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

originally posted by: windword

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?

I do agree about the feminist point. But ALL lives matter.

My home health aids are young black women and I have to be careful of simple things I say to them, because it might be taken the wrong way by them. Overall, we have a good client/aid relationship. But we don't mention race at all when they are here, I treat them as I would anyone else.

I don't think disrespectful youth would apply here, because she seems to be the same age as the police officers. Maybe not the City Council though.

But the feminist, yes, I agree on that one.

This is her first big case and she better have the cahunas to carry it through because it is now sealed in the minds of this generation. She better be right and cover every base, because it is going to be remembered for 100 years.

originally posted by: Greathouse

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

A probable cause affidavit describes the incident / crime and the evidence supporting the charges for said crime.

The way you are suggesting would result in a PC affidavit that looks like this -
"Saw drunk driver, arrested same".

Its not enough to sustain the charge. You need those pesky things like evidence to support the charge, including witness statements. Those things are referenced / required in PC statements. At least in all of mine, my agencies and the 2 prosecuting attorneys at both levels of government.

General rule of thumb -
I have probable cause to believe Mr. smith committed the crime of this this this and that on this date and time at this location based on the following facts:

facts / evidence supporting charge
facts / evidence supporting charge

facts / evidence supporting charge
facts / evidence supporting charge

originally posted by: Greathouse
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.

And a good defense attorney is going to challenge the PC statements and lack of documenting support of evidence as a reason to have those charges dismissed due to lack of evidence to support the charge.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Not sure what you meant posting that to me. I believe anyone taken into custody needs to be treated properly. I don't have a racial issue with this, just a human issue. Yes, I would have a problems with a Klansman or any other person treated wrongly.

a reply to: Phage
I agree that is how it is supposed to be, that is just not how it is lol.

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

Sure they do.. however since law enforcement is not a part of the judicial branch we have absolutely nothing to do with determining whether a person is innocent or guilty of a crime.

that is reserved solely to the judicial branch and its that branch that is tasked with protecting individuals rights and prosecuting those who violate the law and those rights.

If we are responsible for the individual then we would be responsible for every single crime occurring against a person or property. A person is responsible for his/her own actions. Police are responsible for investigating perceived violations.

IE society as a whole and not the individual.

a reply to: Xcathdra

however since law enforcement is not a part of the judicial branch we have absolutely nothing to do with determining whether a person is innocent or guilty of a crime.

Which is why it is important that they observe the civil rights of everyone. The public cannot be protected by violating civil rights. Protection of those rights is what law enforcement is about. Should be about.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am not the one raising the race issue.. You are.

No. The people of Baltimore are. An activist group called "Black Live Matter" is! To pretend race isn't an issue, is intellectually dishonest. To use race as a tool to justify injustice is the issue that you should be concerned about. We can't ignore the fact that race IS an issue when it come to the public outcry of the trend of police shooting and killing unarmed black men and women with impunity, is the issue.

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.

You concerns are absolutely absurd.

originally posted by: TKDRL
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.

Actually, Leonard Peltier and Randy Weaver do play a part in this, because this is about national consciousness.

No matter how many times you might prosecute them, there are always going to be more doing it. Apparently being arrested as a criminal doesn't work, Freddie Gray was arrested and jailed many times. Why expect another criminal or friends to stop criminal activity?

How about this, let's bring back the quick death penalty for everyone, including police officers and repeat offenders alike? That way we don't have to worry about them being criminals any more.

What is going to happen now is that a real war is going to happen in this country, because the rhetoric is pushing it. And if there is so much rhetoric on either side, it will provoke more and more people.

We don't want a war with law enforcement, because then groups you don't want to step in, will step in.

Remember Siege at Wounded Knee? It is part of national consciousness.

Making a hero out of Freddie Gray is only going to justify in some people's minds that the police are our enemy. And this as there are many good police officers out there.

Do we need now crucify Freddie Gray as a martyr? That's exactly how he is presented in this case. How about this as a movement, stop criminals where they are, that means the ghettos to law enforcement. And in case you didn't know, a great many police officers did come out of the ghettos. Should we then burn them at the stake as well?

a reply to: Xcathdra

I can agree with you that it shouldn't be a race issue this should be a police conduct issue.

But your understanding of the law is a little weak. Probable cause deals with reasonable suspicion .

prob·a·ble cause
nounLAWNORTH AMERICAN
noun: probable cause
reasonable grounds (for making a search, pressing a charge, etc.).

Not evidence...........

The law of evidence encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision and, sometimes, the weigh

a reply to: windword

We can't ignore the fact that race IS an issue when it come to the public outcry of the trend of police shooting and killing unarmed black men and women with impunity, is the issue.

So the second part of this was sarcasm? Race does have something to do with it? I guess I missed that and that's what led to my confusion.

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

originally posted by: Phage
Which is why it is important that they observe the civil rights of everyone. The public cannot be protected by violating civil rights. Protection of those rights is what law enforcement is about. Should be about.

Which is why violation of any of that, either by the public or police, is reserved to the judicial branch for remedy. its why investigations into police misconduct take so long.

A typical criminal investigation into a civilian involves the criminal investigation and Miranda.

a typical investigation into law enforcement involves:
* - An IA investigation to determine If departmental polices / procedures / guidelines were violated - Garrity Rights involved.
* - A Criminal investigation by either a separate division / independent agency - Miranda rights involved
* - A Civil rights investigation handled by the Feds to determine if an officers actions violated a persons civil rights. In this area an officer use of force to effect an arrest, up to and including shooting / killing a suspect, has 4th amendment implications.

Determination of laws / rights are broken are reserved solely to the PA and not the police. I could witness person A kill person B, arrest person B, and submit my PC and the PA could look at it and go - nope, no charges.

end of story.

Police protects society as a whole.
judicial branch deals with the individual on a case by case basis.

a reply to: windword

No you are sounding absurd by raising non issue then arguing they aren't relevant.

I have explained to you now how the ethics issue works and you refuse to understand it. the absurd part is your action, not mine.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: windword

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?

I do agree about the feminist point. But ALL lives matter.

My home health aids are young black women and I have to be careful of simple things I say to them, because it might be taken the wrong way by them. Overall, we have a good client/aid relationship. But we don't mention race at all when they are here, I treat them as I would anyone else.

I don't think disrespectful youth would apply here, because she seems to be the same age as the police officers. Maybe not the City Council though.

But the feminist, yes, I agree on that one.

This is her first big case and she better have the cahunas to carry it through because it is now sealed in the minds of this generation. She better be right and cover every base, because it is going to be remembered for 100 years.

Plus in my opinion she's pretty hot!!!!!

a reply to: WarminIndy

How about this as a movement, stop criminals where they are, that means the ghettos to law enforcement.

i agree with that. But I also feel that this case and a few others where people believe, with good reason, that police have acted criminally have to be in the spot light or at least see justice for a change to happen. The last few decades back it up, IMO.

a reply to: Greathouse

In all my years of law enforcement in 2 states and writing PC affidavits I am clear on what I am doing and how its done.

a reply to: WarminIndy

How about this, let's bring back the quick death penalty for everyone, including police officers and repeat offenders alike? That way we don't have to worry about them being criminals any more.

How about no? Even with the extensive appeals system we have now, we have executed innocent people. Lots of innocent people have been freed after spending 10+ years in prison for murder. All those people would be dead now, killing people for killing people is social hypocrisy.

Making a hero out of Freddie Gray is only going to justify in some people's minds that the police are our enemy. And this as there are many good police officers out there.

Making the people responsible for his death pay, is not making a hero out of him.

Do we need now crucify Freddie Gray as a martyr? That's exactly how he is presented in this case. How about this as a movement, stop criminals where they are, that means the ghettos to law enforcement. And in case you didn't know, a great many police officers did come out of the ghettos. Should we then burn them at the stake as well?

If they are abusing their power, and abusing the citizens, crucify them, absolutely.

originally posted by: roadgravel

i agree with that. But I also feel that this case and a few others where people believe, with good reason, that police have acted criminally have to be in the spot light or at least see justice for a change to happen. The last few decades back it up, IMO.

here is my problem with this...

if people want to be able to say this cop broke the law, then that person needs to go to school, become an attorney, a prosecuting attorney and then go from there.

Demanding a person be charged without knowing / understanding the law is just as bad as the crime itself. Both actions are based on the complete ignorance of what the law says / complete ignorance in following the law.

if you are going to protest that these cops be charged then you must also protest to ensure the rioters / looters / arsonists / thugs be charged for their actions.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't think most people on this thread know much about either side. There doesn't seem to be many who were criminals nor many who were law enforcement.

It scares me to see this coming. For anyone to think there has not been an underground war for many years is just deluding themselves.

I respect the fact that you are in law enforcement. I might not always agree with you, but that is your opinions as a regular citizen that I might have issue with, but as a law enforcement officer, I think you have a very tough job.

I think if everyone from my generation paid attention to the past, sees that this underground war has been going on since the 1960s. Now it is coming into the open.

I dread what is coming.

a reply to: TKDRL

Our judicial system is designed to error on the side of innocence / accused. It would rather see 9 criminals walk free rather than 1 innocent person be imprisoned / executed.

its why our process is so slow and why appeals are even slower 9and in almost all states mandatory for conviction of some crimes).

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Greathouse

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

A probable cause affidavit describes the incident / crime and the evidence supporting the charges for said crime.

The way you are suggesting would result in a PC affidavit that looks like this -
"Saw drunk driver, arrested same".

Its not enough to sustain the charge. You need those pesky things like evidence to support the charge, including witness statements. Those things are referenced / required in PC statements. At least in all of mine, my agencies and the 2 prosecuting attorneys at both levels of government.

General rule of thumb -
I have probable cause to believe Mr. smith committed the crime of this this this and that on this date and time at this location based on the following facts:

facts / evidence supporting charge
facts / evidence supporting charge

facts / evidence supporting charge
facts / evidence supporting charge

originally posted by: Greathouse
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.

And a good defense attorney is going to challenge the PC statements and lack of documenting support of evidence as a reason to have those charges dismissed due to lack of evidence to support the charge.

Read my last reply. Probable caluse only deals with a reasonable suspicion not evidence. Simply put a good prosecutor doesn't lay everything out on the line in the first statement.

affidavit that looks like this -
"Saw drunk Driver, arrested same"

It's a good thing there's a judge to rule on that by the letter of the law. Like I'm trying to explain to you now.