Six Officers Charged in Freddie Gray's Death

Six officers have been charged in Freddie Gray's death. The van driver was charged with second-degree "depraved heart" murder. The charges against the others include involuntary manslaughter, assault and false imprisonment and misconduct in office.

In a news conference, the state’s attorney in Baltimore, Marilyn J. Mosby, described repeated mistreatment of Mr. Gray. Time and again, she said, officers abused him, arresting him without grounds and violating police procedure by putting him in handcuffs and leg restraints in the van without putting a seatbelt on him.


Ms. Mosby also said the officers had repeatedly failed to seek medical attention for Mr. Gray after he was injured. By the time he was removed from the van, she said, “Mr. Gray was no longer breathing at all.”

DA Mosby said there were no valid grounds for arrest. The knife Gray had was not a switchblade and was legal.

The charges:

One officer, Caesar R. Goodson Jr. was charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter, assault and misconduct in office. Lt. Brian W. Rice was charged with manslaughter, assault, misconduct in office and false imprisonment. Officer William G. Porter and Sgt. Alicia D. White were each charged with manslaughter, assault and misconduct in office. Officers Edward M. Nero and Garrett E. Miller were charged with assault, misconduct in office and false imprisonment.

< Bernie Sanders will run on the issues, not the nonsense | Indictments in Chris Christie Bridge Case >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    for a legal statute that bans switchblades.

    Well, there you go. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:04:25 PM EST
    The Village Voice did an investigative report on how bans on the knife are often used by NYPD as an easy excuse to arrest someone. And boost their crime stats (removing "weapons" from the street). And they enforce the law in a racial manner. Etc.

    Who knew... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Fri May 01, 2015 at 01:27:55 PM EST
    switchblades and marijuana had so much in common? ;)

    And don't spit on the street either! (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 01, 2015 at 01:43:05 PM EST
    Nor jaywalk... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Fri May 01, 2015 at 01:53:26 PM EST
    And I thought I had alotta tools in my garage, the various legislatures have given cops more tools than Milwaukee Tool Co. makes in a year!

    Nor have the temerity to look a cop in the eye (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by scribe on Fri May 01, 2015 at 04:22:20 PM EST
    Which, it turns out, was all Gray did.

    I've seen (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri May 01, 2015 at 04:39:52 PM EST
      more complaints or reports where the cop claimed he was "suspicious" because the guy appeared nervous and avoided eye contact.

      Damned if you do and damned if you don't.


    but here is the Baltimore code:
    § 59-22 Switch-blade knives.

    (a) Possession or sale, etc., prohibited.

    It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, carry, or possess any knife with an automatic spring or other device for opening and/or closing the blade, commonly known as a switch-blade knife.

    i think (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat May 02, 2015 at 08:52:33 AM EST
    She meanr the knife was not a sb, not tht sbs may be legally carrird.

    I Bought Two Stilettos... (none / 0) (#63)
    by ScottW714 on Fri May 01, 2015 at 03:01:50 PM EST
    ...in a knife shop in Key West, they also has switch blades.  Here in Texas, you can buy knives(without springs) at the gas station, they are usually right next to the crack and weed pipes.

    But I agree with you in that in this day and age with the thumb flick knives, which open as fast as any spring loaded knife, those laws are unnecessary.

    No real point other than they are using a law that is not even a law in other places, to shake people down and/or make arrests.

    It should be noted, and you probably know this, that Mr. Gray did not have a switch blade, his knife was legal.


    Sh*t... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by kdog on Fri May 01, 2015 at 03:41:25 PM EST
    in this day and age with all the handguns out there, any and all bans or restrictions on any kind of blade seem ridiculously dated.

    We would be lucky if every knucklehead open or concealed carrying a handgun carried a switchblade instead.  


    and is legal.

    If the cops completely lied on the charging docs



    On or About 04/12/2015



    unlawfully carry. possess, and sell a knife commonly known as a switch
    blade knife, with an automatic spring or other device for opening and/or closing the blade within the limits ofBaltimore City.

    and the knife was a standard folding pocket knife, for example, or some other kind of knife not at all like a switchblade, shouldn't Mosby have hit at least one of the cops with a falsifying evidence-type charge too?

    Or did the knife have some kind of "spring or device" that Mosby subsequently determined did not rise to the level of the City Code? Or something like that.

    Considering everything else, it would not surprise me if the cops completely lied about what the knife was.


    would that be covered (none / 0) (#69)
    by CST on Fri May 01, 2015 at 03:41:20 PM EST
    under the "Misconduct in office" charge?

    Seems kinda imprecise, no? (none / 0) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 01, 2015 at 03:51:46 PM EST
    Not to mention what kind of clairvoyance (none / 0) (#87)
    by Palli on Fri May 01, 2015 at 06:34:02 PM EST
    did the officers have to know he had anything in his pocket before bed  pursued and that him down to look in his a pocket?

    Some jurisdictions consider the (none / 0) (#79)
    by scribe on Fri May 01, 2015 at 04:35:49 PM EST
    thumb-flick knife to fall within their definition of a "switchblade" and some don't.  One would have to look at the precedent in Maryland to find out.  (NY tries to categorize them as switchblades, but there is a recent case in which the judge tossed the charge, saying a thumb-opener knife is not.)

    But one could do far more damage to the human body with other tools from the workbench and not run afoul of the switchblade law.  The generic street switchblades are notoriously cheaply made, tend to fall apart on the first use, don't cut or penetrate worth a darn and are generally useful only for instilling fear and freakout in the person against whom the switchblade is directed.  The exception to this is the paratrooper's switchblade (a/k/a jump knife) - high-quality items issued by your government during WWII - which was used by paratroops to cut themselves free of their harness/rigging with only one hand needed.  When they can be found, they are serious collectors' items.  But their blades were the size and shape of ordinary pocketknives, not made for a barroom knife fight.


    Thank you for that article. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 01, 2015 at 09:53:42 PM EST
    I've long suspected that cops have adhered to a double standard of enforcement in arresting or harassing people of color. Now those suspicions are confirmed.

    Well, sure. As well they have double (none / 0) (#116)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat May 02, 2015 at 02:29:06 AM EST
    standards regarding age, class, gender, etc., etc.

    For example, I'm not much younger than you, and a girl I went to HS with, just the other day posted on FB, proudly, that she just got out of a speeding ticket by "using her boobs."

    Never worked for me...

    I can't believe cops are all of that ^^^^^ before they become cops.

    iow, I don't believe that most cops have such a jaundiced view of humanity when they show up for that first day of cop school.

    I do have cops that are "friends." From what I've seen they live in a different world than we do.

    They live in a world, from what I've seen, where 99% of the people they talk to every single day are lying through their teeth, straight to their face, every hour of every day.

    One of my kid's football coaches was an LAPD and at one practice he had a small run-in with another kid's dad, and afterward he commented to me that he smelled alc on the guy's breath.

    This was at around 10 AM.

    I didn't notice any alc, but I wasn't looking for it either. But cops spend their entire working life required to be dialed into this sort of stuff.

    Is it the fault of the system? Is it the fault of the streets? Is it neither's "fault" but rather what simply happens to any/every sentient being if put in this type of environment.

    And yes, I know, the cops have a big impact on that environment. They do what the Chief tells them to do. And the Chief tells them what to do based what the Mayors tell the Chiefs to do.

    I'm conflicted in that I usually think the old adage "Never ascribe to malfeasance what can be better explained by stupidity" or something like that, has the most truth.

    But also, as my mom used to say, "There, but for the grace of god, go I."

    I'm so glad I never wanted to be a cop.


    Hanlons (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 02, 2015 at 08:13:17 AM EST
    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
    does not apply here. That logical construct is only valid for one off situations, a clear pattern of actions causing harm must be judged as malfeasance.
    And yes, I know, the cops have a big impact on that environment. They do what the Chief tells them to do. And the Chief tells them what to do based what the Mayors tell the Chiefs to do.

    only up to a point, these issues with LE have existed for decades. Mayors and Chiefs come and go the problems remain. Something bad has been baked into the cake, something very bad.

    Very well said, SUO (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 02, 2015 at 06:57:34 AM EST
    Some interesting reading (none / 0) (#139)
    by jbindc on Sat May 02, 2015 at 09:59:30 AM EST
    Police Killings Rise Slightly, Though Increased Focus May Suggest Otherwise

    What official data exists suggests that the number of killings by police officers has crept upward only slowly, if at all, in recent years. Since 2009, one regular if incomplete measure, the F.B.I.'s account of justifiable homicides by police officers, ranged from 397 to 426 deaths annually before jumping to 461 in 2013, the latest reporting year.

    Federal experts have long acknowledged that that estimate is too low, and a handful of more recent, unofficial reports -- online databases compiled and fact-checked by volunteers -- place the toll much higher, at about 1,100 deaths a year, or three a day. Yet they do not suggest that the pace of police killings or the racial composition of victims as a group has changed significantly in the last two years or so.

    A number of criminologists believe police homicides are near their nadir. In New York City, for example, 91 people were fatally shot by police officers in 1971 -- and a record-low eight in 2013, the last year for which figures are available. In Los Angeles, officers used "categorical" force -- gunfire, chokings and other violence that could lead to death -- in 84 of nearly 149,000 arrests in 2012, down 17 percent in seven years.

    That data suggests that any perception that higher numbers of unarmed African-Americans are being killed by the police in recent months is driven by citizens' postings of unsettling cellphone videos and pictures, like that of police officers dragging Freddie Gray, his legs apparently not working, into a van.


    For years, the F.B.I. report on justifiable police homicides and other federal estimates of police homicides have understated the problem. Only recently have online databases compiled by volunteers begun to produce a more accurate picture. Two of the more prominent ones, Fatal Encounters and Killed by Police, each logged about 1,100 police-related homicides in 2014. Their totals are higher when police-related deaths, such as fatalities in high-speed car chases or suicides in standoffs, are included.

    Because the records of killings are drawn mostly from news media reports, some crucial details, including the race of officers and suspects, often are missing.

    Yet even those spotty numbers shed new light on the nature of police killings.

    Fatal Encounters, maintained by D. Brian Burghart, the publisher of The Reno News and Review, may be the most meticulous aggregator of reports of killings by the police. The data, covering killings from 2013 to the present, reinforces federal statistics in one broad respect: In police homicides in which the victim's race is identified, African-Americans account for about three in 10 deaths, and whites roughly half.

    "Blacks are three times as likely to be killed by cops as are whites, on a per-capita basis," said Dr. Moskos of John Jay. But part of that is because of crime in predominantly black neighborhoods.

    "Blacks are four or five times as likely to be victims of homicides, and they are five times as likely to feloniously kill a cop," he said.

    The data (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 02, 2015 at 10:40:42 AM EST
    is too incomplete, drawn from a motley assortment of sources, much of it has to be looked at with a certain degree of skepticism, and the agenda of those reporting statistics must be considered.

    Having said that, the report is interesting, and, at least, it's a start.

    What's also interesting, in a not-so funny sort of way, is a pattern I noticed in researching data & statistics regarding Law Enforcement activities in general. There is, also, a real dearth of data bases about anything Law Enforcement related, much as there is a (NRA influenced,IMO) scarcity of information & statistics regarding gun related violence, including deaths, in the U.S.


    Absolutely (none / 0) (#48)
    by Redbrow on Fri May 01, 2015 at 01:32:28 PM EST
    And doubly so for rifles and shotguns which are used for a third of as many homocide as knives according to FBI stats.

    I had to look that one up, (none / 0) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 01, 2015 at 01:43:29 PM EST
    you are correct sir.

    Might be why long ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Yman on Fri May 01, 2015 at 02:51:24 PM EST
    ... guns are not actually banned.

    Re: those numbers, from 2007-11 there were 1,817 homicides with knives or other cutting instruments (not switchblades) as compared to 910 with rifles and shotguns (not "a third"), which numbers do not include 1,705 guns that were not identified.

    Now if we want to talk about handguns  (7,395) ...


    I was using their 2012 FBI expanded table (none / 0) (#90)
    by Redbrow on Fri May 01, 2015 at 06:55:39 PM EST
    The most recent they have posted by specific categories.

    Roughly a third. Definitely way under half.

    I would link but it crashes my iPad when I try to use the method preferred here.


    Missed the point (none / 0) (#94)
    by Yman on Fri May 01, 2015 at 08:51:18 PM EST
    SUO was saying he didn't see a need for laws banning switchblades.  You said "doubly so for rifles and shotguns."  But long guns aren't banned, and those stats are for all knives and sharp instruments, not just switchblades, which is a tiny subset.

    As a Baltimore resident... (none / 0) (#165)
    by honora on Sat May 02, 2015 at 02:09:14 PM EST
    I like the fact that the person robbing or raping me isn't allowed to carry a switchblade, leaves me with more blood.  As long as the law is on the books and I am leaving my switchblade at home, it evens the playing field if the police enforce the law.  

    How do police (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 02, 2015 at 04:54:02 PM EST
    ...identify people carrying these "illegal" weapons that frighten you so terribly?

    Do you believe a crooked officer might be in a position to plant such a knife on a suspect?

    Why do you believe there were so few prosecutions of police for brutality before everyone had a video camera in their pocket?


    Not allowed (none / 0) (#187)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat May 02, 2015 at 06:23:36 PM EST
    Is not the same as not having. Rapists are way past being concerned by a knife charge.  OTOH, a rapist will be very happy the target of the rape has no weapons at hand.

    I watched the press conference (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by sj on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:08:47 PM EST
    and unexpectedly felt like crying. I know the McBains of the world would prefer that investigators drag their feet and dissemble and shuffle and mumble, but it was moving to see this treated as it should be: as if police officers were also civilians and subject to the same laws.

    Can you cite examples of civillians (2.75 / 4) (#52)
    by Redbrow on Fri May 01, 2015 at 01:51:42 PM EST
    Being charged with second degree mirder for failure to us a seatbelt and the time frame involved in their arrest and charging?

    It's not failure to use a seatbelt (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by CST on Fri May 01, 2015 at 01:53:16 PM EST
    when you are handcuffed and incapable of doing it yourself.

    Tie someone's hands behind them, tie their ankles. (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by woodchuck64 on Fri May 01, 2015 at 04:07:20 PM EST
    Now perch them on a small bench surrounded by hard unyielding metal bolts and surfaces.  Shake bench violently.  There's your second-degree murder.

    Is this true or speculation? (none / 0) (#195)
    by JanaM on Sat May 02, 2015 at 08:12:59 PM EST
    I missed this.  When was it revealed that Mr. Gray was placed on a bench? When was it revealed that said bench was violently shaken?

    I was under the impression he was placed on the floor of the van.


    Oh, I'm sorry (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 02, 2015 at 08:19:22 PM EST
    "placed" of the floor of the van on his face shackled and handcuffed.  That does sound much better.

    So (none / 0) (#196)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 02, 2015 at 08:17:07 PM EST
    you point is if he was thrown  into a van on his face shackled and handcuffed So that on a quick stop he would smash his head on whatever was I front of him THATS ok?

    Help us out here.


    To imagine a civilian analogy (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by Peter G on Fri May 01, 2015 at 10:36:13 PM EST
    you would have to posit a driver of the car, and then we need a passenger who is either incapable of fastening their own seat belt, or incapable of deciding whether to fasten the seat belt.  Imagine, say, a 3-year-old passenger, or a grown passenger with an IQ of, say, 55 or 60.  Then suppose the driver deliberately fails to fasten the passenger's seat belt, does fasten his/her own, and then drives wildly for the purpose of "punishing" the passenger for some imagined infraction by deliberately terrorizing and probably injuring the passenger.  And by some terrible misfortune that helpless passenger is in fact fatally injured as a result of that ride. Ok, now we have a civilian analogy and can get to your question.  The answer?  Yes, that driver could certainly face a charge of second degree murder.

    The only thing (4.00 / 8) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 01, 2015 at 03:36:49 PM EST
    dumber than your ratings is your comments.

    Good Job... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by ScottW714 on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:18:01 PM EST
    ...either way of not waiting around.  I think a lot of people believed this was going to go the way of Ferguson yesterday when the cops, who said they would release the report, didn't.

    We have no idea what is in the report, all we know is a guy did nothing wrong, got arrested, and died with a severe spinal injury while in police custody.  

    There is no way to evaluate the actual charges at this point.  But the quick turn around was good for the city IMO.

    Doing this from my phone, so bear (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Anne on Fri May 01, 2015 at 05:18:25 PM EST
    with me...

    Stephanie Rawlings-Blake:

    "We know that the vast majority of the men and the women in the Baltimore Police Department serve our city with pride, with courage, with honor and with distinction, but to those of you who wish to engage in brutality, misconduct, racism and corruption, let me be clear: There is no place in the Baltimore City Police Department for you."

    (From wbaltv.com, which you can live stream for local coverage)

    From tonight's broadcast, my transcription of a portion of Jayne Miller's report:

    They will be processed and booked at Central Booking.  What happens next is that this case will likely be presented to a grand jury in Baltimore- that's the very typical course that criminal cases in Baltimore take - they get charged through a charging document, which is what happened today, and then they move on to a grand jury, and if there's an indictment, then the case will move to the Circuit Court, and the officers will appear in Circuit Court to be arraigned."

    Hope that enlightens some of you who had questions about the process.  It should be noted that the charges could be modified or changed by a grand jury.

    This isn't over, not even close.

    Bail being set for these officers: (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Anne on Fri May 01, 2015 at 05:32:31 PM EST
    Lowest I've heard is $250,000; several set at $350,000.

    Edward Nero: $250,000
    Caesar Goodson: $350,000
    William Porter: $350,000
    Brian Rice: $350,000

    Two more yet to be announced.

    Interesting that one of the rioters had bail set at $500,000.  Yes, half a million for a rioter, $350,000 for someone whose actions may have contributed to someone's death.

    I'm sure they will not have a problem making bail.  Last place a cop wants to be is jail.

    I think I reliably heard (none / 0) (#92)
    by Palli on Fri May 01, 2015 at 07:11:13 PM EST
    Goodson's bond has been reduced again $100,000.

    Not sure who your source is, but his or her (none / 0) (#106)
    by Anne on Fri May 01, 2015 at 10:30:27 PM EST
    information does not appear to be correct.

    All six police officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray were released from the Central Booking and Intake Center downtown Friday night after posting bail, court records show.

    The four officers facing felony charges posted $350,000 bails; the two facing misdemeanors posted $250,000 bails.

    Consider, also, that Goodson faces the most serious charges; it simply makes no sense that his bail would be reduced.


    Thanks Anne, forgot to correct this earlier. (none / 0) (#109)
    by Palli on Fri May 01, 2015 at 11:08:35 PM EST
    He did pay the $350. Should have changed it, but for a minute there it wasn't all that unbelievable considering $600,000 bond against a kid breaking a window; demonstrators still in jail; no perp walks for the cops and released already; city-wide curfew that isn't city-wide; and, not forgetting the police kidnapping that caused Mr. Grey's death..

    Not too much sense going on tonight in Baltimore LE either-vengeful public police tantrum against demonstrators and the press. Hope there are no demonstrators hurt because without doubt they were peaceful. LE malfeasance & failure of your Mayor's imagination or will or power.


    What do you mean by 'citywide curfew that (none / 0) (#163)
    by honora on Sat May 02, 2015 at 01:44:06 PM EST
    isn't city-wide."  I was on twitter the other night and a person was claiming that 'white areas' were having parties and there was not curfew there. Everybody responding that that was what it was always like... Total bullshit.  I actually live here in Baltimore, under curfew,  in a 'white area'.  Not a creature is stirring, not even a mouse by about 9:30... Then have to discus with my 18 year old son trying to enjoy the last weeks of high school, why he is home on a Friday night and people can stand in front of police and national guard troops mocking the curfew and not be arrested.



    purpose of bail (none / 0) (#174)
    by thomas rogan on Sat May 02, 2015 at 03:38:53 PM EST
    Bail amount is to ensure return of the accused to trial.  A cop accused of murder with many local ties could quite conceivably have lower bail than a rioter with no local ties.  Bail isn't meant to punish.  That happens when you're sentenced if you're convicted.

    ACLU Smartphone App Auto-Streams to cloud (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Mr Natural on Fri May 01, 2015 at 06:33:22 PM EST
    The ACLU in California today released a free smart-phone app that allows people to send cellphone videos of police encounters to the ACLU, automatically--and the ACLU will preserve the video footage, even if the cops seize the phone and delete the video or destroy the phone. The app, "Mobile Justice CA," works for both iPhones and Android users. It's available at Apple's App Store and at Google Play.

    The app features a large red "Record" button in the middle of the screen. When it's pressed, the video is recorded on the phone and a duplicate copy is transmitted simultaneously to the ACLU server.

    Where have I been ... my husband asked me (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by christinep on Fri May 01, 2015 at 07:07:58 PM EST
    After watching excerpts from the announcement of charges, as made by Marilyn Mosby today, I exclaimed to husband how impressive, refreshing, and--yes--courageous Ms. Mosby seemed. He asked where my mind had been not to have noticed much earlier.  In the interim, after reading about her biography, I find that initial reaction strengthened.  She is coming from a uniquely strong position in terms of the personal law enforcement background that is her family as well as in terms of her balanced presentation.  In so many positive ways, this prosecutor is someone to watch in the best sense of the term.

    She's a newby compared to Detroit D.A. (none / 0) (#123)
    by Mr Natural on Sat May 02, 2015 at 07:55:09 AM EST
    Alan Dershowitiz rips charges against cops (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by McBain on Fri May 01, 2015 at 08:48:26 PM EST

    "this is a very sad day for justice"

    "no plausible, hypothetical, conceivable case for murder"

    "this is a show trial."

    This has that Angela Corey feel to it.

    Dershowitz and NEWSMAX (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 01, 2015 at 08:51:23 PM EST

    I guess no one else would point a camera at him.


    Well, he said similar things about the Zimmerman (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by McBain on Sat May 02, 2015 at 01:21:01 AM EST
    charges.  He ended up looking pretty good on that one.  This case has a similar feel to it.  

    Actually, he didn't (none / 0) (#132)
    by Yman on Sat May 02, 2015 at 09:17:15 AM EST
    A "not guilty" verdict is just that - evidence that the prosecution did not prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Maybe he should do some reading (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 01, 2015 at 09:02:38 PM EST
    Sometimes it's called "depraved-indifference murder," which means the same thing. Either way, it's how courts in some states talk about the actions of a defendant who demonstrated "callous disregard for human life" that ultimately killed someone. Most states  -- including Maryland, where Freddie Gray was killed -- consider killing someone in this way a form of second-degree murder.

    "The person must show some sort of viciousness or contempt for human life. It is greater than 'negligence' where a person should have been aware of the risk, but failed to see it. The person actually created the risk of harm," Tod W. Burke, Radford University's associate dean and professor of criminal justice, explained in an email to Vox. "With a 'depraved heart' it must be shown that the person committed the homicide 'wantonly.'"

    The driver created the risk.  And he ignored it.


    And your post has the feel of ... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 01, 2015 at 09:42:21 PM EST
    McBain: "This has that Angela Corey feel to it."

    ... LINK.


    the continuing (4.00 / 3) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:23:54 PM EST
     ramp up of police and military prescience suggests they were also expecting a whitewash.  The only thing in the streets tonight will be celebration.

    I'll keep you posted - my office (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Anne on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:43:02 PM EST
    made the decision to close at 2:00, in advance of what are anticipated to be massive demonstrations.  Now that we know that charges are being brought, it may, in fact, be a happier gathering than was expected, but it still makes sense for people who work down here to be able to get out of the city before it becomes gridlock.

    Also, it bears remembering that a lot of happy people in a large crowd can wreak all kinds of havoc just as much as unhappy people can, but here's hoping that won't be the case today/tonight/this weekend!


    Or Join the celebration. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Palli on Fri May 01, 2015 at 01:31:43 PM EST
    I'm thinkin (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 01, 2015 at 03:34:08 PM EST
    it won't

    Enjoy the afternoon, Anne, ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 01, 2015 at 04:04:35 PM EST
    ... even though I wish that your half-day off was due to less auspicious circumstances. And thank you again for keeping us abreast of events in Baltimore.

    Some of us live in the city (none / 0) (#164)
    by honora on Sat May 02, 2015 at 01:49:46 PM EST
    Unlike you, we don't 'escape' it after work.

    It isn't a matter of "escaping," it's a (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Anne on Sat May 02, 2015 at 02:55:44 PM EST
    matter of just being able to get home, which seems like a pretty normal and usual thing for people to be able to do.  Not everyone drives into the city -  people who take public transportation have to walk to the light rail or bus stop, have to retrieve their cars from the park-and-ride or walk home, and between the crowds expected to be on hand, and not knowing whether more streets would be closed or public transportation stopped, it was just a matter of common sense to give people the option to go.

    You say you live in the city - do you work there, too?  The people I work with weren't fearful of being at work, they just had a lot of uncertainty about getting here and getting home.  Is that wrong?  

    As a city resident, you know quite well that while there has been relative calm throughout most of the city, that calm has had a tenuous feel to it.  I'll be the first to admit that, no, I don't live with that kind of unpredictability every day, and in a way, I'm glad people have been able to feel that just a little, and for those on the outside to get some appreciation of the kinds of stresses people live with on a daily basis.

    I don't really understand why the snide response was necessary.  As it is, I've spent days putting information in here to counter some of the godawful reporting done by the national media, as well as a lot of talking-out-the-a$$ by people who think they know what's going on.

    Really, I just wanted people to understand what was happening in the wake of the announcement; sorry it hit some kind of nerve for you.


    Medical Assistance & Inferences (4.00 / 3) (#204)
    by JanaM on Sat May 02, 2015 at 09:35:18 PM EST
    "You more than just suggest that because other prisoners lied about medical conditions, it was okay for these cops to ignore THIS guy asking for medical assistance.
    Just so I understand your theory, if a prisoner's pleading for medical assistance is not worthy of a response, how should a prisoner indicate to the officers that he is mortally injured?

    Other than by dying, which does not seem to be beneficial for the prisoner. "

    I am not suggesting that prisoners be ignored. Perhaps you should reread what I wrote. I am saying that it is not uncommon for prisoners to make unnecessary requests for medical assistance and because of this the police need to look to additional factors to determine if it IS required immediately or not. Does someone look like they can't breathe? Is someone going in and out of consciousness? Does someone have an obvious serious wound?  Do they seem confused? There are any number of factors to consider.

    We just don't know yet what medical condition Mr. Gray suffered. We don't know when that occurred.  Was it en route to the station. Was it not until the van got to the station? Or  did the condition arise when Mr. Gray  was at the hospital. We not only don't know when the conditon or injury occurred, we also don't know when it was first recognized or by whom. These are all essential questions that need to be answered.

    As I noted above, of course there are medical emergencies and situations that are evident beyond a request for medical assistance. So far we haven't seen evidence such a situation was apparent until they got to the station. Perhaps evidence will come to light that a medical emergency was obvious but I haven't seen it yet.

    You insist that such a determination should be made based solely on a "prisoner's pleading" but that isn't always the determining factor.  Sorry but that is reality.  You assume, but we don't have evidence yet, that the police ignored his requests.  I'm not even sure we know exactly what Mr. Gray was requesting.  

    You also assume that Mr. Gray was mortally wounded when he was requesting what we are assuming was medical assistance (as opposed to asking that his handcuffs be removed or to get him out of there - not uncommon request by arrestees).

    You make assumptions based on the fact that Mr. Gray died a week later. I doubt very much that anyone including Mr. Gray thought he was mortally wounded at the time. You cannot take an end result and go back in time to assume knowledge of the seriousness of the situation.

    When we have more evidence perhaps we will be in a place where we can make reasonable allowable inferences but we aren't there yet.

    Overcharged to prevent weekend riots? (3.71 / 7) (#1)
    by McBain on Fri May 01, 2015 at 11:28:21 AM EST
    We still don't have most of the facts but I think it's going to be difficult to prove murder against a cop.  

    I Think You Meant to Write... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:01:03 PM EST
    Overcharged Because I(you) Disagree ?

    Proving it isn't the problem, the guy is dead from whatever they did, clearly.  Convincing a jury is an entirely different beast.


    McBain should have been referring (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Palli on Fri May 01, 2015 at 01:25:52 PM EST
    to the overcharging or failing to charge (imprisoning without charges for periods longer than 24 hours) or setting excessive bail for arrested and detained demonstrators that was the police process since Monday. We know he wasn't though.

    The 3:00 PM Monday LE crackdown was a stupid & costly strategy to deflect from the emerging truth the Baltimore State Attorney Mosby office was finding.


    Not in this case (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by woodchuck64 on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:56:35 PM EST
    Handcuffing and leg shackling means any kind of fall could be deadly because it is probably your head and neck that will hit first.  Deliberately not using a seatbelt in a moving vehicle seems like read intent to severely injure.  Hard to see it any other way.

    seatbelt (1.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat May 02, 2015 at 08:07:34 AM EST
    Deliberately not using a seatbelt in a moving vehicle seems like read intent to severely injure.  Hard to see it any other way.

    Is that your intent when you choose not to buckle your seatbelt???

    Is that parents' intent when they put their children on buses that have no seatbelts???

    The reason that seatbelts are not used is because when leaning over to put them on the police officers were often bitten by the arrestee or spat upon.

    And if the seatbelts are not put on tight enough then arrestees can slide down and choke themselves with it.


    Uncle Chip (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Palli on Sat May 02, 2015 at 02:18:59 PM EST
    It is my intent when I buckle the seat belt of my neighbor's child.
    I am responsible for the welfare of that person, a passenger in my car.   Surely the police are equally responsible for the welfare of a citizen -arrested or not-in their van.

    No seat belts on school buses-aye any bus- is a real problem and my parent's before me fought for them. But people management  rules the day and the danger remains.

    I echo Anne's curiosity: How were you persuaded to the law & order side in the death of Freddie Gray, a man arrested and killed for having a legal pocket knife in his pocket that, in fact, the cops did not even find until they had run him down and arrested him.


    Because (2.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat May 02, 2015 at 03:04:38 PM EST
    I follow the evidence -- not the politics.

    The minute one side begins to dissemble, I begin to question their story.

    And now there is an expose brewing across the internet regarding Jayne Miller's story of Donta Allen as the alleged other van rider.

    It appears that he was not the other guy in the van as he was not in the van at all.

    Anne posted that Jayne Miller/Donta Allen story.

    Ask her if she still stands by it.


    Where is your link to this expose? (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Anne on Sat May 02, 2015 at 03:43:50 PM EST
    Let's see it, buddy, and while you're at it, why don't you ask CNN and the other media outlets that interviewed Allen if they are standing behind their reports?

    No one's dissembling, Chip, and please don't ever make me laugh again by presenting yourself as someone who "follows the evidence;" you've shown repeatedly that you are about little more than rumor, speculation and innuendo, all wrapped up in a confrontational attitude.


    "Expose brewing across the internet"! (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Yman on Sat May 02, 2015 at 03:58:01 PM EST
    No way!

    It's always hard (4.50 / 6) (#16)
    by Yman on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:06:57 PM EST
    ... to prove the things with facts and evidence, as opposed to making specious allegations in the form of "questions", i.e. "overcharged to prevent weekend riots?"

    What is with this constant use of "we" (4.40 / 5) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Fri May 01, 2015 at 11:35:50 AM EST
    You mean "you" don't have most the facts. Obviously there are people that do.

    The DA has the facts (4.00 / 3) (#2)
    by CST on Fri May 01, 2015 at 11:32:51 AM EST
    And clearly disagreed with you.

    Maybe, maybe not (1.50 / 2) (#58)
    by McBain on Fri May 01, 2015 at 02:02:18 PM EST
    She's was in a no win situation.  Any decision she made was going to be controversial.

    Prosecutors overcharge all the time. She might not think a murder conviction is likely.


    Sorry, she deliberately set the stage for Justice (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Palli on Fri May 01, 2015 at 02:16:17 PM EST
    In the words of esteemed lawyer in Jurisprudence and Civil Rights history,  A. Dwight Pettit:

    "What Mosby has done today is attach criminality to illegal police conduct."

    This is huge!


    But They Don't Over Charge... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by ScottW714 on Fri May 01, 2015 at 03:10:14 PM EST
    ...to prevent riots, which is what you wrote.

    And you have absolutely no idea what might be thinking, I guess it never occurred to you that maybe she is just doing her job.

    She will win if she does the job she was elected to do which is to prosecute people she believed committed a crime.


    It has been ruled a homicide (4.00 / 3) (#6)
    by sj on Fri May 01, 2015 at 11:43:53 AM EST
    get over it. Your sycophancy to the police will just have to be offended.

    It is important to remember that (5.00 / 11) (#28)
    by Peter G on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:33:13 PM EST
    "ruled a homicide" by the coroner, and "alleged to be a criminal homicide" by the DA, are two totally different things, although commonly and understandably confused with one another.  When a coroner or medical examiner says a death is a "homicide," s/he only means that the death resulted from the actions of another person, rather than from disease, old age, accident or suicide. It implies no judgment at all about whether the "homicide" was perpetrated with criminal intent, or was justified, excused, or otherwise non-punishable. (By explaining this, I am not expressing any opinion on the Gray case, nor indicating whether I do or do not have an opinion.)

    Regular commenters here should have (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by oculus on Fri May 01, 2015 at 04:56:49 PM EST
    absorbed this distinction by now. Thank you.

    LOL (1.00 / 3) (#88)
    by sj on Fri May 01, 2015 at 06:50:50 PM EST
    Is that your idea of an insult? I can practically hear you sniffing.

    You should take care of those sinuses.


    What a tiresome comment (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 01, 2015 at 09:27:11 PM EST
    As I recall during the Zimmerman case, some legal players went to great length explaining to the rest that a coroner pronouncing a death a homicide does not come with charges.  A coroner deeming a death a homicide does not equal a murder, it doesn't even equal any kind of negligence on another person's part.

    Not all of us could stomach those discussions (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by nycstray on Fri May 01, 2015 at 09:33:07 PM EST
    so we skipped the many, many, MANY comments and missed some of this 'educating'. I, for one, appreciate Peter's post, not being a legal scholar and all . . .

    Makes two of us (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 01, 2015 at 09:38:56 PM EST
    at least.

    I appreciate Peter's post too (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 01, 2015 at 10:02:27 PM EST
    And I'm absolutely positive oculus thanked him.  It's sj's post I don't appreciate.

    She could have left off the first sentence then (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by nycstray on Fri May 01, 2015 at 10:22:03 PM EST
    imo. A simple thank you without the slight to 'regular commenters' would have worked, if her intent was to thank him . . .

    My intent was to thank him (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by oculus on Fri May 01, 2015 at 11:58:31 PM EST
    and note this was not really an open question. It's what is often termed "black letter law."

    Funny, when I read your comment, (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Anne on Sat May 02, 2015 at 09:56:05 AM EST
    what I got was a swipe at regular commenters and then a "thank you" that I did not take as being directed at Peter, but as if you were thanking in advance others (i.e., all of us who had been paying attention and retained that nugget of information) whom you anticipated would agree with your observation.

    The perils and pitfalls of the written word, eh?


    An anonymous, but usually reliable (none / 0) (#152)
    by oculus on Sat May 02, 2015 at 11:20:38 AM EST
    source, informs me that TV fans are used to hearing "HOMICIDE!" as a synonym for "murder."  This explains a lot!

    could you be a bit more (3.67 / 3) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 02, 2015 at 12:32:26 PM EST
    Condescending?  We are not that good with nuance.

    "Black letter law" (none / 0) (#127)
    by Mr Natural on Sat May 02, 2015 at 08:24:17 AM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#137)
    by nycstray on Sat May 02, 2015 at 09:56:01 AM EST
    So, no kudos for anyone (none / 0) (#112)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 02, 2015 at 12:02:19 AM EST
    Who is not a lawyer and hanging around a legal blog and actually learning something.  Fine, gotcha....

    All nubes, stay nubes...aspire not to greater legal understanding eating up the bandwidth on a law blog.


    What? (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by nycstray on Sat May 02, 2015 at 02:15:14 AM EST
    Don't know how you came up with that. . .

    Really? (none / 0) (#120)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 02, 2015 at 06:20:44 AM EST
    Whatever (none / 0) (#118)
    by sj on Sat May 02, 2015 at 03:12:23 AM EST
    I didn't appreciate oculus' comment. Yours either, for that matter. And my appreciation (or lack thereof) is worth just as much as yours.



    Speaking of tiresome (none / 0) (#117)
    by sj on Sat May 02, 2015 at 03:08:08 AM EST
    That would be the Zimmerman case. I was never interested in those posts at all. I am not alone in those feelings which is why Jeralyn considerately made a great effort to keep it out of open threads.

    I thought the Zimmerman Case Was Interesting (2.00 / 1) (#131)
    by NycNate on Sat May 02, 2015 at 09:16:57 AM EST
    Why did you dislike that case so much?  

    From a legal matter, I think people relatively new to law learned a lot.  I guess it is standard fare for people working in law.  But the Zimmerman Case was more exciting than the OJ case.  That case was full of boring science.  I was too young to  understand how it broke down on racial lines.  Not so for me with the Zimmerman case.  Just my .02c


    Oh, I don't know. (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 02, 2015 at 11:52:45 AM EST
    NycNate: "Why did you dislike [the Zimmerman] case so much?"

    Perhaps it's because that case brought out the absolute worst in people like you who, rather than look at the matter dispassionately, chose instead to take sides.


    I actually learned a lot (none / 0) (#181)
    by NycNate on Sat May 02, 2015 at 05:14:42 PM EST
    About the Stand Your Ground Law. I had never heard of it. I didn't know Trayvon. Felt sorry for him.  Ditto for Zimmerman. Both of their lives were drastically changed. That was the extent of my passion. Or lack thereof.

    Thanks for that clarification (none / 0) (#39)
    by sj on Fri May 01, 2015 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    Do you disagree? (none / 0) (#55)
    by McBain on Fri May 01, 2015 at 01:57:08 PM EST
    Do you think it will be easy to prove murder?  

    I think the fact that it's a cop (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by CST on Fri May 01, 2015 at 02:00:35 PM EST
    Will matter a lot less than it would've even a year ago.

    Especially if the defense can't move the case.


    Do You Think It is Reasonable to Move Trial? (2.00 / 1) (#134)
    by NycNate on Sat May 02, 2015 at 09:20:00 AM EST
    How usual is that?  What are the odds?  Does that affect appeal if yes/no?

    Take your BS "questions" (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by sj on Fri May 01, 2015 at 02:48:30 PM EST
    to someone who still believes you care about the response.

    Shorter McBain: (3.67 / 3) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 01, 2015 at 04:08:39 PM EST
    {head desk} (none / 0) (#4)
    by nycstray on Fri May 01, 2015 at 11:38:16 AM EST
    Seriously (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:04:29 PM EST
    PREDICTION: (3.50 / 2) (#60)
    by Payaso on Fri May 01, 2015 at 02:37:37 PM EST
    The people who are celebrating the indictment today won't be celebrating when the verdicts are delivered.

    Whatever. (3.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 01, 2015 at 04:19:13 PM EST
    That's the safe bet (none / 0) (#108)
    by McBain on Fri May 01, 2015 at 10:51:24 PM EST
    Charges against police are always difficult (none / 0) (#133)
    by Yman on Sat May 02, 2015 at 09:19:07 AM EST
    That being said, your prediction (as well as what you're inferring) is ridiculous.

    Confusing Standards & Assumptions (3.50 / 2) (#205)
    by JanaM on Sat May 02, 2015 at 10:40:37 PM EST
    People are confusing what is necessary to stop a suspect with grounds to arrest a suspect with grounds to formally charge and prosecute a suspect.

    Further, what is written in a police report is rarely the whole story. I wish it were but it's not. During pretrial motions hearings the police often - and more often now than back in the day - deliberately omit many facts or circumstances of the arrest and even the offense from their reports. I suspect they do it to sandbag the defense at suppression hearings or at trial  or for other more mundane purposes.

    Just cause it's not in the police report doesn't mean it didn't happen - judges know that, juries will believe it and even I know it's true no matter how much I argue the opposite. The police will testify about things not in the report when they take the stand and sometimes he or she is telling the truth and sometimes they're not. At least that's my belief and my experience.

    As I said, the police often do not record what reasons they had for detaining a suspect especially if they did not come up with proof of their suspicions. The lack of drugs or money on Mr. Gray does not competely negate the fact that the police may have had a legitimate reasonable articulable suspicion that he was involved in a crime. With those grounds they had a right to detain Mr. Gray and probably gotten away with a search of his person - though I could find a lot to argue they didn't.  During what was arguably a legal search of his person, including pockets, they found a knife.

    Whether in the end the knife proved legal does not necessarily negate the arrest. Maryland knife and weapons statutes are not so simple that police don't regularly make mistakes. There are other knives that are illegal besides switchblades. Cops  are not lawyers and that is why a lawyer in the form of a prosecutor has to review every arrest charge before a case is formally charged and goes any further to arraignment or presentment.  Cases are "no papered" all the time (i.e., dismissed before it ever gets to an initial court hearing). Sometimes they are no papered because no crime was committed and sometimes they are no papered for other reasons unrelated to innocence.  

    Judge Alex doesn't see support for murder charge (3.00 / 3) (#143)
    by McBain on Sat May 02, 2015 at 10:17:02 AM EST

    "No strong argument for murder"

    Some people are saying SA Mosby must have something on these cops she hasn't told us yet.  Alex says if that's the case, why would she withhold it?

    We heard the "must  have something" line before....
    Duke Lacrosse

    Perhaps this SA does actually have an angle she's playing.... a witness we don't know about or video footage of a "rough ride".  Right now, I'm skeptical.

    Innocent until proven guilty.

    Do you honestly think (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 02, 2015 at 10:23:54 AM EST
    anyone here, besides chip possibly, has any interest whatsoever in your ridiculous right wing talking points.
    Really.  Are you really that clueless or is it just to be annoying.
    I vote B.
    And I'll give you this, it's working.  Your wide eyed "just asking questions" BS combined with your endless links to FOX and NEWSMAX and your breathless fanboy worship of the likes of Hannity have put you in a position to the all time troll crown from its current home.

    I have actually tried once or twice to engage you in a reasonable way.  


    Then don't read my posts Howdy (2.00 / 1) (#145)
    by McBain on Sat May 02, 2015 at 10:34:39 AM EST
    No one is forcing you.  There are people on here who I ignore. It's not that difficult.

    I read and link to various sources.  Far more from CNN than Fox.  It's good to get a different perspective now and then.  


    I think I will respond to them (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 02, 2015 at 10:41:55 AM EST
    instead of ignoring them.  Thank you.

    Given that neither "Judge Alex" nor (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Anne on Sat May 02, 2015 at 10:46:38 AM EST
    any of the other so-called "experts" for whom camera time is as much about shameless self-promotion than anything else have actually seen either the report from the police department or the prosecutor's work product or the medical examiner's report, I don't think their opinions are worth a whole lot.

    That being said, I think it's worth noting that this entire case is going to go before a grand jury, and it's entirely possible that the charges brought could be reduced or changed.

    I also think that your clearly wanting what happened to not rise to the level of the charges brought does not mean that the information in the hands of police and prosecutors doesn't support them.

    Law enforcement has to be held accountable, not put on some kind of pedestal and treated as if anything they do is just fine and dandy and the only way to maintain law and order.  I suppose authoritarianism has its appeal for some, but I am not one of those people.


    I have a feeling (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 02, 2015 at 10:52:58 AM EST
    that even if the charges are not reduced the "prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich" meme is waiting in the wings.

    Anything to report from last night?  I tried to watch the coverage for a while but I couldn't take it.  Hannity radiance and Don Lemons editorializing eventually wore me out.  It looked like thing we're getting dicy for a while before I gave up.


    I wan appropriate charges (none / 0) (#153)
    by McBain on Sat May 02, 2015 at 11:29:27 AM EST
    based on facts and law, not charges based on politics or crowd control.

    Right now I'm skeptical of the murder charge. I'm also skeptical of Space Ghost "Mike" saying they did nothing wrong.


    Based upon comments you've made (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by christinep on Sat May 02, 2015 at 12:08:32 PM EST
    on similar matters over the months, I'd say your declared skepticism was predictable.  At this point, the individual in one of the best (if not best) positions to appreciate the "facts and law" in the Baltimore instance is state's attorney Marilyn Mosby. I think that we would all agree that you are not in a position to be apprised of the facts that she and her office rightfully possess. It may be appropriate for you to rein in and/or hold back on a pronouncement about what the "facts and law" show ... lest you tip your hand too soon.

    I'll call them like I see them (2.00 / 2) (#162)
    by McBain on Sat May 02, 2015 at 01:29:46 PM EST
    This one looks political.  I feel like I've seen this show before.  

    The (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 02, 2015 at 02:15:10 PM EST
     timing, level and scope of charges are probably at least partly political. However the basic facts show that a crime was committed. This is has been declared a homicide, undeniably perpetrated by the police with no apparent       mitigating factors. It would take quite a bit of mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that no crime occurred.

    Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 02, 2015 at 05:28:00 PM EST
    he just pulled it right out of his butt.  No gymnastics required.

    Where did I say the police didn't committ a crime? (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by McBain on Sat May 02, 2015 at 06:20:33 PM EST
    Or that they didn't do anything wrong?   My points are these...

    The charges look political
    There's been a rush to judgement by a lot of people, especially in TL
    The murder charge is going to be difficult to prove
    These 6 officers are innocent until proven guilty

    Do you disagree with any of that?


    Could you elaborate? (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 02, 2015 at 04:44:33 PM EST
    What is it that you find "political?"

    No one disputes that Mr. Gray is deceased.

    He had not committed a crime, but was taken into custody anyway.

    While in the custody of police, handcuffed and in leg irons that prevented him from protecting himself, he was fatally injured.

    Although the BPD requires officers to place seat belts on prisoners being transported, the officers transporting Mr. Gray did not follow this required procedure.

    The police did not call for medical aid for over half an hour after Mr. Gray's injuries occurred.

    Which of those is a "political" statement?


    Is there an explanation for why (none / 0) (#179)
    by oculus on Sat May 02, 2015 at 05:08:39 PM EST
    Mr. Gray was placed in leg irons?  Highly unusual,  or maybe not in this jurisdiction.

    I'm talking about the actions of the SA and (none / 0) (#180)
    by McBain on Sat May 02, 2015 at 05:12:37 PM EST
    the Mayor.  Both are elected officials.

    "He had not committed a crime, but was taken into custody anyway."

    That's speculation.  Reminds me of what people said about Trayvon Martin.    


    It is not speculation (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 02, 2015 at 05:16:34 PM EST
    or is your point that since he was black a crime is assumed in spite of the fact that no one is really contradicting this fact.

    Except your favorite news outlets probably.


    Neither one of us knows if he committed a crime (1.00 / 2) (#184)
    by McBain on Sat May 02, 2015 at 06:13:37 PM EST
    Apparently, he ran from the police.  Apparently, he had long a long rap sheet of drug related offenses... looks like he was a drug dealer.

    He may very well have been doing something illegal.  Which is why I responded to Repack Rider's post.  


    We KNOW that on April 12, 2015 (5.00 / 5) (#189)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 02, 2015 at 07:38:55 PM EST
    Freddie Gray was not arrested for selling drugs. The charging document does not state that he was seen selling drugs nor does it state that they found drugs on his body. He was arrested for possession of a switchblade. According to the charging documents:

    BALTIMORE, Maryland - Freddie Gray, the 25-year-old black man who died of a severe spinal injury a week after being taken into police custody, was detained for the alleged possession of a switchblade, according to a charging document obtained by msnbc.

    It turns out that even that was not a valid reason for arresting Freddie Gray because the knife in question was legal under Maryland laws.

    According to existing laws, figments of McBain's imagination are not sufficient grounds for making an arrest.


    I know that Marilyn Mosby (none / 0) (#186)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 02, 2015 at 06:22:39 PM EST
    Concluded after an investigation into the events surrounding his death concluded he committed no crime.  
    Unless you have some secret information only people with NEWSMAX decoder rings have access to and are willing to disclose it you should really just stop the nasty dog whistle bullsh!t and stop talking about things about which you are clueless.

    Speculation? (5.00 / 5) (#188)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 02, 2015 at 06:27:07 PM EST
    RR:  "He had not committed a crime, but was taken into custody anyway."

    That's speculation.  Reminds me of what people said about Trayvon Martin.    

    The reason "they said" that Trayvon had not committed a crime, was because he had not committed a crime.  Is that wild or what?

    What was Freddie arrested for?  Running?  If that's a crime, you could arrest a lot of white people in Central Park.  A knife?  How did they know it was there?  Was it in the officer's pocket when the chase started and in Freddie's after it was over?

    Would you suggest that there is a legal difference between "running while white" and "running while Black" that constitutes probable cause?  Or maybe you believe "running after giving LEO the stinkeye" violates some obscure stature.

    What crime do you believe Mr. Gray had committed that required police to beat the crap out of a guy described as slight in stature?  How much of a fight could one small man put up against officers carrying tasers and clubs?


    Seatbelts save lives (2.20 / 5) (#7)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri May 01, 2015 at 11:46:17 AM EST
    Mosby made no reference to anything causing Freddie's death other than the 6 officers' failure to put his seat belt on -- no beatings, no blows, no rough ride, not even the backdoor of the van that was previously reported as having struck his head.

    So all you people in Baltimore, make sure to put your seat belts on or you might be charged with attempted 2nd degree murder.

    Well if the Point... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by ScottW714 on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:07:04 PM EST
    ...is to drive erratically so the handcuffed prisoner is throw around, then yes.

    Had you read Anne's link from yesterday which stated that this was a common practice, you might not be so flippant with your remarks.

    Also seems like the criticisms you had in regards to Ferguson are now your talking points for Baltimore.  Which was, more or less, people making wild claims without any proof.


    maybe this will help you understand (4.00 / 3) (#9)
    by CST on Fri May 01, 2015 at 11:58:13 AM EST
    "The state's attorney for Baltimore, Marilyn J. Mosby, filed the charges almost as soon as she received a medical examiner's report Friday that ruled Mr. Gray's death a homicide"

    From the link that Jeralyn provided.


    Shorter Uncle Chip: (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 01, 2015 at 04:11:24 PM EST
    Well at least (none / 0) (#81)
    by sj on Fri May 01, 2015 at 04:40:30 PM EST
    your undescribed link didn't go to youtube this time.

    I'm sure... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Fri May 01, 2015 at 11:59:14 AM EST
    that will all come out at trial Chip, absent a plea.

    trial? (none / 0) (#110)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri May 01, 2015 at 11:43:54 PM EST
    First, these charges have to survive the Probable Cause Hearing that these six are entitled to within 30 days.

    During that time Mosby will have to come up with some actual evidence.

    I hope she got statements from all the officers before they all lawyered up.


    Chip, do you not read the comments, (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Anne on Sat May 02, 2015 at 09:43:12 AM EST
    and so, do you still not know that it has been explained to you several times that this is going to end up before a grand jury?  

    I'll refresh your memory:

    "They will be processed and booked at Central Booking.  What happens next is that this case will likely be presented to a grand jury in Baltimore- that's the very typical course that criminal cases in Baltimore take - they get charged through a charging document, which is what happened today, and then they move on to a grand jury, and if there's an indictment, then the case will move to the Circuit Court, and the officers will appear in Circuit Court to be arraigned."

    Seriously, your comments show you to be among the most ill-informed people here, which makes me highly skeptical of much of what you have to say about just about everything.

    All the coverage I watched and read was clear, over and over again, that 5 of the 6 cops had given statements and been interviewed - even though they weren't required to do so.  You must not have watched or read any of what Mosby said at her announcement or in the many interviews post-announcement.  You must not have heard her say that her office, right from the start, conducted its own investigation, parallel with that of the police investigation.  So this wasn't a case where the prosecutor's office sat on its hands, doing nothing, waiting for the police investigation to be completed, and then, within less than 24 hours, were able to announce charges.

    I heard/saw Marilyn Mosby say that no prosecutor should bring charges unless there is probable cause to do so.

    I don't get it.  What's the point of being confrontational and getting right up in people's faces to ask questions that sound like accusations, when it's clear - at least to me - that there's nothing behind it, that you don't absorb the information people give you, that you aren't actually paying attention to what's going on?

    Oh, maybe it's about trying to hide the fact that you don't know what you're talking about...well, newsflash: it's not working.


    Judging by their track record of egg on their face (2.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Jack203 on Sat May 02, 2015 at 12:12:48 PM EST
    I don't blame you for being skeptical McBain.  This certainly has the feel for yet another loser for those clamoring for a political lynching.  How many times are they going to cry wolf and be proven dead wrong before people stop believing a word they say?

    These kinds of cases only strengthen the right's hand.  And for someone very anti-right economic, social and foreign policy.  It's not a good thing.

    What is "the feel"? (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Yman on Sat May 02, 2015 at 12:16:49 PM EST
    Is that something someone has when there are no facts/evidence to support their theories?

    And who is "they"?


    If you have to ask (none / 0) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 02, 2015 at 12:42:06 PM EST
    you would never understand

    Question for the lawyers... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Fri May 01, 2015 at 11:56:50 AM EST
    can the documented prior cases of the "rough wide" tactic of abuse be introduced at trial, or would that be inadmissible as prejudicial and/or unrelated.

    Cuz if the jury gets to hear about how many people have been severely injured, paralyzed, and/or killed after having been given a "rough ride" by the Baltimore PD...well, these bastards better cop a plea.  

    probable not (none / 0) (#10)
    by nyjets on Fri May 01, 2015 at 11:59:11 AM EST
    Unless there is evidence that the six actually have done it before. If there is no evidence of them doing this in the past, it is too prejudicial.

    Almost certainly (none / 0) (#27)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:27:30 PM EST
     in a criminal case against the driver, only his prior conduct could be considered relevant under 404(b) of the Rules of Evidence, and even then the court would have to do the 403  balancing test (is the probative value substantially outweighed by the prejudice, etc.) which is a very fact specific inquiry.

       Now, in a civul suit against the department/city, IO think there would be very strong argument for admitting evidence of other similar conduct by other officers.


    I disagreee, Recon (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Peter G on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:44:27 PM EST
    Particularly in a case of Second Degree Murder, which is an unintended death resulting from action taken with the intent to cause injury or with depraved indifference to or reckless disregard for the value of human life (the classic examples being shooting a gun or driving a car into a crowd), I would think that evidence of the defendant's actual knowledge of the possible consequences of his actions, whether or not he personally has prior experience engaging in such actions, would be quite relevant.

    Thanks guys... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:51:37 PM EST
    so it depends on the judge?

    Probably irrelevant anyway since the jury pool will surely be well aware of the practice, regardless of whether it's allowed in the trial.  

    Unless the trial gets moved out of Baltimore, which I'm sure the defense will fight like hell to do.



    Even out of Baltimore (none / 0) (#36)
    by nycstray on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:55:06 PM EST
    folks are now well aware of the practice. I'm 3,000 miles away and newly aware of it . . .

    Most people... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by kdog on Fri May 01, 2015 at 01:09:03 PM EST
    are not current events/criminal justice geeks like us though...that historical detail could easily be overlooked.

    In Baltimore, sh*t odds are good half the jury pool will probably know someone who suffered a rough ride, and the other half will know what's gone on and goes on.


    Son Zorba used to live in Baltimore (2.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Zorba on Fri May 01, 2015 at 06:51:18 PM EST
    The first thing he said when this came out was "The cops gave him a nickel ride."  (i.e., a rough ride.)
    He said that was very well known in Baltimore.

    I'll have to test it tomorrow (none / 0) (#43)
    by nycstray on Fri May 01, 2015 at 01:21:35 PM EST
    going to a family thing . . .  I'm thinking anyone who knows how he 'probably' died, would know about the rough ride gig. I'm the one that pays the most attention out of the bunch though . . .

    We got to talking about the case... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Fri May 01, 2015 at 01:31:58 PM EST
    a little bit here today around the water cooler, I had to explain to my co-workers what a rough ride is.

    But they're mostly the Fox News viewing sort or totally apolitical just read the sports page types, their knowledge of the chain of events pretty much starts and ends with "man dies in police custody" and "thugs rioting".  


    Well, i doubt it (none / 0) (#40)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri May 01, 2015 at 01:06:44 PM EST

    even if  the foundation was laid that the driver had prior actual knowledge that other officers had driven vehicles in a similar manner resulting in death or grave injury, I think the probative value would be substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice and confusion of the issues and misleading the jury.

       To illustrate, pretty much everyone is aware that operating a vehicle in a reckless manner is inherently dangerous. Were a person on trial for second degree murder based upon driving at 60 mph through a school zone and striking a person causing his death, I do  not think a prosecutor would be permitted to introduce evidence of other specific instances of other people being killed or gravely injured by drivers speeding through school zones, even if it could be established the defendant had heard about it.



    Peter has explained (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MKS on Fri May 01, 2015 at 03:31:52 PM EST
    why evidence of such a practice would be relevant.

    Why would it be prejudicial (your argument) and why would such prejudice outweigh its probative value?


    First (none / 0) (#75)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri May 01, 2015 at 04:10:43 PM EST
      I left out UNFAIR prejudice in my comment above; the balance is probative value versus danger of unfair prejudice, as pretty much all evidence the adversary should seek to introduce is prejudicial.

      That said, such evidence can only go to state of mind. The past acts of others can have no bearing on one's state of mind if one is not aware of them and thus have no probative value.

     Even if one is aware of the past acts of others, that awareness is of extremely limited, if any, probative value (i.e. tends to make a fact in issue more or less probable) unless one is also aware that those acts did in fact cause death or very grave harm, thus  suggesting a person with such knowledge would have to act with reckless indifference for the victims's life to undertake such an act.

     In fact, in some instances the fact I know other people did something similar without causing great harm would, if anything, tend to negate my intent. If "lots of people" do it and I am unaware of anyone dying as a result it is, if anything,  less likely I have  done it with reckless indifference for the life of the victim.

       Even if I am aware of past very similar  conduct by others and of a death or grave injury resulting  therefrom my specific knowledge  of those events is of relatively slight probative value in assessing my intent for the act in question --especially if the deaths or grave injuries represent a small percentage of all instances of which I am aware.  If I do not appreciate that the nature of my conduct creates a very high risk of death due to my knowledge then introducing evidence of the specific  conduct of others that did not result in such harm is being done just to establish "guilt by association" not to prove the requisite state of mind.

       As for the UNFAIR prejudice it is far more unfairly prejudice to introduce similar acts of others to prove my intent. That I have done something in the past might in some cases  tend to prove lack of mistake or accident, etc, but the mere fact I have knowledge about something I didn't do sheds very little light on my state of mind that is not pretty much readily apparent from the nature of my act for which I am charged. What is the necessity of showing my knowledge that other reckless acts by others have occurred in order to show that I acted with reckless disregard.

      If it were my case I would argue it is an attempt to put inadmissible bad character evidence before the jury by telling it that because I work with bad people I must be one too. That's even worse than using my own past  conduct to do it.

       Confusion of the issues and misleading the jury by introducing the evidence is also a very important consideration in a case such as this. I'm on trial not other officers or the department. I should not be put at a disadvantage by the prosecution being allowed to inform the jury of the misdeeds of others which might incite their passion to hold someone responsible for a pattern of conduct when I'm the only one the jury can hold accountable.


    Where the prior bad acts (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Fri May 01, 2015 at 04:53:48 PM EST
    are of someone else, I think it is less likely that the jury will blame the defendant for those than if the prior bad acts were his.  

    It all boils down to the specifics of the case, and the judge, and motions in limine are aways off.


    definitions (none / 0) (#13)
    by thomas rogan on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:04:21 PM EST
    If a death is ruled a homicide then it means that it was caused by another person. That doesn't mean murder.  It could be criminally negligent homicide.  I think that the murder charges are prosecutors overcharging as they always do to get plea bargains.
    Since this is a criminal defense site I look forward to people posting about the holes in the prosecution's case.

    you'll have to rely (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CST on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:16:33 PM EST
    On Jeralyn for that.  And the influx of police apologists that are sure to show up.

    That being said, only one charge of murder was made, and it was "depraved-indifference murder" which, according to wiki, is "an action that demonstrates a "callous disregard for human life" and results in death".


    I did not mean to imply (none / 0) (#22)
    by CST on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:18:38 PM EST
    That Jeralyn is in any way a police apologist.  But I do expect her to highlight the holes in the prosecution, which IMO, I'm grateful for because it does provide needed perspective and she's very thorough and good at what she does.

    The police apologists who will no doubt come out of the woodwork on the other hand...


    That is Probably Related to... (none / 0) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:19:01 PM EST
    ...not getting him medical attention while is custody.

    It was only charged to the driver (none / 0) (#24)
    by CST on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:19:50 PM EST
    So I would guess there is some implication of a "rough ride" as well.  Or perhaps not driving to a hospital.

    I read that it means (none / 0) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:27:18 PM EST
    that the death was due to actions that were intended to cause severe injury but not death. iow, the driver "only" intended to break an arm or leg or two, not kill him.

    yes (none / 0) (#29)
    by CST on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:34:11 PM EST
    but I don't think that specific charge is related to lack of medical attention as that would be something all the officers are culpable for, not just the driver.

    Ah, yes, I think you are correct. (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:42:29 PM EST
    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:17:18 PM EST
    you should read the actual charges.  Which Anne posted in the open.

    Yes and no (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by Peter G on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:56:49 PM EST
    See my comment #32. If the DA was overcharging to pressure a plea, she would have charged first degree murder (premeditated intent to cause death).  From the facts alleged, a jury might infer that, so a first-degree charge, while extreme, could conceivably be warranted.  The second degree murder charge is on the money for the facts as seen in the light most favorable to the prosecutor, which is how criminal charges are always framed. Criminally negligent homicide (a/k/a involuntary manslaughter) might also apply, and a jury might find that verdict. There is no "right" level of homicide to charge, when the difference between one degree and another is nothing but an assessment of the defendant's intent. Our system trusts juries of 12 ordinary people, reaching unanimous agreement after deliberation on the evidence, to make that decision.

    Charges (none / 0) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:46:14 PM EST
    Officer Caesar Goodson Jr. - Driver
    • Second-degree depraved-heart murder (30 years)
    • Involuntary manslaughter (10 years)
    • Assault/second degree (10 years)
    • Manslaughter by vehicle, gross negligence (10 years)
    • Manslaughter by vehicle, criminal negligence (three years)
    • Misconduct in office

    Officer William Porter
    • Involuntary manslaughter (10 years)
    • Assault/second degree (10 years)
    • Misconduct in office

    Lt. Brian Rice
    • Involuntary manslaughter (10 years)
    • Assault/second degree (10 years)
    • Assault/second degree (10 years)
    • Misconduct in office
    • Misconduct in office
    • False imprisonment

    Officer Edward Nero
    • Assault/second degree (10 years)
    • Assault/second degree (10 years)
    • Misconduct in office
    • Misconduct in office
    • False imprisonment

    Officer Garrett Miller
    • Assault/second degree (10 years)
    • Assault/second degree (10 years)
    • Misconduct in office
    • Misconduct in office
    • False imprisonment

    Sgt. Alicia White
    • Involuntary manslaughter (10 years)
    • Assault/second degree (10 years)
    • Misconduct in office


    I thought someone mentioned yesterday that the driver had not been questioned, but he is being charged with more counts than anyone.

    It wasn't that he hadn't been (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Anne on Fri May 01, 2015 at 12:51:05 PM EST
    questioned, it was that he hadn't given a statement - something he wasn't required to do.  That was what made me think he might be the one with the most at risk.

    His silence (none / 0) (#51)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri May 01, 2015 at 01:46:31 PM EST
     is probably the result of him realizing he was the most culpable. Line of duty cases involve a person's interest in keeping their job and refusing to cooperate with investigations is a valid ground for discipline as an employee. He may have more promptly appreciated than did the othersthat he was in something with more serious potential consequence than being terminated .

    Surfing a bit (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 01, 2015 at 09:32:05 PM EST
    because I wanted to see what was going to happen after curfew.  Switching back and forth between FOX and CNN.  God help me.  
    Anyway, the only thing they agree on is that police are being much more aggressive tonight than they have been yet.  Full riot gear, horses, etc.  CNN says the press are pretty upset about being corralled.
    I was reading this earlier-

    On Friday, Buzzfeed News reported Baltimore Police Sgt. Lennardo Bailey addressed a May 1 letter to "Eastern Command Staff"--

    -- "I don't want anybody to say that I did not tell them what is going on. This is no intel; this is really what's going on the street. This is my formal notification. It is about to get ugly."

    That'll teach those uppity minority folks and white student agitators who's still in charge!

    Watched an interesting interview on Megyn Kelly (none / 0) (#114)
    by McBain on Sat May 02, 2015 at 01:43:10 AM EST

    Someone in a silhouette disguise (kind of looked like Space Ghost) claiming to be a cop who works with the charged officers said..

    "My personal guess to this -- and this is just me speculating -- is that he (Gray) was distributing narcotics in that alley,"

    "Freddie was one of those ones where a lot of times, he would put on that show in the streets, but you would bring him into the station and he was a great witness,"

    If that's true, it makes me wonder why the driver would want to kill him?  

    On Hannity, another disguised guest said Gray had heroin and marijuana in his system.  

    Uninformed speculation (2.00 / 3) (#191)
    by JanaM on Sat May 02, 2015 at 08:01:55 PM EST
    Where are you getting ANY evidence that the driver wanted to kill Mr. Gray?

    Even at this stage of the proceedings you need actual evidence for charges.

    I did read elsewhere that it is being alleged that Mr. Gray was witnessed making a hand to hand transaction in a high drug traffic area with another person. It is further alleged that once it seemed they realized the police were present they each ran off in different directions. I can't vouch for that allegation obviously and I can't remember the cite. But it is a common occurrence in drug dealing. It is also a common allegation made by police to justify stops and searches. I didn't read any details such as a description of what objects were being exchanged.  But a suspected drug transaction may give grounds to detain and search.


    Oh wow (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 02, 2015 at 08:05:53 PM EST
    you "read it somewhere" well that certainly refutes the State attorney statement that he committed no crime.  Why don't you take a break from making dog whistle sh!t up and show us a link?

    And btw (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 02, 2015 at 08:07:32 PM EST
    if you had bother to even read the damn charges you would know at least that is not what the driver is accused of.

    Where are YOU getting ANY ACTUAL evidence? (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 02, 2015 at 08:19:39 PM EST
    No mention of any drug related activity in the Maryland Police charging documents. No documentation of drugs found on Mr. Gray's body after he was searched. Search of Mr. Gray only found him in possession of a knife that turned out to be legal under Maryland's laws.

    If you have any actual evidence, please provide a link. Otherwise, You who are demanding evidence, are just spreading unsubstantiated rumors about the deceased.


    Actually there was mention (none / 0) (#199)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 02, 2015 at 08:22:35 PM EST
    I happened to see it in fact.

    I'll give you three guesses where that was.

    And the first two don't count.


    At first I thought, "what does he know? (none / 0) (#119)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 02, 2015 at 05:29:17 AM EST
    but, then you mentioned, Hannity!

    With Hannity as a character witness, he being one of the rare pundits, admired worldwide as being irrefutably fair, honest, and impeccably non-partisan, not only will the cops walk, the judge will probably make Grey's grieving family apologize to them for making them miss the Orioles home game.

    And, If I'm not mistaken, I believe I heard  the Pope has even spoken up in the cop's defense.


    Hannity shines during these rush to judgment (3.50 / 2) (#136)
    by McBain on Sat May 02, 2015 at 09:47:18 AM EST
    cases.  It's  usually the only time I can handle his show in large doses.  

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 02, 2015 at 10:06:07 AM EST
    i was lucky enough to bask in his radiance for a short time last night.

    Holy hell.


    Dang it! (none / 0) (#151)
    by Chuck0 on Sat May 02, 2015 at 11:10:10 AM EST
    You just made me spit coffee all over my screen! The only thing Hannity shines is the testicles of anyone in law enforcement.

    He was just asking questions (none / 0) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 02, 2015 at 09:10:58 AM EST

    Hmmm, catching up this morning, have a while (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 02, 2015 at 07:32:23 AM EST
    before my game begins.

    Best I can tell the prosecution will have to prove that he was given a "rough" ride. That may or may not be possible. Do they have a witness??

    Did the prosecution deliberately "overcharge?" I don't know but I don't think, if they did, it was done to help the defense.

    OTOH I remember that when the author Jesse Hill Ford shot and killed a black teenager who was "making out" with his date while parked around midnight just inside Ford's large yard because he felt threatened..... Ford was charged with First Degree murder with no lessor charges. Ford was obviously guilty of some variation of man slaughter but not what he was charged with.

    Ford walked. The system does protect its members. Sometimes in strange ways.

    "Do they have a witness??" (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Mr Natural on Sat May 02, 2015 at 08:01:37 AM EST
    Yeah, Freddy's corpse.

    I think it highly unlikely that (2.00 / 1) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 02, 2015 at 08:53:42 AM EST
    his corpse will testify.

    Oh, you'd be surprised how loud (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 02, 2015 at 10:11:00 AM EST
    the coroner's pictures showing Freddie's 80% severed spine, and crushed larynx will speak. Those pictures will "testify" so loudly you'll be able to hear them all the way, from the court room to the Super Max.

    And the dent in his head (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 02, 2015 at 10:16:29 AM EST
    that exactly matches a bolt inside the van.

    Does it matter? (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Chuck0 on Sat May 02, 2015 at 11:07:25 AM EST
    If Freddie Gray was given a 'rough ride'? No one rendered aid and no one got him medical help until he got to the station. To me that's the end of it. That the crux of the charges. He need medical help, they failed to provide it. He was in custody of the state (or its representatives) and they failed to keep him safe and alive.

    Medical Aid (3.50 / 2) (#190)
    by JanaM on Sat May 02, 2015 at 07:42:20 PM EST
    Unless they determined it was a medical emergency they would have taken the arrestee to the station to determine whether he should go to a hospital or not.  Many arrestees claim to need medical assistance immediately for reasons other than actually needing medical assistance and unless Mr. Gray was presenting as a medical emergency the cops would have taken him to the station to complete the paperwork and arrestee's signature for treatment. Often arrestees change their mind at the station and decide they don't want to go to the hospital after all.

    The cops aren't medical personnel and they certainly appear  to have misjudged Mr. Gray's situation. When Mr. Gray's condition became an emergncy is unknown as yet.  If the cops did misjudge then when that misjudgment occurred is unknown to the public at this point. Perhaps even still unknown to the prosecutors.

    Your premise that Mr. Gray needed medical help and didn't get it therefore the cops are guilty is too simplistic. That isn't even half of the inquiry.


    What? (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 02, 2015 at 08:02:26 PM EST
    "The defendant was arrested without force or incident," Miller wrote. "During transport to Western District via wagon transport the defendant suffered a medical emergency and was immediately transported to Shock Trauma via medic."

    At a news conference Monday afternoon, police said that Gray repeatedly asked for medical care and did not receive it during the arrest that preceded his death.

    Police Commissioner Anthony W. Batts said the department is reviewing its policies relating to prisoner transports and when officers should call medics for suspects. He said there were many occasions when medics should have been called.

    The police themselves said he repeatedly asked for medical care.  Most if the charges are related to his not receiving it.  
    The fact that "the cops are not medics" has very little to do with the fact that they took the other prisoner out of the van before the man who had been begging for help.

    Jesus these things bring them out of the freakin woodwork.


    Medical Assistance Issues (2.00 / 1) (#201)
    by JanaM on Sat May 02, 2015 at 08:37:48 PM EST
    Asking for medical assistance does not mean you need it. As I said if the need for immediate medical assistance was not apparent then it seems the police took Mr. Gray to the station where his need for medical assistance would be determined.

    Your quote is news to me. I thought Mr. Gray was transported to the station and THEN transported to the hospital. This seems to contradict other reports and says rather that his transport to the station was interrupted en route to the station and he went to the hospital instead.

    The quote is very unclear as to what happened and when it happened regarding transport. It's typical of police and prosecution reports - just say enough without telling the entire truth. The government loves to be vague when it doesn't have all the facts or they don't fit their fixed narrative.

    Again just because an arrestee asks for medical care does not mean he gets it then and there absent a recognized emergency situation. It makes sense to me to get the uninjured arrestee out of the van first. His movement takes seconds and they didn't know what it would take to remove Mr. Gray at that point.

    As I said, the police are not medically trained. That has everything to do with whether they recognized there was a true medical emergency or not, when it arose and whether or not the police were able to recognize it as an emergency. They have to use what they know to decide if someone has to got to the emergency room stat while en route to the station or whether they can be processed first at the station and then assessed for possible transport to a hospital.

    You are dismissing exactly what any jury will have to consider. Indeed you are dismissing what a GJ or judge at Preliminary Hearing will have to determine to get past probable cause for some of these charges.


    Out of Curiosity (5.00 / 6) (#202)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 02, 2015 at 08:40:04 PM EST
    You more than just suggest that because other prisoners lied about medical conditions, it was okay for these cops to ignore THIS guy asking for medical assistance.

    Just so I understand your theory, if a prisoner's pleading for medical assistance is not worthy of a response, how should a prisoner indicate to the officers that he is mortally injured?

    Other than by dying, which does not seem to be beneficial for the prisoner.


    The charges (none / 0) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 02, 2015 at 12:36:26 PM EST
    focus on that for sure.

    Hospital (none / 0) (#159)
    by chezmadame on Sat May 02, 2015 at 12:35:03 PM EST
    I haven't heard of any kind of statement from the hospital Gray was transported to, and it doesn't seem like the media has gone there to ask any questions. Maybe information gathered from the hospital is Mosby's ace in the hole.

    Interview with other passenger in the van (none / 0) (#168)
    by McBain on Sat May 02, 2015 at 02:29:06 PM EST

    Donta Allen says a few interesting things here...

    Freddie Gray didn't hurt himself
    He was injured before getting in the van
    The cops didn't hurt him in the van
    It was a smooth ride

    You (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 02, 2015 at 03:11:43 PM EST
    do know that this witness was only in the van for the very last leg of the journey, he can not possibly know how what happened before he was picked up.

    The stop to pick up Donta Allen was (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Anne on Sat May 02, 2015 at 03:35:13 PM EST
    the last stop before arriving at Western District.  It was there that Alicia White met the van to check on Gray's condition: she spoke to the back of his head, but he did not respond.  She did not call for medical assistance.

    I'll offer some observations that may be more than a little obvious:

    1. Donta Allen could have no firsthand knowledge as to what did or didn't transpire before he was picked up, so he can only speak to the few minutes he shared a transport vehicle with Gray.

    2. When there's only one person in custody, there's no one else to corroborate anything that may happen; once Allen was in the van, he became a potential witness as to how Gray was treated - or not treated - or what kind of ride it was.

    3. Does it make sense that they would leave the site of the arrest, drive to another location and stop to do paperwork?  They couldn't do the paperwork at the scene?  Seems odd to me.  It was at this point that Gray was "checked on," and additional restraints were placed on him - why?  Was he actually being combative at that point, or were they put on him so that he would be less able to protect himself for the ride he was about to get, and later, they could say that the restraints were because Gray was combative?

    4. Was that the point where a rough ride was carried out, out of sight of witnesses at the scene and away from cell phone cameras?  Is that the reason why the vehicle did not go directly to the Western District - which was a straight shot right down Mount Street?  Check out the route, here.  

    5. So, why the long way to the station?  

    Hard to look at that map and not ask questions.

    Are there any traffic cams that could have (none / 0) (#200)
    by nycstray on Sat May 02, 2015 at 08:25:46 PM EST
    picked up any images of the van? Perhaps the officers would avoid them (but who knows these days!), but perhaps even just to show how off route they were?

    freddie gray (none / 0) (#169)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat May 02, 2015 at 02:44:29 PM EST
    I believe most government vehicles now have GPS devices , which can actually track the exact route taken, and actual speeds traveled. I read it in one the early reports that it was used in Baltimore, but haven't seen it mentioned since. I know my County government has this system and it can track all of that

    No reference to any illegal activity (none / 0) (#203)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 02, 2015 at 08:57:18 PM EST
    was in charging document. Activity listed was running from police and having a knife in his possession.

    Copy of the charging document

    Of interest, is the statement that during transport the defendant suffered a medical emergency and was IMMEDIATELY transported to Shock Trauma via medic.

    This thread is now closed (none / 0) (#206)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 03, 2015 at 12:22:46 AM EST
    We close threads at 200 comments.