Freddie Gray's Death Ruled a Homicide; 6 Officers Charged!

a reply to: Xcathdra
Do you have a problem that normally the conflict of interest is stacked for cops being investigated? She can't just make up evidence that doesn't exist, while a prosecution can just not present damning evidence to the grand jury when they are buddy-buddy with the police. Why do cops bitch when they are treated exactly like citizens are in the "justice system"?

a reply to: windword

She's a triple threat, being young, female and a minority. Race has nothing to do with it.

Huh?

a reply to: Phage

What?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Greathouse
Since nobody else looked a source up I decided to. Bill Murphy (a ex judge and grays family lawyer) donated $5000 out of the $106,000 she raised for her campaign.

I hardly call that big money or conflict of interest.

$5000 pffffft

The question, as pointed out earlier, revolves around whether or not she went forward with charges because of her husband and because of the family's attorney donating money to get her elected -

IE

is the prosecution based on actual criminal wrong doing with the evidence to support that or is the prosecution based on the political leanings of her husband and the Gray's attorney.

IE

Possible conflict of interest / prosecutorial misconduct / ethic violations.

Well she has no real connection between Bill Murphy besides the $5000 donation which is a pittance. If you're going to bring up her connection to her husband that could be brought up on every single prosecution she resides over for the next four years.

prosecution based on actual criminal wrong doing with the evidence to support that or is the prosecution based on the political leanings of her husband and the Gray's attorney.

Criminal wrongdoing with the police report? That is not even plausible.

It sounds more to me like she waited for the police report to validate her investigation.


The allegations and mudslinging need to cease until the evidence is exposed. All all these allegations do at this point is muddy the water.

originally posted by: windword
Please explain how this could be.

Shes not a triple threat and making this about anything but her ability to do her job is a disservice and once again raises a racial issue that no one else is raising but you and a few others.

The complaint is not based on her race, and if you researched / read the info you would know this, so why you are trying to invoke race speaks volumes about your intent.

As for how it could be a law / ethics violation I did explain.. You failed to read it / understand it. Re-read the relevant posts and then come back and join the conversation.

Are you black?

originally posted by: roadgravel
Doesn't matter if he was committing a crime or not, Police are to protect suspects in their custody.

Anyone on a jury who thinks the police get a pass to injure or kill a suspect because he may / did sell drugs on a corner is failing in their duty as a jury.

Policemen are first supposed to protect the rest of the citizenry, then the suspect.

Would you mind the other side of the coin? What if they caught a klansman who died in custody?

An ATS thread with a lot of this information. While they attempted to make this an issue of race, that floundered.

And here is site for documentation of those killed by law enforcement. I agree, it is a problem. But it doesn't help when we stand back and say it is because of race (CNN played the race card) and then find out it had nothing to do with race.

Even NBC reported

Investigator: These are unusual cases The study finds that 77 percent of those who died in custody were men between the ages of 18 and 44. Approximately 44 percent were white; 32 percent black; and 20 percent Hispanic.

There are actually MORE white people killed in police custody, but have we made an issue about that?

Among law enforcement, 380 officers were killed in the line of duty over the three-year period and 174,760 were reportedly assaulted, according to FBI data. Two hundred twenty-one of the deaths were accidental, while 159 were homicides. Blacks were disproportionately represented in arrest-related deaths due to alcohol or drug intoxication — 41 percent vs. 33 percent for whites; accidental injury — 42 percent vs. 37 percent for whites; and unknown causes — 46 percent vs. 39 percent for whites. Mumola said it was unclear why blacks tended to be victims for accidental injuries, which often involve fatalities in the course of a police car chase; or intoxication, which involves overdoses or drunkenness.

So more blacks die because of drunkenness and intoxication? Then what's the deal with the accidental deaths of whites and Hispanics?
Black officer kills white man

Let's have real dialogue. Let's drop the race baiting that comes from the media. Let's drop this idea that all people killed in police custody are young thugs. Let's just talk about the real issue and that is CNN yanked a chain that everyone fell for and that was Freddie Gray was another disadvantaged young black man. That's the first perception the media gave you.

But really, would you not mind if a white guy in a klansman hood and robe was killed in police custody if he were doing nothing more than just coming out of a coffee shop and looked them in the eye, said "oh s***" and ran away?

As a fair, Constitutionally minded American who does believe in justice, if thugs can be defended in this discussion then someone has to represent the other side, otherwise the discussion is not fair nor is it balanced.

It is a problem, I do agree, but the thing is people tend to only look at one side. I am being centric, which appears to be more difficult. Either the Constitution is for all or it is for none.

Like the pledge says "and justice for ALL", including Randy Weaver's wife and Leonard Peltier.

FREE LEONARD PELTIER.

What is your suggestion then to end police abuse against all groups?

a reply to: windword

I find it confusing that you point out that the prosecutor is a minority and then negate a racial component?
Why mention her status as a minority if race is not relevant? It would seem that to you, it is.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Greathouse

and that info should have been contained in the PC stating there were witnesses to the crime to support that charge.

Not even remotely you hold your best cards closest to your chest in a criminal investigation.

a reply to: TKDRL

If a person is shot and killed and you have 6 suspects there is nothing preventing a prosecuting attorney from individually charging all 6 suspects and trying them separately, arguing a different theory of the facts in each case, to obtain a conviction.

I am not bitching about the cops being held accountable. I am bitching about the manner in which this prosecutor is trying to do it. I am bitching because if her stunt fails, and in all likelihood with the evidence we know about it will, these cops walk and the possible suspects go free without the ability to hold them accountable.

why do people bitch about taking the time to get it right the first go around instead of trying these cases in a court of public opinion where that public does not understand how the legal system even works.

The people in charge in the city council are predominately black, the mayor is black, the PA is black, their federal and state reps are black, the head of the police department is black.

This is not a racial issue is it? If it is then the issue is not with the system, but the people who refuse to educate themselves about how the damn system works. Lets rush to lynch while refusing to charge those who burned down over 140 businesses an injured over 60 police.

a reply to: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

She's not one the "good ole boys". I'm not making this about race, but you can't take the race factor out of the equation. It's there, and that's a fact.

To the "good ole boys" she represents disprespectful youth, feminism and "black lives" that matter. Triple threat to the status quo.

As for how it could be a law / ethics violation I did explain.

Yeah, I read it, but you're not making any sense. She is just as "conflicted" as any of the other candidates, who lost to her, would/could have been in any case that involves police corruption and negligence, either way.

If she was qualified during the election, why is she suddenly not qualified now, because the police don't like her stance on this case?

originally posted by: Greathouse

Not even remotely you hold your best cards closest to your chest in a criminal investigation.

Uhm no, not even close.

A PC statement lays out the charges and supporting evidence to sustain those charges. Those are not documents that are vague and mysterious.

Step 2, after the preliminary hearing and if the charges hold, is the discovery motion (Brady). Because of Brady there are no "cards" to hold "close".

a reply to: WarminIndy
What is wrong with you?

Policemen are first supposed to protect the rest of the citizenry, then the suspect.

Would you mind the other side of the coin? What if they caught a klansman who died in custody?

The public was not in any danger, dude was cuffed and in their custody..... The hell does it matter if it was a klansman, or even Hitler. If he is in their custody, and their responsibility.

What is your suggestion then to end police abuse against all groups?

How about start prosecuting them like anyone else that commits a crime?

Free Leonard Peltier indeed. Ruby Ridge and WACO were bull# as well. This case is not about them though.

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Greathouse

and that info should have been contained in the PC stating there were witnesses to the crime to support that charge.

Not even remotely. You hold your best cards closest to your chest in a criminal investigation.

12th time I edited with the reply button.

originally posted by: windword

She's not one the "good ole boys". I'm not making this about, but you can't take the race factor out of the equation. It's there, and that's a fact.

I am not the one raising the race issue.. You are. If you want it out then quit injecting it every chance you get.

originally posted by: windword
To the "good ole boys" she represents disprespectful youth, feminism and "black lives" that matter. Triple threat to the status quo.

No she represents the people of the City of Baltimore as their chief prosecuting attorney to uphold the laws of the City of Baltimore / State of Maryland.

Secondly "all lives matter" and not just black. The very idea only skin tone matters is racist.
The disrespectful youth have the ability to be respectful if they so chose.
and Feminism has nothing to do with this at all.

she is not a triple threat.

originally posted by: windword
Yeah, I read it, but you're not making any sense. She is just as "conflicted" as any of the other candidates, who lost to her, would/could have been in any case that involves police corruption and negligence, either way.

If she was qualified during the election, why is she suddenly not qualified now, because the police don't like her stance on this case?

Your response here tells me you have absolutely no clue what we are talking about when it comes to conflict of interest and ethical violations of the state bar. This has nothing to do with her stance on police corruption or any other case.

it revolves around her intention o charge these officers with the question being (pay attention):

Did she charge these officers based on the laws of Maryland with supporting evidence or did she charge these officers because her husband sits on the Baltimore city council and the Gray's attorney donated money to get her elected.

did either person influence her decision to charge these officers. If either one influenced her then you have an issue with the prosecution right out out of the gate. hence the reason the special prosecutor option was raised.

pay attention please.

a reply to: TKDRL

The function of law enforcement is not to protect the individual but society as a whole.

As for protection - A person does not have to be arrested for an officer to be responsible for their safety. If I do a traffic stop every single person in that vehicle (safety/security/well being) is my responsibility. its one of the reasons we don't generally allow car loads of people to exit vehicles on traffic stop and mill about while we do our thing.

Any time a person is stopped by a person acting under color of law where their freedom of movement is restricted the responsibility falls to the officer.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Greathouse

Not even remotely you hold your best cards closest to your chest in a criminal investigation.

Uhm no, not even close.

A PC statement lays out the charges and supporting evidence to sustain those charges. Those are not documents that are vague and mysterious.

Step 2, after the preliminary hearing and if the charges hold, is the discovery motion (Brady). Because of Brady there are no "cards" to hold "close".

The probable cause affidavit. Only has to give probable cause. There is a big difference between probable cause and incriminating evidence.

I agree and know very well about discovery. And if I had very good evidence to prove that the charges are just. A good prosecutor would hold those cards close to their chest until after the preliminary hearing and the discovery motion. Honestly if I was a witness to the incident I would what a gag order placed on that part of the discovery for fear of intimidation from the Baltimore police.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The function of law enforcement is not to protect the individual but society as a whole.

Huh. I thought that defense of civil and legal rights was part of the package. Individuals don't have those?

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am not bitching about the cops being held accountable. I am bitching about the manner in which this prosecutor is trying to do it. I am bitching because if her stunt fails, and in all likelihood with the evidence we know about it will, these cops walk and the possible suspects go free without the ability to hold them accountable.

We know he went into their custody without a broken neck and crush larynx, and got his neck broken and larynx crushed while in their care. We know the cops involved were caught lieing about their journey in the van. If a group of men kidnapped a cop, and while they had the cop, he suffered a broken neck and crushed larynx, that would likely be enough for a conviction.

why do people bitch about taking the time to get it right the first go around instead of trying these cases in a court of public opinion where that public does not understand how the legal system even works.

So you want all the facts, but don't want the facts released to the public. How does that work?

This is not a racial issue is it? If it is then the issue is not with the system, but the people who refuse to educate themselves about how the damn system works. Lets rush to lynch while refusing to charge those who burned down over 140 businesses an injured over 60 police.

Nice strawman you built there.

a reply to: Phage
Since when? Not in my lifetime.

a reply to: TKDRL
Did you read what I replied to?
Do you think that it is the function of law enforcement to protect society as a whole rather than the individual?