty is very difficult. Trial jurors (of all races and social classes) give cops the kind of benefit of the doubt that our system only pretends to offer to ordinary folks charged with crimes.

    Parent
    Sounds about right (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by McBain on Fri May 22, 2015 at 02:47:56 PM EST
    The grand jurors probably took their responsibilities seriously.  They only got to hear from one side.  If no plea, convicting these cops will be difficult. Perhaps will all the various charges there will be a compromise verdict.

    Will each cop get their own trial?

    Parent

    Defendants who are jointly charged (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Peter G on Fri May 22, 2015 at 09:19:07 PM EST
    are typically tried as co-defendants in one trial. (Responding to McBain #7). Severance (a separate trial for one or more defendants) is possible if there is an unusual risk of unfair prejudice from being jointly tried, such as damning evidence against one defendant that would be inadmissible against the other(s). That said, each defendant gets his or her "own trial" in the sense that the trial judge must caution and instruct the jury to consider each charge and each defendant separately when then deliberate. Some defense lawyers feel that joint trials are better for whichever defendant seems least culpable or against whom there is the least evidence. Such defendants are more likely to be convicted if tried separately (no one to compare them with) and more likely to be acquitted if tried jointly with several defendants who seem more culpable.

    Parent
    They arrested a healthy guy (3.75 / 8) (#9)
    by Repack Rider on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:05:28 PM EST
    An hour later he was mortally injured.  They did nothing to provide medical aid to a mortally injured prisoner.  Those facts are beyond dispute.

    How can anyone argue the police officers were not responsible for his death?  Freddie Gray was not tried for anything, so he is presumed innocent, but his arrest was a death sentence.

    If you are not outraged and if you do not want these police officers to go to prison, where is your humanity?

    Parent

    exactly (2.33 / 6) (#41)
    by The Addams Family on Fri May 22, 2015 at 05:43:25 PM EST
    . . . if you do not want these police officers to go to prison, where is your humanity?

    no doubt McBain's humanity is stashed away on a dusty shelf somewhere, like your copy of the U.S. Constitution

    i'm amazed that more commenters at this legal-defense blog haven't yet seen the wisdom of forgoing a trial altogether

    but congratulations on your cutting-edge views, & kudos as well to anyone who gave your comment a rating of 5

    we can only hope that others will catch up to your enlightened perspective on American jurisprudence

    Parent

    I am a patriot who supports the Constitution (4.33 / 6) (#67)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 23, 2015 at 11:26:44 AM EST
    no doubt McBain's humanity is stashed away on a dusty shelf somewhere, like your copy of the U.S. Constitution

    Where does it say in the Constitution that running from police carries the death penalty without the necessity of a trial?  I believe Mr. Gray, who must be presumed innocent since he was never charged or convicted, was as constitutionally entitled to a trial as the police officers are.  You must have a different edition than the one I read.


    i'm amazed that more commenters at this legal-defense blog haven't yet seen the wisdom of forgoing a trial altogether

    A lot of people here seem to think Mr. Gray was not entitled to a trial, and now you think the officers shouldn't get one either?

    Trashing the Constitution does not support your argument, it destroys your argument, and I could not disagree more.  The Constitution says that the officers in whose care Mr. Gray was fatally injured are entitled to a trial, and I believe that those who inflicted the mortal injuries on Mr. Gray should go to prison.  

    You may not care for the Constitution, but don't accuse me of being like you.  

    Parent

    omfg (1.00 / 2) (#88)
    by The Addams Family on Sat May 23, 2015 at 03:02:01 PM EST
    I believe Mr. Gray, who must be presumed innocent since he was never charged or convicted, was as constitutionally entitled to a trial as the police officers are.

    changing your tune now, even though you've essentially stated that the cops are not entitled to a trial:

    How can anyone argue the police officers were not responsible for his death?

    well, that's what a trial & criminal defense attorneys are for - you know, like the criminal defense attorney who hosts this blog

    If you are not outraged and if you do not want these police officers to go to prison, where is your humanity?

    they will go to prison if & when they are tried on the charges & proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

    & yet here you are, citing "facts" that are "beyond dispute" - in other words, why bother with a trial? (see above about the role of criminal defense attorneys, not to mention the role of the jury)

    but you've elected yourself hangin' judge & don't need no stinkin' jury, & then you get people uprating your yahoo comment, on a criminal-defense blog, just because they don't like the defendants

    my god - some of you people are f^cking scary, & stoopid

    Parent

    healthy guy (2.20 / 5) (#14)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:16:34 PM EST
    They arrested a healthy guy

    who 5 minutes before arriving at the station was banging his head against the wall trying to injure himself per his buddy Donta.

    And that is a matter of record told to investigators and reporters.

    Why don't you deal with that?

    Parent

    "if you do not want these police officers (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jack203 on Sat May 23, 2015 at 09:51:01 AM EST
    to go to prison, where is your humanity? "

    I believe in rule of law.  It is your job to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  From the evidence so far provided to the public, you have a long long way to go.  In fact, since Mrs. Moseby
    has retreated on her baseless claims the knife was illegal...you actually have less now than you did before.

    There is not one iota of evidence Mr. Gray was given a "rough ride". There were two other prisoners who were uninjured and did not complain of a rough ride.  There are no witnesses of a rough ride on the street.  

    But if I don't want to destroy 6 police officers lives and their families lives because of your ulterior "social justice" reasons, then I don't have "humanity"?

    Keep digging your hole.  Maybe if the left presses enough of these social justice show trials to the public, we can lose the next election!  Hooray, another Republican.  More war and less taxes on the filthy rich!

    Parent

    The dead body (2.67 / 3) (#65)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 23, 2015 at 10:59:19 AM EST
    ...is prima facie evidence that a crime has been committed, just like missing money is evidence of a robbery, graffiti on a building is evidence of vandalism, or a tied up victim in the trunk of a car is evidence of a kidnapping.

    We know a crime was committed, and the only people who had the opportunity and the means to commit that crime were the police officers who took Mr. Gray into custody.  Do you want the criminals punished or what?

    Of course I want them to get a trial, which is a luxury not accorded to Freddie Gray.  Then I want the people who killed Freddie Gray to spend the rest of their lives in prison.

    Parent

    It's (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 23, 2015 at 11:11:11 AM EST
    amazing how so many people cling to the knife as the most important piece of evidence while shrugging off a homicide as no harm no foul.

    I can see the defense now " if the knife was not legit, you must a acquit". Bizarre.

    Parent

    Calling something a "homicide" (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 23, 2015 at 02:54:51 PM EST
    doesn't mean that a crime has been committed.

    Parent
    Really? (1.50 / 2) (#111)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun May 24, 2015 at 12:14:54 PM EST

    Criminal homicide takes many forms including accidental or purposeful murder. The crime committed in a criminal homicide is determined by the mental state of the committing person and the extent of the crime. Murder, for example, is usually an intentional crime. In many cases, homicide may in fact lead to life in prison and or even capital punishment,[2] but if the defendant in a capital case is sufficiently mentally disabled in the United States he or she cannot be executed. Instead, the individual is placed under the category of "insane".

    Varying by jurisdiction, a homicide that occurs during the commission of a crime may constitute murder, regardless of the actor's mental state with regard to the killing. This is known, in the United States, as the felony murder rule. Much abbreviated and incomplete, the felony murder rule says that one committing a felony may be guilty of murder if someone, including the felony victim, a bystander or a co-felon, dies as a result of his acts, regardless his intent--or lack thereof--to kill.

    Criminal homicides also include voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. An example of voluntary manslaughter is hitting someone with an intent to kill them, whereas involuntary manslaughter is unintentionally causing their death. The perpetrator does not receive the same legal action against them as a person convicted of murder.

    Although suicide is not considered to be homicide, anyone that assists an individual in the moment of suicide may be convicted of homicide, as codified, for instance, in California Penal Code Sec. 401.[3]

    The only kind of homicide that isn't unlawful is self-defense.  Even  if it is by accident, it still gets prosecuted, as noted above.

    That leaves only justifiable self-defense as a homicide that isn't punishable by law.

    Are you asserting that was the case in the Freddie Gray case?


    Parent

    Sorry, Mordiggian, but that's not correct (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Peter G on Sun May 24, 2015 at 01:35:51 PM EST
    I don't know what source you're quoting, but you misunderstand what it is saying about accidental and unintentional deaths caused by the actions of another person (and which your source explains particularly badly). There is a lot of space between most accidental homicides and the least-intentional form that is criminal, that is, involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter normally requires that the accused have acted with a high degree of negligence (not the ordinary negligence that will support a civil lawsuit arising out of an accident), that is, a gross departure from the standard of care that society expects us all to exercise when engaging in activities that may put others at risk. I'm not applying this to the Freddie Gray case one way or the other by writing this comment, just pointing out that it is not so that a dead body (where death results from the actions of another person) is prima facie evidence that a crime has been committed. Here is an article from a criminal law encyclopedia that I happen to know was written by real experts, and which I generally find to be an excellent reference for non-lawyers on such questions.

    Parent
    I was quoting the Wiki. (1.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 26, 2015 at 04:55:05 AM EST
    On homicide.

    And my point, which seemed to elude you much the same as it did Jim, is that contrary to his statement

    Calling something a homicide doesn't mean a crime has been committed.

    With the exception of justifiable homocide in self-defense of oneself or other, that statement is false.

    And yes, I realize that a dead body may not mean a crime hasn't been committed, as with a suicide or an accident caused by the decedent(or that, the crimes in those cases aren't prosecutable).

    Obviously, in the case of Freddie Gray, it's clear that whatever happened to him, it was neither from an accident he himself caused or was deliberate suicide, so it is seems to me that it is a a form of prosecutable homicide, even if it becomes a trial on charges of involuntary or voluntary negligence.

    Read the above that spawned my comment and tell me if Jim is right or is he again demonstrating that he's the Cliff Clavin of the TL site.

    Parent

    I'm sorry, Mordiggian, but as much as (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by Peter G on Tue May 26, 2015 at 01:13:32 PM EST
    I generally agree with where you are coming from about the Gray case, your statements and understanding of what is meant by "homicide" is just not correct, including your latest reiteration of it. Your point did not elude me. You wrote, "The only kind of homicide that isn't unlawful is self-defense.  Even  if it is by accident, it still gets prosecuted ...." This is far from accurate, legally or factually. I explained why, and provided a reliable source. The quote from Wikipedia you used to support your misstatement is also inaccurate, but even so it fails to justify your conclusion. I was not participating in your spat with Jim, as should have been clear from my previous comments, and I decline your invitation to do so now. I was correcting errors in your own statements, without calling anyone names and without disparaging anyone for making mistakes. I am actually more interested in "my side" making logical arguments that are well supported by evidence than in attacking the "other side."

    Parent
    You still haven't answered a simple question (1.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 26, 2015 at 01:26:58 PM EST
    Is Jim's proposition correct or not?

    And yes, I understand voluntary, involuntary, and negligent manslaughter aren't the same as homicide. But they are crimes stemming from a human death at the hands of another, which, the last time I check, is the definition of homicide.  

    Please clarify Jim's statement.  The source you cite didn't do that, one way or another, and I don't mind being wrong if you can just explain in simple laymans' terms here why he is right.

    Parent

    Give it up. Peter g (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by oculus on Tue May 26, 2015 at 01:29:29 PM EST
    Already stated he did not comment for the purpose of supporting or refuting Jim.  

    Parent
    Then why engage me in the first place? (1.67 / 3) (#134)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 26, 2015 at 01:36:10 PM EST
    I'm asking a simple question, and nobody seems to be able to give a straight answer, including Peter G., who butted in to 'clarify' without taking sides, or at least explaining if the statement by Jim isn't even true or false.

    I want a straight answer.  The truth doesn't take sides, and that's what I want.  I should think a former prosecutor, of all people, should be able to understand that concept.

    Parent

    Peter is waaay smarter and much more up-to-date (none / 0) (#138)
    by oculus on Tue May 26, 2015 at 03:32:34 PM EST
    than I am. Read and learn. He is an excellent and highly reliable resource.

    Parent
    Then answering my question (1.50 / 2) (#139)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 26, 2015 at 04:10:44 PM EST
    should be within his powers, shouldn't it?  

    Instead of lecturing me about the fine distinctions and schooling me when I'm wrong and not commenting on what Jim wrote, don't you agree my request(Yes, no, none of the above because) is reasonable?

    But thanks for contributing zero information to this debate.

    Parent

    No. (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by oculus on Tue May 26, 2015 at 04:15:58 PM EST
    You seem intent on dominating any discussion whenever Jim makes a comment. Tiresome.

    Parent
    By the way, Jana (3.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 26, 2015 at 01:06:02 PM EST
    rating me a 1 isn't the same as a refutation.

    Parent
    Cart before horse syndrome (3.50 / 2) (#123)
    by JanaM on Mon May 25, 2015 at 10:49:35 PM EST
    "The dead body is prima facie evidence that a crime has been committed . . . We know a crime was committed"

    No, it's not. You're getting ahead of yourself.  We do not know yet that any crime was committed. Actually that's what the trial is to determine.

    Parent

    Incorrect (3.40 / 5) (#124)
    by Repack Rider on Tue May 26, 2015 at 01:15:42 AM EST
    We do not know yet that any crime was committed. Actually that's what the trial is to determine.

    The trial establishes guilt or innocence, but only takes place after a crime has been committed.

    You don't hold a trial to find out whether the bank has been robbed.  You try the people who have been accused of the crime of robbing it.  

    The police who found Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman knew a crime had been committed.  If you find a body riddled with bullets and no weapon nearby, you can be sure a murder has been committed and that it was not suicide.  

    Baltimore police arrested a healthy man, and the next time anyone saw him he was mortally injured.  The only people who had access to him were the police, and it is not rocket science to infer that they had something to do with his injuries.  Mr. Gray did not inflict the fatal injuries on himself, so whoever did, committed a murder.

    We know absolutely that the police did not summon medical aid.  Ignoring a seriously injured person would be a crime even for an ordinary citizen.

    Parent

    actually... (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by thomas rogan on Tue May 26, 2015 at 09:33:41 PM EST
    1.  It is possible that this was an accidental death--thus, not a crime.  That is a topic of dispute here.  Also, how many parents who don't put their kids in a car seat are charged with murder if the kid dies in a car crash?
    2.  Ordinary citizens do not have a legal duty to render first aid to seriously injured people.


    Parent
    Trial will determine type of culpability - if any (3.67 / 3) (#126)
    by JanaM on Tue May 26, 2015 at 12:33:42 PM EST
    In many cases you would be correct but not in this case. In this case the trial is going to determine whether the actions or lack thereof by police were criminal or not.

    Your inferences are skipping too many necessary steps to get to the point where you can say beyond a reasonable doubt that any of the police actions were criminal.

    Sorry but you're again getting ahead of yourself. This case is going to need a lot of exeperts.

    Parent

    Nope, a trial determines the guilt (1.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 26, 2015 at 12:53:01 PM EST
    of lack of guilt on the part of the accused, and assumes that a crime has been committed, at the hands of the defendant(s).

    The defense has to show reasonable doubt that the defendant(s) are guilty of the charges against them, not that a crime wasn't committed.

    You could possibly be the stupidest person commenting on this thread today.

    Parent

    Again, almost everything in your comment (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Peter G on Tue May 26, 2015 at 01:31:27 PM EST
    #127 is mistaken, Mordiggian.  And again, my saying so does not imply anything about whether at the bottom line I agree with you about the police and Freddie Gray. You say, that a criminal trial "assumes that a crime has been committed." No, it doesn't.  That is one thing the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The state may charge arson, for example, but if on the evidence presented at trial there is a reasonable doubt whether the fire was accidental, then the accused is "not guilty." The state may charge murder by poisoning, but if on the evidence presented at trial there is a reasonable doubt whether the death was accidental food poisoning, or the result of disease, then the accused is "not guilty." (I don't know what you mean by "at the hands of the defendant(s)" in your statement; that is obviously also something the prosecutor must prove.)  

    You also say, that "[t]he defense has to show reasonable doubt that the defendant(s) are guilty of the charges against them." Again, this is wrong. The defense has no burden to establish reasonable doubt. The prosecutor must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the defense presents any evidence or not. That burden never shifts. One of the ways that reasonable doubt can exist is if there is reason to doubt "that a crime [was] committed" at all, by anyone.  

    And calling other people "stupid" does not advance your credibility, either (just some free personal advice there, which you are welcome to disregard).

    Parent

    I obviously made a tyro (1.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 26, 2015 at 01:41:00 PM EST
    mistake about the role of the defense counsel.

    And I was talking from a common sense POV, acquittal doesn't mean to a layman that the crime charged didn't take place, just that there was enough reasonable doubt that it wasn't committed by the defendant.

    Legalistically, you may be right.  

    Parent

    Btw, your inability to address the question (1.25 / 4) (#159)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed May 27, 2015 at 09:12:43 AM EST
    directly instead of going on and on about the law on the subject of homicide doesn't exactly put you in the egghead class yourself.

    Parent
    Let me try, one time, to explain my POV (5.00 / 5) (#160)
    by Peter G on Wed May 27, 2015 at 10:10:10 AM EST
      (1) You cannot assume that because I don't choose to answer a question you posed that I am unable to answer the question.  You don't get to decide what I write or post.  
      (2) I am not in a competition with you of any kind.  I am not trying to prove something to you or anyone else about my intelligence, expertise, or anything else.
      (3) This site is not your private domain. Your dialog with Jim, for example, is not a private conversation into which others "butt in" when they comment.
      (4) If you, or anyone else, makes a significant misstatement of a legal principle that is important to an informed discussion of an issue that I happen to know something about, I may offer a correction and a better source. I do this not to attack you (or anyone else) but to elevate the quality of the discussion with accurate foundational information. In doing so, I am not implicitly taking sides in any other debate. If I chose to join in the policy debate, I will do so explicitly and hopefully clearly.
      (5) I participate in this site because I believe it is a useful (and, on the Internet, rather special) place for the civil and documented exchange of information and opinions on the interplay of progressive political ideas with legal issues. I believe in public education, and that I have something to share in that regard ... when and how I happen to feel like sharing. I happen to be a very experienced and highly educated lawyer (and former law professor), and that's how I write. I am who I am. Even so, I try to explain myself in terms that my audience can understand. My perspective is not "legalistic," I hope, but it is "legal."
      (6) It's not personal. Really.

    Parent
    Because you don't want to understand (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by jbindc on Wed May 27, 2015 at 10:28:44 AM EST
    Nor concede anything to Jim, here's a shorter version of what Peter said:

    Yes, Jim's statement is true.

    The definition of homicide is "the killing of one human being by another." Period.  There are various acys which make homicide a crime or not, but Jim was correct.

    You keep ranting on when an expert has explained it to you and is so tiresome - all because you thought you could do a "gotcha" on Jim.

    Sorry, not this time.

    Parent

    As I said before, if you paid attention (none / 0) (#170)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed May 27, 2015 at 11:24:07 AM EST
    I understand that homicide in self defense isn't a crime, but I don't get the sense of any other circumstance where the killing of one human being by another isn't a crime.

    All he had to do is say yea or neigh instead of going into the different ways a homicide might not lead to a charge of murder to answer my question, which it didn't, and it's stupid to declar you don't want to be on one side or another when truth doesn't take sides.

    Thanks for low rating me in lieu of dialog.  Would that others could learn from you.

    Parent

    Here's another way (none / 0) (#173)
    by jbindc on Wed May 27, 2015 at 11:57:04 AM EST
    Soldiers killed in battle.  They are the victims of homicide, but not usually because of criminal acts.

    Here's another, at least in some jurisdictions, depending on their definitions - the death of a fetus at the hand of another human being.

    And one more: state sanctioned executions are homicides, but not crimes.

    Parent

    I was talking about civilian life (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed May 27, 2015 at 12:01:09 PM EST
    And since a fetus isn't a fully-formed human being, I can understand that exception.

    Thanks again for dialog with me about this issue.

    Parent

    another one might be (none / 0) (#177)
    by CST on Wed May 27, 2015 at 12:45:23 PM EST
    physician-assisted suicide which is legal in 4 states.

    Parent
    There are lots of examples, way more than just (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by Peter G on Wed May 27, 2015 at 12:49:35 PM EST
    self-defense, of homicides that are not criminal. They tend to fall into three broad categories: those that lack a criminal state of mind by the perpetrator (accidental is an example), justifiable (self-defense, defense of others, and law-enforcement are three examples), and excusable (legal insanity and under-age perpetrator (legal term: "infancy") are two examples). Each state has its own (rather detailed) criteria for determining whether conduct that might otherwise be criminal will be considered justified or excused under any particular legal rule.

    Parent
    Same goes for you, oculus. (1.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed May 27, 2015 at 10:23:57 AM EST


    Parent
    Nah, your activity on this thread (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 26, 2015 at 01:44:37 PM EST
    has removed all doubt as to who the stupidest person commenting is.

    Parent
    Coming from you, that means so much (1.50 / 2) (#137)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 26, 2015 at 01:49:09 PM EST
    or are you envious?

    Parent
    A grand jury has, by the issuing of (none / 0) (#133)
    by Anne on Tue May 26, 2015 at 01:33:03 PM EST
    indictments, determined that (1) crimes were committed, and (2) there is probable cause to charge these particular individuals with committing them.

    At trial, the prosecution will have to prove this, beyond a reasonable doubt.

    It may come down to which side does the best job of solving what amounts to a locked room mystery: man goes into van alive, comes out essentially dead, with life-threatening injuries that require significant force to sustain.

    And it may also come down to whether these 6 individuals can maintain a united front through to a trial.  

    Parent

    The dead body....a week later (3.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Jack203 on Sat May 23, 2015 at 08:08:35 PM EST
    "is prima facie evidence that a crime has been committed"

    No, it's not.

    You're going to lose this case horribly like you lose all these social justice prosecutions...Either your logic is horrendous or you already know you will lose but have ulterior motives.

    Parent

    What a piece of work you are (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 08:17:19 PM EST
    there is so much repressed rage and hositlity in that comment it's almost funny.

    For the record, repack isn't going to lose, or win, anything.   Or did you mean "his camp", those awful whiney "social justice" people?

    Holy hell.

    Parent

    Those trying to bypass rule of law (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Jack203 on Sun May 24, 2015 at 07:48:27 PM EST
    for political reasons are not high on my book.

    From the left or right...

    Remember Capt Howdy, I'm one of those awful whiney centrist Obama supporter types.  The far right hates me too, so I'm used to this.

    Parent

    McBain (3.60 / 5) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:38:22 PM EST
    something to consider

    From what I have seen of this young woman she is very smart, very good at her job and, dare I say, possibly ambitious as well.

    God forbid that a black woman should have the nerve to be an ambilious prosecutor.   Usually the domain of white men.   That, I think, is her one unforgivable sin.   Well, that and the fact she is treating cops like everyone else.

    Anyway, the point is, my bet is that she is pretty damn sure of the outcome.  Or at least AN outcome that will make all this look worth it or we wouldn't be here.

    Something to consider in predictions.

    Parent

    You're probably OK with Mosby overcharging (3.50 / 2) (#33)
    by McBain on Fri May 22, 2015 at 04:24:20 PM EST
    in order to get a plea or conviction of a lesser charge. I'm not.  I don't want an ambitious prosecutor.  I want and ethical one.

    Looks to me like you're rooting for her more than you're rooting for justice.

    Parent

    Looks (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by FlJoe on Fri May 22, 2015 at 04:40:53 PM EST
    to me you are rooting against Mosby to the point of lunacy.

    Parent
    I see no evidence of strategic overcharging (4.50 / 6) (#47)
    by Peter G on Fri May 22, 2015 at 07:34:07 PM EST
    (1) The DA did not seek (or at least did not get) an indictment on the debatable false arrest charge; and
    (2) The DA did not seek (I think it is fair to infer) murder charges against anyone but the driver (the direct actor). Most DAs that I am familiar with, and certainly any DA seeking to "overcharge" for tactical advantage, would definitely have charged the other defendants with 2d Degree (depraved heart) murder on the basis of vicarious or conspiratorial liability, or based on aiding and abetting.
       What I see in these charges is rather strong indications of an admirable attempt to target the charges right on the nose, not overcharging.

    Parent
    Glad to hear you say that (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 07:36:15 PM EST
    i completely agree.  All the charges I read seem quite winnable.

    Parent
    "Looks to me" - heh (none / 0) (#35)
    by Yman on Fri May 22, 2015 at 04:32:17 PM EST
    A qualifier sure to be followed by a specious attack.  

    SOP for those with no facts or evidence.

    BTW - If you think Mosby had behaved unethically, file a complaint with the MD ethics committee.  Theirs is a thankless job, and I'm sure they would appreciate a good chuckle.

    Parent

    Would you like to put some money (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 04:40:27 PM EST
    on her getting exactly what she is charging?

    Right now?

    Hmmm?

    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by McBain on Fri May 22, 2015 at 06:30:59 PM EST
    I'll bet you $100 she doesn't get convictions on all of her charges.  The loser donates the money to TalkLeft.  Sound good?

    Parent
    Oh sh!t (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 06:58:19 PM EST
    missed this.

    Clearly you are hoping that she will fall short by one charge so you can stand on your roof and yell overcharging.

    I would probably do this yes.  

    But I might want to raise the stakes to the loser taking a 3 month break FROM talk left.    

    No doubt there are those who would consider that a win win.

    Parent

    I don't need you to take a 3 month break (none / 0) (#45)
    by McBain on Fri May 22, 2015 at 07:21:26 PM EST
    from TL.  We can do the $100 donation bet if you want but it's not a good bet for you.  Mosby made a lot of charges and the odds of getting all are slim. Jeralyn might have a problem with it too.  

       

    Parent

    Trust me (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 07:24:30 PM EST
    she would not.  You want to bet or not.

    Parent
    You're on (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by McBain on Fri May 22, 2015 at 08:18:26 PM EST
    If she gets convictions for all of these charges I'll donate $100 to TL.  If she doesn't get all, you'll donate $100 to TL.

    Officer Caesar Goodson Jr.
    Second-degree depraved heart murder
    Involuntary manslaughter
    Second-degree negligent assault
    Manslaughter by vehicle and gross negligence
    Manslaughter by vehicle criminal negligence
    Misconduct in office for failure to perform a duty regarding the safety of a prisoner
    Reckless endangerment

    Officer William Porter
    Involuntary manslaughter
    Second-degree negligent assault
    Misconduct in office for failure to perform a  duty regarding the safety of a prisoner
    Reckless endangerment

    Lt. Brian Rice
    Involuntary manslaughter
    Second-degree negligent assault
    Misconduct in office for failure to perform a duty regarding the safety of a prisoner
    Illegal arrest
    Reckless endangerment

    Officer Edward Nero
    Second-degree intentional assault
    Misconduct in office for an illegal arrest
    Misconduct in office for failure to perform a duty regarding the safety of a prisoner
    Reckless endangerment

    Officer Garrett Miller
    Second-degree intentional assault
    Misconduct in office for an illegal arrest
    Misconduct in office for failure to perform a duty regarding the safety of a prisoner
    Reckless endangerment

    Sgt. Alicia White
    Involuntary manslaughter
    Second-degree negligent assault
    Misconduct in office for failure to perform a duty regarding the safety of a prisoner
    Reckless endangerment
     

    Parent

    No it's a TL vacation (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 08:19:46 PM EST
    or nothing.

    Parent
    But I don't want you to take a TL vacation (none / 0) (#53)
    by McBain on Fri May 22, 2015 at 08:29:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Ahhh (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 08:36:58 PM EST
    that's  sweet.  But I'll be fine.

    Let me ask you a question.  Which exactly of the above charges do you think are "overcharged" given what we know.  Forget what we may not yet know.  

    Parent

    All or nothing (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Yman on Sat May 23, 2015 at 08:33:14 AM EST
    Shouldn't the bet be about the charges McBain thinks are overcharging?  I know you said you thought she would get "exactly" what she charged, but prosecutors rarely (if ever) get convictions on every single charges in a case with multiple defendants.  Moreover, a failure to convict on some charges would not mean they were overcharged.

    Parent
    Did you come to your senses about the bet? (2.00 / 1) (#93)
    by McBain on Sat May 23, 2015 at 04:14:02 PM EST
    All it would take is one plea deal or one charge being dismissed and you would lose.  If not, how about this...

    If I lose I won't post on TL for 3 months.
    If you lose you'll donate $100 or whatever you think is appropriate to TL.  

    Parent

    You know what (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 04:52:34 PM EST
    you (and Yman) are right.  Exactly was a bad word choice.  And not actually my point.  What I really think is she will convict all 6.   And my impression is that you do not.

    And honestly wagering money on this seems .... wrong.

    So I tell you what, I will bet you she gets convictions of all six.  Assuming one or more don't flip and make a deal.  
    Convictions of all six that will give them a possible max of 5 years.  All 6.  At least 5 years possible.

    No money.  Just bragging rights   You get to tell me forever how misguided I was if I lose and vice versa.

    Parent

    These... (none / 0) (#55)
    by McBain on Fri May 22, 2015 at 09:01:42 PM EST
    Second-degree depraved heart murder, Misconduct in office for an illegal arrest are the ones I doubt. Involuntary manslaughter sounds like a stretch. I also doubt all 6 officers did something illegal.  

    My guess is if any of the charges are legit it's.... Misconduct in office for failure to perform a duty regarding the safety of a prisoner

    My guess is Mosby made charges she didn't feel she could get....she made them for political gain.  

    Parent

    That's the nice thing about "guesses" (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Yman on Sat May 23, 2015 at 08:25:28 AM EST
    My guess is Mosby made charges she didn't feel she could get....she made them for political gain
    .

    They don't need facts or evidence to support them.

    Parent

    And here comes the race card (2.60 / 5) (#27)
    by Redbrow on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:39:55 PM EST
    Right on cue.

    Parent
    That's a joke right (4.00 / 3) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:46:56 PM EST
    it has to be a joke since this whole silly game has been played with a race deck.

    Funny man.

    Parent

    Except I would add (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:48:57 PM EST
    b y the prosecutor.  Who happens to have two (I think) police persons of color on her sh!t list.

    Parent
    Would that be the racist (2.80 / 5) (#34)
    by Redbrow on Fri May 22, 2015 at 04:29:52 PM EST
    Officers charged with the most serious offenses?
    Or the police department?
    Or the police commissioner?
    Or the mayor?
    Or the states attorney?
    Or the DOJ?
    Or the attorney general?
    Or the white house?
    Or the potusa?
    Or maybe the racist citizens who voted them all into office?

    Please be specific about your accusations of racism and provide evidence.

    Or just keep patting yourself on the back and making ham sandwiches.

    Parent

    Such a lot to unpack (4.20 / 5) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 04:46:50 PM EST
    start with all the examples you give being persons of color playing the race card.  Funny how that works.  

    Of course no mention of the load of racist cr@p thrown at the prosecutor or most shamefully, the victim.

    I do love it tho when you boys start whining about "the race card".  The lack of self awareness is breath taking.

    Parent

    That list just happens to (2.80 / 5) (#40)
    by Redbrow on Fri May 22, 2015 at 05:12:51 PM EST
    Be the power structure in place as it applies to this situation.

    YOU are the one who injected race and implied widespread institutionalized racism.

    I fail to see what you could possibly be referring to and rather than backing up your baseless allegations, you resort to personal attacks and straw.

    Parent

    If (4.00 / 3) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:59:06 PM EST
    the shoe fits wear it. Aggressive, ambitious prosecutors throwing the book at someone are a dime a dozen, if they are white and especially male. Now Mosby travels that well worn path abd she is accused of everything the fevered haters can dream up. Makes you wonder, kind of like the Clinton Rules.

    Parent
    The "race card" (3.60 / 5) (#32)
    by Zorba on Fri May 22, 2015 at 04:11:39 PM EST
    is something that you should know well, Redbrow, since you are always playing it.
    You are wrong regarding this.
    But have at it, with your continual racist comments.

    Parent
    I think it's fair, in light of the rapidity (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 22, 2015 at 04:41:59 PM EST
    of her initial charges, and of what appears to be her fundamental mistake of actual - and not particularly complicated - fact in those charges (the knife and it's resulting charges), to question just "how good at her job" she actually is.

    Of course, any such questions really can't be answered until the final results are in, whenever that may be...

    Parent

    GJ (2.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:11:17 PM EST
    The grand jurors probably took their responsibilities seriously ....

    If they took their duties seriously then they would have pressed Mosby for evidence of COD, and when all she had was an unbuckled seatbelt, then they would have done their duty and voted No Bill unless or until she could bring in something more incriminating.

    The same mindless people that voted her into office  were sitting on that grand jury rubber-stamping her ham sandwiches.

    Parent

    I'm good (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:19:17 PM EST
    I predicted a few threads back (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 12:04:20 PM EST
    that as soon as she got the indictments the conversation would quickly move to the "prosecutor/ham sandwich" thing.
    Right on que.

    Funny.

    Parent | Reply to This



    Parent
    Cap (1.50 / 2) (#23)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:29:04 PM EST
    I predicted ...

    Well pat yourself on the back, O mighty wizard.

    I predict that this won't be the last time that you  pat yourself on the back in one of your own posts.

    Parent

    You are like (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:31:47 PM EST
    fish in a barrel pal

    Parent
    As opposed to your baloney ... (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Yman on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:23:22 PM EST
    If they took their duties seriously then they would have pressed Mosby for evidence of COD, and when all she had was an unbuckled seatbelt, then they would have done their duty and voted No Bill unless or until she could bring in something more incriminating.

    ... sandwich?

    So you know what evidence she presented re: COD?  That would be impressive, since the testimony is secret.  Please post a link.  Or are we not talking about actual facts, but your own, fact-free, evidence-free, silly theories presented, as usual, with nothing to support them.

    Parent

    How this works (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:25:34 PM EST
    she "poisoned the well".  That's why she will get convictions.

    See how easy that is?

    Parent

    Ex-ACT-ly (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Yman on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:27:20 PM EST
    Poisoned with ham sandwiches, no doubt.

    Parent
    So (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by FlJoe on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:35:20 PM EST
    what?
    The same mindless people that voted her into office  were sitting on that grand jury rubber-stamping her ham sandwiches.
    . Same as it ever was. All the prosecutor has to do is show there is some meat on the sandwich. Whether its a hunk of spam or a  huge stack of Applewood smoked Virgina  is up to the trial jury.

    Your judgement of voters and jurors you know nothing of as mindless perfectly defines how your "so called" mind works.

    Parent

    Were you in the grand jury room? (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Anne on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:40:14 PM EST
    Do you know what evidence was presented to the grand jury?

    You seem to be under the gross misapprehension that because the medical examiner's report has not been made public, that it would not have been presented to the grand jury - it's these kinds of leaps of logic and fact that make much of what you post completely worthless.

    I have no idea why you keep trying to minimize and trivialize the injuries suffered by Gray, nor do I have any idea why you keep thinking you know who comprised the grand jury or what evidence was presented to them, but it's long past time for you to stop all the confabulation.

    Parent

    Ham sandwiches (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:14:15 PM EST
    you never disappoint

    Parent
    For anyone not familiar (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Peter G on Fri May 22, 2015 at 07:59:42 PM EST
    with the significance of the "ham sandwich" reference in this context. Here you go.

    Parent
    Heh... I thought it had something to do... (none / 0) (#110)
    by desertswine on Sun May 24, 2015 at 11:45:43 AM EST
    with Mozart.

    Parent
    We may never know (2.67 / 6) (#8)
    by Redbrow on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:02:46 PM EST
    Who swallowed the poison.

    The problem is Mosby already spewed the poison in front of a national audience. She openly stated this case was about getting "justice" for  HERSELF and her voter base, by any and all means.

    Mosby herself is even calling for a gag order and accusing the defense of poisoning the juror well.

    Apparently she does not share your pollyannish opinion of jurors and their inability to be influenced by the media or other outside influences.

    Parent

    Why (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by FlJoe on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:09:57 PM EST
    does the Justice system become so grotesque to you when it moves in a direction you do not like?

    Parent
    Race based justice and prosecution (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jack203 on Sat May 23, 2015 at 09:31:57 AM EST
    based off mob rule is extremely grotesque.

    And that is exactly what the Freddie Gray case is.

    Parent

    Spoken like a true wingbat. (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun May 24, 2015 at 06:40:51 PM EST
    Jack203: "Race based justice and prosecution beased off mob rule is extremely grotesque. and that's exactly what the Freddie Gray case is."

    Because in Wingbatville, white people are always the victim of the "race card" whenever the veracity of their own fact-free opinions is challenged by "others."

    "The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holders lack of rational conviction."
    - Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), Skeptical Essays (1961)

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Like I give a cr@p what you think (1.33 / 3) (#119)
    by Jack203 on Sun May 24, 2015 at 08:14:46 PM EST
    You're such a d-bag living in your lilly white world in Hawaii.  How much crime and riots do you have in your backyard Donald?  I've been to Hawaii. The answer is none.  So go to hell.

    These political prosecutions are in my backyard. If police morale collapses and the inner cities become even more of hellholes than they are now.  It's not going to be a better world.  Inner cities, which I incidentally have always fully supported rebuilding with significant federal assistance.  But then again I'm just a huge RACIST because I despise mobs influencing our justice system.  You far left types never fail to amuse me with throwing out the RACIST card every time you have no argument.

    You may be retired and have all the time in the world to exchange insult posts, but I don't.  So even if you bait me again, don't expect a response, you can use your imagination for a whole litany of insults my response would be.

    Parent

    Do tell? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Yman on Sat May 23, 2015 at 10:25:18 AM EST
    And you know this because you've seen the evidence the prosecution has?

    Please share.

    Parent

    And yet you still make the claim (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Yman on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:17:28 PM EST
    ... that they were "likely" or "very possibly" "poisoned" by her comments, without the slightest bit of evidence.

    Specious, fact-free, evidence-free claims are not "likely" or "very possible".  They fall somewhere between gratuitous assertions and fantasies.

    Parent

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Yman on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:13:17 PM EST
    Her comments did not "poison" the grand jury and you have not the slightest bit of evidence to support such a silly claim.

    Parent
    Violation (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Redbrow on Fri May 22, 2015 at 07:04:53 PM EST

    Maryland Rule Of Professional Conduct Rule 3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor:
    (e) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent an employee or other person under the control of the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

    Parent
    That's not a violation (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Yman on Fri May 22, 2015 at 07:37:08 PM EST
    You're simply citing an ethic's rule.

    Oy.

    Parent

    An ethics rule (1.50 / 2) (#104)
    by Redbrow on Sat May 23, 2015 at 10:14:57 PM EST
    That she is in violation of, genius.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Yman on Sun May 24, 2015 at 09:34:31 AM EST
    Please provide a link to the censure from the MD Board of Ethics.  Or are we simply talking about a violation that exists only in your mind ...

    ... "genius"?

    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#108)
    by FlJoe on Sun May 24, 2015 at 09:46:15 AM EST
    I'll bite, please cite the "statements" she has made that violate this rule and we can talk. Define the violation before you pass judgement please. A little coherent reasoning on the side would be nice but don't strain yourself.

    Parent
    silly claim (2.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:20:54 PM EST
    you have not the slightest bit of evidence to support such a silly claim.

    Nor do you have any evidence with which to deny it.

    Parent

    The more you talk (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:22:48 PM EST
    the clearer it is that you really don't understand how this works.

    Or even how it's supposed to work.

    Keep talkin

    Parent

    I don't have to (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Yman on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:24:24 PM EST
    The allegation is a specious attack.  All you need to defeat a gratuitous assertion is a denial.

    Next.

    Parent

    To buckle or not to buckle -- (none / 0) (#59)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat May 23, 2015 at 08:37:35 AM EST
    That is the question:

    Brittius says:

    I do not know what it is today in the 21st century, however, in the previous century it was prohibited to secure a prisoner or arrestee to any transportation be it car, train, aircraft, due to a federal ruling involving violating the right to life, liberty, and freedom, whereby, if there were an accident, at the very least, the prisoner or arrestee would have a chance to save their life.

    In patrol cars, after the seatbelt laws (NY) went into effect, it was forbidden to secure any arrestee.

    Perhaps the Maryland pothole crew and mayor, are culpable.
    I would sure like to see the link (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Peter G on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:11:39 PM EST
    for that one. Makes absolutely no sense to me. Arrestees and prisoners, if not actually handcuffed or chained with leg-irons, are always at least transported in a part of the vehicle (van, bus, "con-air" plane, back seat of cop car, whatever) from which they cannot operate the door locks at all. Wearing a seat belt or being placed in some other sort of safety restraint would not increase their risk of injury, from an ability to escape the vehicle in the event of an accident, at all.

    Parent
    LOL, don't you remember, (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 23, 2015 at 08:42:19 PM EST
    a few decades ago, when the seatbelt laws were being hotly debated? Every anti-seatbelt advocate had a "cousin" (in South Carolina, or Louisiana, or.....) who got into an accident, both arms broken, car on fire, couldn't escape, and died because he was wearing a seatbelt!

    Yes, absolutely true. Thousands upon thousands of drivers died needlessly because of seatbelts.

    Hey, don't laugh; It's not funny, and (here comes the clincher) "How would YOU feel if it was your son, brother husband, or father who DIED???? because he obeyed the stoopid seat belt law?

    Parent

    I honestly cannot tell (none / 0) (#109)
    by Peter G on Sun May 24, 2015 at 11:00:44 AM EST
    whether that comment was intended to be ironic or tongue-in-cheek, Shooter.  If not, I'd like to see two things:  (a) support for the claim that "thousands" of people have died because of mandatory seat-belt laws who otherwise would have survived their auto accidents; and (b) a statistically valid, well-researched comparison of lives saved to lives lost due to seat-belt laws.

    Parent
    Shooter was indeed being (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Zorba on Sun May 24, 2015 at 01:53:34 PM EST
    Very ironic, Peter.    

    Parent
    I wonder why I couldn't tell. (none / 0) (#114)
    by Peter G on Sun May 24, 2015 at 02:18:09 PM EST
    I'm not usually that bad at discerning irony (or humor). Maybe I need a nap. Or to eat more fish.

    Parent
    C'mon down here Peter, (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by fishcamp on Sun May 24, 2015 at 03:24:57 PM EST
    and have one of those tasty yellow tail snapper sandwiches Coral Gables spoke about last week.  Lazy Day's Restaurant is only six miles from my house, and we can go by boat.

    Parent
    lol, I'm truly sorry, Peter (none / 0) (#122)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 25, 2015 at 03:20:15 AM EST
    When writing something that I hope is interpreted as I wish it to be I try to put into it enough hyperbolic absurdity so it couldn't possibly be mistaken for reality. (I actually pondered whether "hundreds" of cases was ridiculous enough. "Nah, better use "thousands" just to be safe.)

    I know, "they" say to use the <snark> designation to avoid any chance of confusion, but, well, you know........ Wait, I know, I'll do this next time: "Yo, Peter, <wink>  

    Anyway, now that we've had our little fun, do you remember those "my cousin was trapped in his car" rejoinders? Maybe it was just a New York thing?

    Parent

    Don't bother Peter (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:20:15 PM EST
    brittus is a right wing blogger.

    LINK

    Parent

    Let's try that again (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:23:11 PM EST
    LINK

    Parent
    That's all he had -- (none / 0) (#72)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:32:02 PM EST
    That was the extent of his contribution -- short and sweet -- he's not much of a talker.

    I think it's the same reason that they don't buckle kids into their seats on school buses. The same with public transportation.

    Riders need to be able to get off the bus quickly in the event of a fire or accident.

    Now take a prisoner in a police van who is handcuffed in the back with the seatbelt buckled in the front.

    If you were the prisoner in the back which would you prefer: seatbelt or no seatbelt.

    Parent

    Uncie Chip (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:45:22 PM EST
    needs a nickel ride.  I have a Tahoe.

    Parent
    It's sort of carpeted for the purpose (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 23, 2015 at 12:51:49 PM EST
    but I would be fine with tossing some rocks and sharp metal objects in the back with him.

    Parent
    Turns out that no, it's not the same (none / 0) (#81)
    by Peter G on Sat May 23, 2015 at 01:34:18 PM EST
    as school buses.  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has a lot to say on that subject.

    Parent
    compartmentalization (none / 0) (#89)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat May 23, 2015 at 03:36:36 PM EST
    So they utilize the concept of compartmentalization instead of seat belts for crash protection.

    Would that be like what they do to these police vans -- dividing up the large space in back into 2/3 smaller compartments?

    Parent

    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Yman on Sat May 23, 2015 at 05:21:34 PM EST
    Provided that the same compartmentalization standards are met - larger, padded seats are used, the increased structural safety standards are used, and the police vans weigh more than 10,000 lbs.

    Oh, ... wait ...

    Parent

    Lets (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 23, 2015 at 05:32:07 PM EST
    see small enough to "cocoon" him in a wreck but large enough for Freddy to break his own spine, frigging marvel of modern engineering there, the apologists are grasping at straws.

    Parent
    Stopped clock (none / 0) (#115)
    by FlJoe on Sun May 24, 2015 at 03:13:02 PM EST
    alert! McBain declares
    Haven't you been paying attention? People end up dead when they run.  
    No sht Sherlock as the saying goes.

    Bench trial (none / 0) (#120)
    by chezmadame on Sun May 24, 2015 at 08:15:15 PM EST
    Will these defendants have the opportunity to opt for a bench trial? I know that some jurisdictions require the consent of the state/prosecutor if you wish to waive your right to a trial by jury.


    I believe I heard the do have that right (none / 0) (#121)
    by McBain on Mon May 25, 2015 at 12:53:57 AM EST
    However, based on what I've seen in other high profile cases, trusting a judge to be fair and impartial would not be a wise decision. A sequestered jury from another county would probably be be a safer choice.

    Parent
    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 27, 2015 at 07:30:33 AM EST
    im thinkin

    site violator (none / 0) (#156)
    by fishcamp on Wed May 27, 2015 at 07:31:21 AM EST


    Just what I was thinking (none / 0) (#158)
    by Peter G on Wed May 27, 2015 at 09:04:21 AM EST
    to the extent I understand Arabic (which is not at all).

    Baltimore Press Conference (none / 0) (#186)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu May 28, 2015 at 07:10:18 AM EST
    Baltimore Mayor can't answer the question

    Baltimore mayor could (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by Anne on Thu May 28, 2015 at 07:18:30 AM EST
    hardly get out three words before the questioner was asking another question; it seemed like all he was interested in was making accusations in the form of questions (hmmm...where have we seen that tactic before?), and not really interested in hearing her answer.

    She was right to call him out on it.

    Parent

    PC (1.33 / 6) (#188)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu May 28, 2015 at 08:03:22 AM EST
    not really interested in hearing her answer

    You mean: "in hearing her BS answer".

    Was that an "old news" conference or a "new news" conference?

    No wonder the Baltimore Sun didn't report that part of it.

    What else aren't they reporting?

    Parent

    "No wonder" the Sun didn't report it? (5.00 / 4) (#189)
    by Anne on Thu May 28, 2015 at 09:21:51 AM EST
    How is that exchange even "news?"

    Oh, wait - it was a Fox News reporter, so that explains it.  

    What else isn't the Sun reporting?  Well, you're the master of the conspiracy theory and mind-reading, so you tell me: what isn't the Sun reporting?

    Parent

    Mosby's Twitter Hack (none / 0) (#196)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri May 29, 2015 at 02:00:29 PM EST
    Mosby's Twitter Hack Mystery

    I'm sure Mosby has contacted the FBI and they will move heaven and earth to find this mysterious "hacker".

    Entertaining segment (none / 0) (#199)
    by McBain on Fri May 29, 2015 at 03:03:19 PM EST
    Megyn Kelly and Mark Eiglarsh were skeptical Mosby's personal twitter account was hacked.  Arthur Aidala called Mosby "immature".  Eiglarsh said "her ego is not her amigo".  

    I wonder if any of this will help the defense motion to move the trial to another county?

    Parent

    Like where? There is no (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by Anne on Fri May 29, 2015 at 03:10:02 PM EST
    "Sandbox County" in Maryland; the segment appears to be at the level of the playground, in my opinion, but maybe name-calling and childish rhyming taunts are considered "mature" by the Fox crowd.

    Parent
    Playgound level would be a higher (3.00 / 3) (#201)
    by McBain on Fri May 29, 2015 at 03:47:39 PM EST
    level than what we've seen in TL lately.  

    I don't know where they would move the case to. Ideally, somewhere with impartial jurors.  

    Parent

    McB (2.33 / 3) (#202)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri May 29, 2015 at 04:16:12 PM EST
    All the legal beagles right and left on radio and TV  have said that if Mosby is a grown up with any semblance of conscience and regard for her office she will stipulate to a change of venue.

    Let's see what she does.

    Parent

    Hiding the Autopsy (none / 0) (#203)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 06:51:07 PM EST
    Marilyn Mosby Seeks Protective Order To Block Release Of Freddie Gray's Autopsy

    Baltimore City state's attorney Marilyn Mosby hopes to block the release of the autopsy of Freddie Gray and other documents related to the investigation into the 25-year-old's April 19 death.

    The protective order, filed Monday ... is raising accusations from an attorney for one of the six officers charged in the Gray case that Mosby's request shows that the autopsy is her case....

    If Mosby's request for the protective order is granted, only the state's attorney's office and defense attorneys would be allowed to view the autopsy results and any other new filings in the case.

    Ivan Bates, the attorney for Alicia White, the lone female officer charged in the case, told the Sun that Mosby's motion indicates

    "there is something in that autopsy report that they are trying to hide."

    Ya Think --

    Six Officers Indicted for Freddie Gray Death | 197 comments (197 topical)