Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Freddie Gray Cops Charges – Justice or Political Theater?

Freddie Gray Cops Charges – Justice or Political Theater?

Prosecutor so far discloses little evidence in support of charges.

The announcement today by Maryland state’s attorney for Baltimore, Marilyn J. Mosby of numerous charges brought against the six officers purportedly involved in the death of Freddie Gray is rich in political theater and shockingly lacking in evidence of criminal malfeasance.

The full press conference video is at our prior post.

A solid foundation for this having been a partisan political, rather than reasoned legal, decision is laid out succinctly by the counsel for the Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police who noted:

While I have the utmost respect for you and your office, I have very deep concerns about the many conflicts of interest presented by your office conducting an investigation in this case . . . . These conflicts include your personal and professional relationship with Gray family attorney, William Murphy and the lead prosecutor’s connections with members of the local media. . . . Most importantly, it is clear that your husband’s political future will be directly impacted, for better or worse, by the outcome of your investigation. . . . In order to avoid any appearance of impropriety or a violation of the Professional Rules of Professional Responsibility, I ask that you appoint a Special Prosecutor to determine whether or not any charges should be filed.

Gray family lawyer William Murphy is reported by the Baltimore Sun newspaper to have contributed $5,000 to Prosecutor Mosby’s political campaign.

Prosecutor Mosby’s husband, a city council member, has been prominently present at the riots, and commenting on them in a manner suggesting that the acts of violence are understandable:

Prosecutor Mosby promptly refused the call for an independent prosecutor, stating:

The people of Baltimore City elected me and there is no accountability with a special prosecutor.

In addition, the New York Times recounting of the charges specified by Ms. Mosby seems both inconsistent and contradictory, as well as largely lacking in specifying actual criminal conduct.

For example, shortly after the van began to transport Gray, Officer Goodson, the driver, “proceeded to the back of the wagon in order to observe Mr. Gray.”

A short while later, Goodson called a dispatcher to say that he needed help checking on his prisoner, leading to the arrival of a second officer and another observation of Gray.

Mosby states that Gray told the officers he could not breath, but of course if he was speaking he was necessarily breathing.

Mosby also makes a point of claiming of Goodson: “At no point did he seek, nor did he render, any medical help for Mr. Gray.”

But we know, from Mosby’s account just recited above, the Goodson did seek help for Gray, and of course Gray was still alive when medical care was shortly thereafter provided (Gray would not die for some days after the van ride).

In terms of Goodson providing medical aid to Gray himself, was Goodson appropriately trained and skilled to do so? Was providing such aid a normal part of his job? Was he an EMT?  For a rather major point of condemnation of Goodson, Mosby seems to provide little evidence that Goodson had either a legal duty or the necessary skill and training to personally provide Gray with medical care.

Indeed, it appears that no police officer ever attempted to provide Gray with any medical assistance at all, that first being provided by a trained medic when Gray was found to be unresponsive.  Is every police officer who had any contact with Gray at all during that transport guilty of criminal malfeasance?

Mosby goes on to characterize as “grossly negligent” Goodson’s accepting a radio assignment to pick up another suspect in the van, in light of Gray’s obvious and recognized need for assistance.

Hindsight, of course, is 20:20.  But all indications are that Gray was largely functional when he first entered the van, and grew progressively worse during the 30 minute or so ride.

As the New York Times notes, “Mr. Gray’s condition deteriorated.” At what point in that ride was Gray’s need for assistance so obvious and recognized that Goodson’s failure to do something unspecified constitutes gross negligence?

Is it the policy of the Baltimore Police Department that its prisoner transport vans must cease accepting new assignments and immediately divert to a hospital whenever a suspect being transported requests medical assistance?

It seems clear that the officers involved certainly did violate Baltimore police policy when they failed to secure Gray inside the van with a seatbelt.  But absent a demonstrated knowledge that they were likely to be involved in a vehicular crash it seems quite a stretch, to say the least, to draw criminal malfeasance from what one suspects to be a policy more honored in the breach than the observance.

Indeed, even Ms. Mosby herself “did not allege that the van driver, Officer Caesar R. Goodson, Jr., intentionally gave Mr. Gray a ‘rough ride, to slam him against the metal walls of the van” according to New York Times reporting on Mosby’s announcement of the charges.

And that, appears to be that, the substantive totality of evidence in Mosby’s recitation of facts in support of bring 28 criminal charges against a half-dozen police officers, (at least as far as reported by the New York Times, ABC News, and the Baltimore Sun):

Freddie Gray charges

Frankly, it strikes me as even less of a foundation for the charges brought here than was the evidentiary foundation for the second degree murder charge brought by Florida Prosecutor Angela Corey against George Zimmerman in the self-defense shooting of Trayvon Martin.

And we all remember how that ended:  Zimmerman Verdict Reached: NOT GUILTY.

–-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense


NEW! The Law of Self Defense proudly announces the launch of it’s online, on-demand state-specific Law of Self Defense Online Training.  These are interactive, online versions of the authoritative 5-hour-long state-specific Law of Self Defense Seminars that we give all over the country, but from the convenience of your laptop, tablet, or smartphone, and on your own schedule.  Click over for more information on our state-specific Law of Self Defense Online Training, and get access to the ~30 minute Section 1. Introduction for free.

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and the author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” available at the Law of Self Defense blog (autographed copies available) and Amazon.com (paperback and Kindle). He also holds Law of Self Defense Seminars around the country, and provides free online self-defense law video lectures at the Law of Self Defense Institute and podcasts through iTunes, Stitcher, and elsewhere.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

I’m waiting to hear the specific allegations before I evaluate the indictment, but I’ll be surprised if most of those charges stick.

Convicting cops in cases like this is always problematic.

It would appear that the fix is in.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to walls. | May 1, 2015 at 5:19 pm

    Yep. The pros is the wife of the city councilman for the district the riots are occurring in. The Gray’s lawyer is the pros’s mentor and THE largest contributor to her campaign fund when she ran for office. I’m sure there’s more.

    The bottom line on my take away from her “No justice, no peace” rant is that all she really has is the lack of a seatbelt and that cops aren’t medically trained. She made a real big, dramatic deal about the ME ruling the case a homicide. Most people think that means “murder”. It doesn’t. She’s going to have a hell of a time proving negligence or depraved mind, let alone intent. These dirtbags always snivel about injuries and phony medical conditions to avoid going directly to jail.

    The pros is just another black political hustler trying to hang six cops out to dry.

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | May 1, 2015 at 7:09 pm

      I think there’s an argument for depraved indifference to human suffering or human pain, but not for human life.

      She seems to be confusing depraved indifference to two different things, like they were one thing.

      Char Char Binks in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | May 1, 2015 at 8:26 pm

      Reports say 3 of the 6 cops charged are black. Oh well, you don’t go to a show trial with the scapegoats you want, you go to show trial with the scapegoats you have.

      mwsomerset in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | May 1, 2015 at 9:27 pm

      My bottom line is Freddy Gray was alive and well until he was arrested by the police. He died of a severed spine. One or more of those 6 cops are going to spill their guts to avoid prison time. I’m in SC and after the cop shooting Walter Scott in the back while running away nothing would surprise me regarding dirty cops.

        Occram’s razor says that the simplest explainatino is also the most likely.

        The vast likelihood is that Gray was attempting to injure himself in order to try to get the cops to cut him a “better deal.” It’s a form of trading that the punk criminals never seem to realize DOESN’T WORK. I see this pretty often, where some idiot will throw themselves around in the back of a squad car or a paddy wagon so he can say “oh boo hoo, those man cops beat me up.

        It is almost never true.

          platypus in reply to Chuck Skinner. | May 2, 2015 at 3:30 am

          Your comment reminded me of that part in the movie Dirty Harry where Harry says Anybody can see I didn’t do that to him.

          Asked to explain, Harry says, He looks too damn good.

          Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Chuck Skinner. | May 2, 2015 at 11:52 am

          Chuck maybe Legalinsurrection should do a post about that topic!

          RE: “The vast likelihood is that Gray was attempting to injure himself in order to try to get the cops to cut him a “better deal.” It’s a form of trading that the punk criminals never seem to realize DOESN’T WORK. I see this pretty often, where some idiot will throw themselves around in the back of a squad car or a paddy wagon so he can say “oh boo hoo, those man cops beat me up.

          It is almost never true.”

          “Chuck maybe Legalinsurrection should do a post about that topic!”

          And maybe they should do a post about how many millions Baltimore taxpayers are out, because their police officers apparently can’t control themselves!

          Deodorant in reply to Chuck Skinner. | May 3, 2015 at 2:29 pm

          Occram’s razor would seem to indicate the opposite. The man was shackled hand and foot but was not anchored in a steel van. The simplest explanation is that he bounced around in the van and landed with his spline hitting a sharp angle.

          Your explanation is a huge stretch. Besides, you point out that harming yourself never works. Since Gray was familiar with the justice system he would know better than to inflict grievous injury on himself.

          I guess he could have been looking for a pay day. That would explain the condition of every prisoner who was ever tuned up. That, too, rarely works. But it would be your simplest explanation if you ignored a decidedly simpler explanation.

          Once he was obviously injured and pleading for help, the simplest thing would have been to summon aid. But they didn’t. Instead they waited until he was unresponsive. The simplest expanation for that is that they were indifferent or wished to harm him. That is depraved.

          I guess if you are predisposed to believe that the police never do anything wrong, your explanaion would have to be the ‘simplest’.

          Unfortunately we know that police and corrections officers sometimes do very bad things. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/nyregion/attica-prison-infamous-for-bloodshed-faces-a-reckoning-as-guards-go-on-trial.html?_r=0

        platypus in reply to mwsomerset. | May 2, 2015 at 3:27 am

        I like that. One cop goes rogue so they all must do the same.

        Wherever you got your education owes you a refund.

        I wonder if you apply the same bigoted prejudice to people who, say, have black skin?

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Andrew Branca. | May 2, 2015 at 6:09 am

          Morning Andrew!

          Deodorant in reply to Andrew Branca. | May 3, 2015 at 2:39 pm

          The cops did close ranks and they would have gotten away with it. They dropped a piece and rearranged the scene. Unfortunately for them, a video surfaced.

          Is that what it is going to take to stop the attrocities? There are bad cops. There are cops would want to be judge, jury and executioner. Except for rare exceptions, the good cops won’t expose them and jeopardize themselves. The police unions won’t do it. So it comes down to your political point of view.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to mwsomerset. | May 2, 2015 at 6:04 am

        Ahh, yes and because one “bad cop” was caught on video being an evil moron, that of course means all of these cops are evil morons.

        Ragspierre in reply to mwsomerset. | May 3, 2015 at 10:05 am

        Poor Amy. SO much histrionics. SO little understanding.

        First, I see you’ve dropped your pretense of objectivity again. The cops are killers out of control.

        Second, Fred is dead. That means nobody wheels him in a wheelchair into court every morning of his civil trial for damages. No sympathy/emotion, and no rightful claims concerning his on-going care and costs.

        Third, EVIDENCE from at least ONE economics expert would establish that Freddie was never going to be worth much. Certainly not “millions”. In fact, Freddie was, in all probability, about to start earning very, very little as a state prisoner.

Ragspierre | May 1, 2015 at 3:36 pm

Indeed, even Ms. Mosby herself “did not allege that the van driver, Officer Caesar R. Goodson, Jr., intentionally gave Mr. Gray a ‘rough ride, to slam him against the metal walls of the van” according to New York Times reporting on Mosby’s announcement of the charges.
———————————-

No. And we have NO evidence that Mr. Goodson did or WOULD.

But we DO have people leaping to the unsupported CONCLUSION that he did.

Now, if that “rough ride” happened, there should be credible evidence (from other people who observed it, for instance). Otherwise, the state cannot meet its burden.

As to the policy issue WRT seat belts, I wonder if policy requires that an officer put himself/herself in physical danger, or the likelihood of a physical fight, with a prisoner who is behaving violently. Something that will be a factor in the defense. I would argue that there’s a balancing here between belting a prisoner in against the unlikely event of harm and having to taze or beat the dog spit out of them to get them belted.

Bear in mind that the newspaper accounts ALSO reported statements from “witnesses” that had the LEOs pulling Gray out of the van and beating him with night-sticks. There are a LOT of liars in the hood.

    Estragon in reply to Ragspierre. | May 1, 2015 at 5:55 pm

    I am dumbfounded that in Maryland, police departments investigate themselves and are prosecuted by the local prosecutors who have to work with them daily. Makes no sense at all – even a fair investigation by colleagues is going to be questioned. Remember, conflict of interest laws aren’t just about conflicts for public officials, the very appearance of a conflict must be avoided.

    But here it appears the wackadoo racial leadership is determined to appease the mobs at any cost.

    – –

    Another head-scratcher is Mosby’s lame “The people of Baltimore City elected me and there is no accountability with a special prosecutor.” Um, sorry, Hon, but SPs are about avoiding the appearance of bias or favoritism.

    Another Affirmative Action law grad, I suppose?

      Ragspierre in reply to Estragon. | May 1, 2015 at 6:44 pm

      Well, up to the point of ridiculousness, I’m fond of LOTS of investigations over something like this.

      This is, after all, the genius of internal affairs divisions within LE agencies. And I think they should be vigorous and powerful.

      But I also think that having the state police investigate city police is swell.

      Even having the Feds come in WHEN justified USED to be a good thing, prior to the Barracula drive to fascism.

      And the point of the whole deal needn’t be to crucify people. I can be about making things better by identifying stuff. Then you share that with other agencies if it works.

      Cops are people, and some get bent and they can be very dangerous criminal organizations.

    Twanger in reply to Ragspierre. | May 5, 2015 at 4:14 pm

    Rags – I have spoken with two policemen in the last week who have dressed up and spent some quality time in Baltimore as targets for bottles and bricks. If you have a belligerent and dangerous perp, the LAST thing you want to do is lean in real close and reach across him to buckle him in. You could lose an ear that way. Or worse.

Logic and reason would argue against a conviction based on what Mosby related at the press conference. The solution for her is to fill all 12 seats in the jury box with illogical and unreasonable citizens, or jurors who would be fearful of the personal repercussions of voting not guilty.

I don’t see this ending well …

This case will make for an extremely entertaining Probable Cause Hearing.

Side note: the officers have not been indicted by a Grand Jury, only charged by Mosby. Apparently, she has taken a short cut thru the legal system to appease the masses.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Redneck Law. | May 1, 2015 at 5:25 pm

    ….and they didn’t en need no stinkin’ Angela Corey. They got Mosby right out of the gate – no muss, no fuss.

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | May 3, 2015 at 10:18 am

      She ran for election last November, acccording to the New York Times, on a pledge to prosecute police misconduct while probably saying (since she is saying that now) that she wouldn’t be unfair because she comes from a family of police officers. Her grandfather, who recently died, was a cop and one of the founders of an African American policeman’s organization in Massachusetts, and her mother was a cop, and four uncles and aunts were cops, and maybe even her father was a cop for a while (unclear)

      And she defeated the (white) incumbent, even though she was vastly outspent (I don’t know about independent expenditures or help from her husband’s campaign workers) and became the youngest chief prosecutor in a major city, aged 35.

      She had also worked earlier as a law clerk in the Baltimore prosecutor’s office, and then an assistants state’s attorney from 2006 to about 2011, where se is said to have been tenacious – then she spent three years working for an insurannce company (Liberty Mutual)

      The district where the events occured is very bad, “tough” crime-ridden neighorhood which had damage in the riots of 1968 that has not yet, to this day, been rebuilt, and her husband is the city councilman representing it.

      I think it is probably fair to say that anti-police people supported her.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Redneck Law. | May 1, 2015 at 6:31 pm

    Do they even use a Grand Jury system in Maryland? Here in Arkansas we don’t use a Grand Jury system.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Gremlin1974. | May 2, 2015 at 1:50 am

      A quick search for “grand juries maryland” makes it obvious they do have a GJ system there.

      Mosby, as a progressive, is more interested in optics than results. If she had gone to a GJ and not secured an indictment, that would make her look bad. So she went charged via information in order to get the show she wanted. If she were smart, she’d not maintain her opposition to a special prosecutor (her opposition may be for show). Turn the mess over to somebody else, and when the prosecution fails to secure convictions, that prosecutor (rather than Mosby herself) will take the blame, and Mosby will remain the gallant crusader for having brought the charges. She can’t realistically expect convictions in this case (from what we know about it now); she’d be smart to turn this turkey over to someone else (while seeming to do so with reluctance).

        Wonder what the “optics” will be if she personally wages this fight and gets her butt kicked at the Probable Cause Hearing, or at the conclusion of the trial. I see her dreams of higher office (Governor? US Senator?) going up in smoke.

          Ragspierre in reply to Redneck Law. | May 2, 2015 at 8:05 am

          Levin said he doubts she’ll have much profile in this in the actual courtroom. She apparently has a very unimpressive record as a prosecutor.

          I think this has Sharpton’s cloven hoof prints all over it. Especially after her lil’ speech to the mob.

healthguyfsu | May 1, 2015 at 3:54 pm

Seems like a classic and malicious overcharge “shotgun” approach.

    Seems like that’s been the case in most (if not all) of the prosecutions we’ve seen covered here. Maybe there should be a “truth-in-charging” act, where you’re only allowed to charge for what you’re really going for, none of this “lesser included charges” stuff later at trial. That way, if you get too ambitious and charge for murder when even those who think the guy is guilty of “something” think he’s only guilty of manslaughter at most, if you can’t secure a conviction for murder, he goes free.

    Okay, so that has its obvious flaws too. But this overcharging is a really bad trend, and it would be nice if there were an elegant way to rein it in.

      The elegant way to rein it in would be if the men in the GOP leadership traded in their panties for jockstraps and began acting like Congressmen instead of lemmings.

      Though the more elegant way is if we simply threw them out of office.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Amy in FL. | May 2, 2015 at 1:43 am

      Overcharging is often a tactic used to help convince a defendant to plead to a lesser charge. One way to prevent overcharging in these situations is to require a reduction in charges any time the prosecution offers reduced charges in exchange for a guilty plea. After all, if a prosecutor would settle for a plea on lesser charges, then obviously the lesser charges are appropriate. And if they’re appropriate, that’s what the defendant should have been charged with in the first place.

      I do understand that plea offers are made for a variety of practical reasons. But if justice isn’t served by a defendant’s plea to lesser charges, why would the prosecutor offer the plea, practicality notwithstanding? If a plea to lesser charges doesn’t serve justice, then the prosecution shouldn’t make the offer. The prosecutor’s job is to seek justice, and not to gain convictions for the sake of mere practicality.

“Frankly, it strikes me as even less of a foundation for the charges brought here than was the evidentiary foundation for the second degree murder charge brought by Florida Prosecutor Angela Corey against George Zimmerman in the self-defense shooting of Trayvon Martin.”

I’m glad this was mentioned, because as I was reading about today’s charges it seemed that Ms. Mossy was following the Zimmerman/Martin playbook. But why she would do so is a mystery to me.

What happens next is that folks on the Left will take the charges as gospel, become immune to any new evidence, and then claim that an injustice has been done when the “not guilty” verdicts are announced.

    snopercod in reply to siguiriya. | May 1, 2015 at 6:59 pm

    Angela Corey suffered no consequences for her malicious prosecution of Zimmerman. Neither has Chisholm in WI. So why shouldn’t Mosby try it? When the rule of law is down, anything goes.

    Char Char Binks in reply to siguiriya. | May 1, 2015 at 8:30 pm

    Your question is answered in the headline, also in the form of a question: political theater.

The wheels on the bus go ’round and ’round!

It is important to note, State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby did NOT permit a Grand Jury to indict as is her dutiful prerogative – where the rubber meets the road, this is strictly 100% her own politically driven decision — and State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby has numerous conflicts of interest in this entire case right out of the gate. Marilyn Mosby also straight-up lied — the Police Officers involved immediately recognized Freddie Gray, and they were aware that he had an ACTIVE CRIMINAL ARREST WARRANT which is what led to their pursuing and arresting of Freddie Gray.

How can they charge SIX Police Officers with the same Specific Intent crimes derived from ONE contact incident with ONE subject — and not charge even one count of Conspiracy out of any of it? That right there is going to be a huge chunk of their Defense Attorney’s foundation for acquittal. However, in order for actual Truth and Justice to prevail, they are most definitely going to require a Change of Venue.

Clearly, per written law, there is no “Murder” nor even “Manslaughter” to any degree in this case — yet they charge both anyway. Absent an evidential epiphany of enormous magnitude with clear-cut evidence thus far not released to the public amounting to rock-solid proof of criminal wrongdoing by the police officer Defendants — and I highly doubt any of that exists for it would surely bolster their own street-cred and soothe the prevailing outrageous outrage of the rioters to a tangible degree which is totally what they’re essentially going for — this whole thing is government/politically rigged from the top down to the bottom, literally. As has been the case each and every time this sort of thing has happened these last several years. This is nothing but a Sacrificial Lambs prosecution, and they should undoubtedly fail, yet again, but only if they move the venue out of the City of Baltimore. No way a city that’s 68%± Black and 20%± White is going to earn all those White cops a fair trial at this point, all things considered. Albeit, even with a change of venue, their long-odds of prosecutorial success in deriving at least one conviction for something in this particular case are greatly improved having SIX sacrificial lambs with which to throw at the wall to see what sticks and ruin their lives forever more simply in order to soothe the savage beast.

Even with a charge of “Depraved Heart Murder” — this state of mind is not one of mere negligence. It is not merely one even of gross criminal negligence. It involves rather the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act with reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference as to whether anyone is harmed or not. The common law treats such a state of mind as just as blameworthy, just as anti-social and, therefore, just as truly murderous as the specific intent to kill and to harm.

So, sorry, not applicable either. But it is still something that can be thrown at the wall… especially with the benefit of hindsight and witness coaching too… so there’s that.

However, I do have a great deal of faith in the Jury process when the Jury is completely fair and impartial, and there’s no way a City of Baltimore jury could ever be entirely fair and impartial after what they’ve endured and when looking straight into the eye of their own personal threats to their own personal Life and the Perils of reaching a unanimous decision for acquittals in the City of Baltimore. Truth and Justice mean nothing anywhere and everywhere that Skin-Color means absolutely everything in ‘the community’, and where failing to remember allegiance to that collective mindset above all else can get you and maybe even your Family intentionally harmed or murdered. Just ask Donta Allen — the second guy who was in the Police Transport Van and is now going to surely be a Defense Witness — and is now in fear for his life and, thusly, is now changing his original tune drastically in hindsight — now making him a Prosecution witness too.

The very best the police officer Defendants can hope for in Baltimore is a Hüng Jury, which is still an extreme injustice wrought upon the police officers, for it would surely not just end there as a Hüng Jury does not trigger Double Jeopardy, and they would be dragged through the entire trial process once again — but the next time would be with a cheat-sheet of mistakes made and lessons learned from the original trial in the hands of the government officials railroading those police officers. They would custom tailor a perfect fit prosecution thereby gaming the judicial system and the justice process to their favor, and to the lifelong devastation and detriment of numerous police officers and their families.

    Marilyn Mosby also straight-up lied — the Police Officers involved immediately recognized Freddie Gray, and they were aware that he had an ACTIVE CRIMINAL ARREST WARRANT which is what led to their pursuing and arresting of Freddie Gray.

    Is that for real, or did you get it from the Nuthouse gang?

    — If it’s for real, how do you know it was still active and outstanding on the date Gray was stopped, that it hadn’t already been served and dealt with?

    — If it’s for real, and it was still active and outstanding on the date Gray was stopped, how do you know the cops knew that (a) this was Freddie Gray, and that (b) he had an active arrest warrant out?

    — If it’s for real, and it was still active and outstanding, and the cops knew that (a) this was Freddie Gray, and that (b) he had an active arrest warrant out, why didn’t they arrest him for that and put that on the charge sheet rather than the now-under-question switchblade charge?

    I didn’t bother with the rest of your comment, since I had so many questions just with your first claim. Please don’t just spew regurgitated, unsubstantiated “claims” from the Nutters all over this blog unless you can back them up. It’s messy, and it lowers the tone 😉

      Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | May 1, 2015 at 5:36 pm

      I did read from what I would consider a reliable source that Gray had five open criminal cases when he died.

      I’ll find it if you just make me.

        Can you find evidence that doesn’t come from a nut-bearing tree, that “Marilyn Mosby also straight-up lied — the Police Officers involved immediately recognized Freddie Gray, and they were aware that he had an ACTIVE CRIMINAL ARREST WARRANT which is what led to their pursuing and arresting of Freddie Gray”?

        Are you able to answer any of the questions I put to Mr or Ms FlatFoot about his or her claim?

        Sammy Finkelman in reply to Ragspierre. | May 1, 2015 at 7:14 pm

        But an open, pending, criminal case, is not the same thing as an arrest warrant. There’s no claim he had jumped bail.

          I provided her with a reply above that includes a link to the Maryland Judiciary and his [formerly] active arrest warrant… now disposition of “Abated By Death”.

        I responded to little miss indignant with a link to the Maryland Judiciary for his warrant. You can see my reply above 😉

          You provided me with no such thing. Again, I’ll ask:

          — If it’s for real, how do you know it was still active and outstanding on the date Gray was stopped, that it hadn’t already been served and dealt with?

          — If it’s for real, and it was still active and outstanding on the date Gray was stopped, how do you know the cops knew that (a) this was Freddie Gray, and that (b) he had an active arrest warrant out?

          — If it’s for real, and it was still active and outstanding, and the cops knew that (a) this was Freddie Gray, and that (b) he had an active arrest warrant out, why didn’t they arrest him for that and put that on the charge sheet rather than the now-under-question switchblade charge?

          Could it be that the warrant which you show as having been active and open on March 13th was actually served and dealt with on March 18th, and so wasn’t in fact an active and open warrant when Mr. Gray was stopped, and so that’s why he was (allegedly illegally) arrested for possession of a switchblade, instead of on an open and active warrant, which actually would have been legal — had the warrant not already been served and dealt with some weeks previous?

          That would be awkward, wouldn’t it.

      Well, how do you define “Nutters”, precious?

      Does the Maryland Judiciary Case Search of the Maryland State Judiciary qualify, to you, as “Nutters”?

      http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=1B02290044&loc=2&detailLoc=DSCR

      However, note the Active Criminal Warrant disposition and date of disposition:

      “Disposition: ABATED BY DEATH
      “Disposition Date: 04/21/2015

      So, now you can unbunch your panties and go back to whatever it was you were doing before I came back up in here and trout-slapped your indignant face.

        So, now you can unbunch your panties and go back to whatever it was you were doing before I came back up in here and trout-slapped your indignant face.

        Again, you are so humiliatingly wrong here, you have no cause to be so cocky. Or rude. This warrant had been served and dealt with. I’ve linked it several times now. I really don’t know what your problem is.

        As for your language and tone: you really are a very unpleasant person. As we’d ask down here, Do you kiss your momma with that mouth?

        Ragspierre in reply to FlatFoot. | May 2, 2015 at 9:07 am

        Not pretending expertise here, Flat, but…

        the warrant was executed on the 18th. Freddie subsequently made bail.

        The CASE was abated because of death.

      Are you related to Freddie Gray, or what. Or, perhaps you’re just part of the larger problem, the cancer that is a disease to truth and overall veracity — the problem of pathological lies and false equivalencies that has gripped this land from sea-to-shining-sea.

      http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=1B02290044&loc=2&detailLoc=DSCR

      If the direct link isn’t working, search his name [Freddie Gray] and then go to page 2 of the results. Click on the case number. He had an Active Criminal Arrest Warrant on the day of his contact with police. Also, note the updated warrant disposition and the date of disposition. It took them several days to update it but there it is in all its glory.

      Game Over. Now, Sit Down and Please Shut Up.

        He had an Active Criminal Arrest Warrant on the day of his contact with police.

        Good grief. Really? Really?

        Read the date the warrant was served. That’s the WARS (Warrant Served) bit. 03/18/2015. Yes, it had already been served. Weeks before the day of his final, fatal contact with police.

        Game Over. Now, Sit Down and Please Shut Up.

        You have no cause to be so rude to me, given how humiliatingly wrong you are. I’m almost embarrassed for you.

    The Active Arrest Warrant has been recalled and dispositioned due to death…

    http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=1B02290044&loc=2&detailLoc=DSCR

    “Disposition: ABATED BY DEATH”

Fiftycaltx | May 1, 2015 at 3:58 pm

Hey, a girl has to take advantage of the crisis that presents themselves. She’s a lock on replacing some prog politician, with a lock on a lifetime seat via re-election and all the corruption she can handle. Hell, if she can get a conviction, she might be the next governor.

B.

Of course, when (hopefully) the cases are dismissed or they’re found not guilty, the riots will be even worse. Skilled political move, though, kicking the can down the road.

legalbeagle | May 1, 2015 at 4:02 pm

The false imprisonment charges brought against some of the officers leads to the conclusion that the prosecutor does not view the arrest of Freddie Gray as lawful. That indicates that the prosecutor does not agree with the legal theory expressed in Mr. Branca’s earlier blog post.

Apparently, in Baltimore flight from police by a known bad actor does not amount to the reasonable suspicion needed for a Terry stop.

Mr. Branca’s comments are most welcome. Is this a break with nearly 50 years of settled law?

    objection in reply to legalbeagle. | May 1, 2015 at 4:12 pm

    Even if there was no legal foundation for Mr. Gray’s arrest, charging officers who became involved after the arrest with the common law felony of false imprisonment is a big stretch. They simply could not possess the mens rea necessary under common law to know the arrest was not justified.

    Milhouse in reply to legalbeagle. | May 1, 2015 at 4:39 pm

    It’s not the stop that’s the problem, it’s the subsequent arrest. If the knife was legal then there was no probable cause to arrest him. If policemen want to enforce a law then it’s up to them to know it well enough to distinguish what is lawful from what is not; if they don’t understand a law well enough to do that then they shouldn’t try to enforce it.

      “It’s not the stop that’s the problem, it’s the subsequent arrest.”

      That’s what my common sense tells me. Of course, in this post-Trayvon world, I’ve come to realize that common sense isn’t always the best barometer of how things in the justice system are going to work out…

      Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | May 1, 2015 at 5:14 pm

      Each cop who handles an arrestee is NOT required…or equipped…to review the incidents of the arrest.

      Are they?

      They have NO duty to review and judge other LEOs work up-stream from them.

      Which kind of tells me this prosecutor doesn’t know her ass from a cypress stump.

      objection in reply to Milhouse. | May 1, 2015 at 5:19 pm

      Milhouse, the Supreme Court very recently spoke to that issue in Heien v North Carolina. The result was 8-1. Police officers are allowed to make a reasonable mistake of law. In that case a drug conviction was upheld despite the officers mistake of law which provided reasonable suspicion for the initial traffic stop.

        Milhouse in reply to objection. | May 1, 2015 at 5:56 pm

        Wrong. Heien does not give police permission to make mistakes of law. What it says is that reasonable mistakes of law can give rise to the reasonable suspicion which can justify a Terry stop. Not to probable cause for an arrest. If the officers in Heien had arrested the driver for the busted brake light, the arrest would have been illegal.

        Even then, the mistake of law must be reasonable. The majority opinion says “an officer can gain no Fourth Amendment advantage through a sloppy study of the laws he is duty-bound to enforce”. And Justice Kagan’s concurrence says: “If the statute is genuinely ambiguous, such that overturning the officer’s judgment requires hard interpretive work, then the officer has made a reasonable mistake. But if not, not.”

      clerk in reply to Milhouse. | May 1, 2015 at 5:31 pm

      Rubbish Sir. The police had valid probable cause to make a lawful arrest once the knife was found. The prosecutor had every right to find that there was not enough probable cause to levy further charges. It is unheard of for a prosecutor to say the officers committed a criminal act in these circumstances.

      Secondly, officers further down the custody line had no duty to examine the circumstances of the arrest. The false imprisonment charge is a bogus as one can get.

        Milhouse in reply to clerk. | May 1, 2015 at 5:45 pm

        If the knife was legal then there was no probable cause for the arrest. End of story.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | May 1, 2015 at 6:36 pm

          Not if he had active warrants as has been said above, so that needs to be verified.

          Nonsense.

          The legal test is whether the arresting officer knew or should have known that the knife was legal when he made the arrest.

          If the officer reasonably believed the knife to be illegal, then he has probable cause to make the arrest.

          Sure, it might turn out he was wrong. That’s called a mistake. It doesn’t make the arrest a crime.

          Such mistakes happen all the time. It’s why we don’t allow street cops to convict people on the basis of probable cause, and instead of have criminal trials in which the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          It’s why we don’t allow street cops to convict people on the basis of probable cause, and instead of have criminal trials in which the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

          It’s also why we as a society have a vested interest in strongly encouraging street cops to actually deliver these people alive so that we can treat them to criminal trials in which the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | May 2, 2015 at 5:54 am

          A couple of years ago, I was stopped and detained because a guy driving the same make, model, and color SUV I drive and matching a very general description (White late 30’s male with beard.) of me kidnapped a little girl.

          It took about an hour for them to let me go, of course the girl wasn’t in my car so they were pretty sure it wasn’t me. By your logic I should be able to sue and the cops should be reprimanded?

          I was worried about the little girl, if detaining me helped them find her then great.

          Everyone is arguing about the knife and forgetting about the first part of the story when Gray was spotted doing what looked like a drug deal.

          I thought it was legal to arrest drug dealers.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | May 3, 2015 at 6:36 pm

          Andrew, it is an officer’s job to know the law. Officers can make mistakes of fact; they are expected to know the law, and not to arrest anyone for things that aren’t illegal. Even the recent Hein decision, which only applies to reasonable suspicion, not to probable cause, requires a statute to be genuinely ambiguous for a cop’s mistake of law to be considered reasonable. If the statute is not so ambiguous that even a judge has to work to figure out what it means, then a cop getting it wrong is not a reasonable mistake.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | May 3, 2015 at 6:40 pm

          Gremlin, in your case the cops had reasonable suspicion, which is enough to stop you, and probable cause to search your car, but as soon as it became clear to them that they had the wrong person their right to hold you disappeared. If they held you even one minute longer, then they were indeed committing a crime, and you could bring action against them. At no point, however, did they have probable cause to arrest you, so it’s a good thing they didn’t do that.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | May 3, 2015 at 6:41 pm

          Aussie, it is legal to arrest drug dealers only if there is probable cause to believe they did sell drugs. In this case there wasn’t.

      MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Milhouse. | May 1, 2015 at 5:44 pm

      Laws about legality of knifes can get quite complicated. More complicated then the laws concerning guns. For example: are butterfly knives legal in your jurisdiction? What is the maximum blade length of a single side straight blade? Double sided? Serrated? Kris? How can they be carried? Must they be visible? Sheathed? What about blunted blades which a lot of martial artists like to use? [1]

      Also if the arrest record of this guy was known to some of the cops, then certain normally legal blades become illegal. It may well be for example, that the cops believed he had been convicted of a felony and the knife he carried was therefore illegal.

      I don’t expect a cop to know instantly know whether a knife is illegal, we have courts for that. For me at least reasonableness of arrest for an illegal knife comes down a simple test, does the cop believe that the person carrying the knife intends to use it as a weapon.

      [1] I had a teacher who loved to use metal blades instead of rubber. He said “the feel of cold steel focuses the mind”.

        It may well be for example, that the cops believed he had been convicted of a felony and the knife he carried was therefore illegal.

        Then wouldn’t they have charged him with “possession of a weapon by a convicted felon” or however it’s worded in Maryland?

          SDN in reply to Amy in FL. | May 1, 2015 at 11:37 pm

          Again, cops don’t charge. Read it slowly.

          The DA might have charged him that way. If the cops knew of his felonious past, they would have had probable cause to arrest him once the knife was spotted.

          I may have my terminology wrong. I’m talking about what the police arrested him for. It is written on what’s being called “the charging documents”, that he had been arrested not as felon in possession of a weapon, but for the offense of having a switchblade. If the police had arrested him for being a felon in possession of a weapon (which was not a switchblade), why would they ask that he be charged with possession of a switchblade? http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1996025/freddie-gray-charging-documents.pdf

        Milhouse in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | May 3, 2015 at 6:42 pm

        I don’t expect a cop to know instantly know whether a knife is illegal,

        The law does.

        we have courts for that

        Only if the statute is genuinely ambiguous.

      Sanddog in reply to Milhouse. | May 1, 2015 at 7:28 pm

      I was actually reading a police forum earlier because I was curious about the legal status of the knife. The consensus seemed to be, absent a clear and concise legal definition of each type of prohibited knife, when in doubt… arrest and let the prosecutor make the determination. Oh, by the way, it was a Maryland forum.

She’s not a lawyer, she’s a democrat.

Ragspierre | May 1, 2015 at 4:12 pm

What case law tells us

A review of the relevant civil case law regarding prisoner transport reveals a number of judicial decisions regarding the above cited areas. Among these areas of potential civil liability, the use or misuse of restraints, the failure to utilize seatbelts, and transporting prisoners for medical purposes emerge as among the more common topics in which litigation is filed. Due to the page limitations for this article only a few cases will be discussed.

A prisoner may file a civil lawsuit under Section 1983 for alleged violations of their constitutional rights and the legal argument applied in the lawsuit is determined by the status of the prisoner. For example, an arrested person injured during a transport after an arrest by a law enforcement officer may claim a Fourth Amendment right violation for the misuse of restraints, excessive use of force, and a failure to provide medical care under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Prisoners detained in a jail and injured during a transport from the jail to court or a medical care facility (or other destinations) generally allege a Fourteenth Amendment violation, while some federal courts have allowed jail prisoners to file a claim under the Eighth Amendment.

Convicted prisoners, however, may file a lawsuit regarding a transport issue consistent with the Eighth Amendment, due to their convicted status. Typically the prisoner will also claim that administrators failed to train, failed to supervise the transporting officer (s), and failed to direct officers through policies and/or the department implemented constitutional deficient policies.

What about seatbelts?

Many transportation policies direct officers to use the vehicle seatbelt when transporting a prisoner. A common complaint raised in a prisoner transport lawsuit emerges when a prisoner is injured and an officer failed to secure him with a seatbelt. In Brown v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections (8th Cir. 2004) a state prisoner was allegedly injured from an accident while en route to a correctional facility.

He claimed that the officers were liable for denying post-accident care and for providing inadequate medical care. He also claimed that the officers refused to seatbelt him into the vehicle and argued that his injuries were sustained due to a failure to be seat belted. The appellate court overturned the lower court’s decision, holding that the prisoner stated a valid Section 1983 claim. The court ruled that the prisoner’s claims aligned with the deliberate indifference standard commenting that he had a right to safety and to medical care.

Compare however, the court’s decision in Carrasquillo v. City of New York (S.D.N.Y. 2004).

A city prisoner brought a Section 1983 action against the City after he was injured in a bus accident while being transported to court. The prisoner claimed that he sustained injury as the officers failed to provide him a seat belt in the transport bus while he was secured in handcuffs. The prisoner claimed that he could hardly support himself and that he was denied adequate treatment.

The court dismissed the prisoner’s complaint holding that the city did not violate the prisoner’s constitutional rights by failing to provide him with a seatbelt while transporting him in handcuffs. Further, in Spencer v. Knapheide Truck Equipment Company (8th Cir. 1999) a pretrial detainee who had suffered injuries rendering him quadriplegic after he was placed with handcuffs behind his back in police transport vehicle, and was thrown forward into the bulkhead of the passenger compartment, brought a Section 1983 action against city officials.

The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the officers, stating that neither the purchase of vehicles without safety restraints, nor the manner of transporting arrestees in the vehicles, showed deliberate indifference to the rights of the pretrial detainee.
http://www.correctionsone.com/products/vehicle-equipment/prisoner-transport/articles/1843670-Prisoner-transports-officer-safety-liability-issues/
————————————-

The TDCJ does not use any seat belts in the prisoner sections of their MANY buses and vans.

I doubt the Feds use them, either. But I dunno…

    “I doubt the Feds use them, either. But I dunno…”

    The FBI Special Agent I happen to be chatting with this very moment tells me that the Bureau does buckle prisoners.

    He can’t speak, however, to how the Marshals Service or other Federal agencies handle this issue.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      Ragspierre in reply to Andrew Branca. | May 1, 2015 at 4:32 pm

      Raylan Givens is as apt as not to toss you in the trunk if you’re too chatty…

      in the early to mid nineties it was policy for US Marshall service. Now I am not sure if that was a regional or all encompassing policy or not.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Andrew Branca. | May 1, 2015 at 6:39 pm

      Just text my buddy who is a U.S. Marshall and yes they buckle prisoners, unless it is a high capacity van or bus. He seems to think that it is a pretty standard procedure among all federal law enforcement.

gregjgrose | May 1, 2015 at 4:26 pm

“it is better that six men should suffer for the people, not that the whole city should burn” John 11:50, sorta

My first thought upon hearing of the charges against these officers was of Angela Corey and her despicable actions in the Trayvon Martin/ Zimerman case. As a Florida citizen, I’m still looking forward to the day when Angela Corey’s head is hoisted on a stake. But I’m not holding my breath.

The movement to federalize local PDs started when Obama pronounced the Cambridge police as having “acted stupidly”. This agenda has picked up more steam with every incident of black criminals propelling their own lives to a predictable bad end (by their own actions)in encounters with law enforcement.

    Even if there is genuine officer misbehavior in this case, something far from proven, it doesn’t make the agenda any less rancid or fake. Used to be a lot more young black men getting slaughtered on the streets. What changed? More policing. Apparently saving their lives was an unconscionable crime against their humanity.

      MarkS in reply to JBourque. | May 1, 2015 at 7:46 pm

      That’s a hell of a standard you propose for acceptable police work! Think of all the lives that could be saved if it weren’t for those pesky 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments,

So far the evidence provided is thin, but we’ll just have to see. The problem is if it stays thin.

From a layman’s point of view, I’m a fan of the idea that those in our justice system like prosecutors and judges need to not just avoid actual impropriety, but even the appearance of impropriety. Given Ms. Mosby’s personal, professional and political relationships here, I think she fails on at least the latter – if not the former – ideal.

It’s really a train wreck waiting to happen. Even if everything were 100% ethical, unbiased and above-board; and even if she clearly and unanimously proves one or more of these charges to be true and justified; there’s always going to be a question in some peoples’ minds as to whether justice really was served.

And if it turns out that she skipped steps and just sort of threw together a “made-to-order” investigation in order to secure charges for personal or political reasons, that’s going to come back and bite her on the bee-hind. As it should.

    Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | May 1, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    Why, Amy? You know that those cops killed Gray, who they unlawfully arrested.

    You’ve said so all over the previous thread on the issue.

    They get what they deserve, right?

    Right?

      Yes, I believe that those cops were responsible for the death of Mr. Gray, whom they had no good reason to arrest in the first place. That’s my opinion on the matter. That doesn’t mean I don’t want them to have their day in court, and for it to not just be fair but be seen to be fair.

      Don’t confuse me with those who are fans of extra-judicial summary punishment or execution of those they believe to be “bad guys”. I wish that Walter Scott had been spared so that he could have his day in court; I wish that Freddie Gray had been spared so that he could have his day in court; I’m pleased that these police are still alive and well and will be granted their day in court. As flawed as our justice system may seem at times, it’s still better than any of the other options out there.

        Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | May 1, 2015 at 5:28 pm

        “Yes, I believe that those cops were responsible for the death of Mr. Gray, whom they had no good reason to arrest in the first place.”

        “…those cops…”??? WHICH cops?

        The original arresting officers? THEY are responsible for Gray’s death? You base your opinion on pure faith that the prosecutor is telling the WHOLE truth…that there were no OTHER reasons BESIDES the (putatively) illegal knife for arresting Gray. The charge sheet names possession and sale of a switch-blade knife. Was that made out by the LEO who originally chased Gray, and who may have observed a drug sale? Do you know?

        The LEOs in the videos give EVERY appearance of performing blamelessly in their handling of Gray. How did they “kill” him?

        Do you even know if THOSE cops in the videos were among those charged?

        You’re welcome to your opinion(s). I wish you were more careful with them.

        Freddie Gray had an Active Criminal Arrest Warrant at the time he was contacted by Police, and the Officers knew Freddie Gray well enough already to recognize him on sight.

        http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=1B02290044&loc=2&detailLoc=DSCR

        Note the Criminal Warrant Disposition.

          For the third time, I’ll point out to you that that warrant was served and taken care of on March 18th.

          Ragspierre in reply to FlatFoot. | May 1, 2015 at 8:20 pm

          Flatfoot, you link won’t work for me.

          Amy, has it occurred to you that’s a DIFFERENT warrant?

          It’s the same number warrant as the one he and his Nuthouse wolverines have been shopping all over the place.

          Truncated Treehouse Version: https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/baltimore-active-warrant.jpg
          Full Version: http://imgur.com/PD8E3lU

          Ragspierre in reply to FlatFoot. | May 1, 2015 at 9:03 pm

          Appears you are right, Amy.

          Once a day is OK…

          Gremlin1974 in reply to FlatFoot. | May 2, 2015 at 6:03 am

          Not that it really matters. If you make eye contact with me and then run like a scalded dog I am gonna be suspicious.

          The difference is that I don’t have the authority to go after the person and see what is going on, the cops kind of have to, especially when its a known felon.

          Also, as a felon isn’t Mr. Gray supposed to not possess weapons and could the knife he had have violated that restriction? (This is an actual question for Rags or Andrew or one of the other Esquires in Residence.)

          Not that it really matters.

          Yes. Yes, it does. Police shouldn’t be encouraged to arrest people for things that aren’t actually crimes, then, when it turns out they stuffed up, go hunting around later for things that were crimes that perhaps might have made their arrest, in hindsight, legit.

          And the fact that people have been making stuff up to justify the police actions, like that stupid already-dealt-with warrant, matters too. It shows that there are people so ideologically invested in “proving” that Mr Gray deserved what he got, that they’re willing to spread lies, and then to abuse anyone who dares to debunk those lies. That’s just not helpful.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to FlatFoot. | May 2, 2015 at 11:40 am

          Hey, if you don’t want the cops to investigate a suspicious felon that is hanging around your property then that is up to you.

          Mr. Gray acted in a suspicious manner, was a known felon, and (even if it was a mistake) was in possession of what the cops thought was a prohibited weapon. He was arrested for completely appropriate reasons, just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it wrong or illegal. Look up Andrew’s earlier post on this subject.

          “that Mr Gray deserved what he got”

          Not a single person on her has even come anywhere near suggesting this and you do yourself a disservice by even suggesting it. I have always respected your opinions here, this idiotic statement damaged that respect.

      clerk in reply to Ragspierre. | May 2, 2015 at 8:48 am

      Had Freddie arrived safely at the jail — as is the case nearly 100% of the time — this same prosecutors office, Ms. Mosby’s office — would have filed a myriad of criminal charges against Mr. Gray. Don’t underestimate the creativeness of prosecutors in finding criminal statutes.

      Bottom line, when you resist police officers with violence, you are committing a crime. What the law defines as violence is probably very different from what Amy may define as violence.

        Bottom line, when you resist police officers with violence, you are committing a crime.

        Nobody has ever alleged that Mr Gray “resisted police officers with violence. Even the written report by Officer Garrett Miller states that Mr Gray was arrested “without force or incident”. Resistance without incident is not the same as resistance with violence.

        Stop making stuff up to justify how glad you are that yet another victim is dead at the hands of police. You are just reinforcing every stereotype and grievance the Left has about so-called “conservatives” and their knee-jerk defense of anyone who kills a black man.

          You misunderstand what “without force or resistance” means in this context.

          It is a phrase generally used to indicate one of the lesser degrees of resisting arrest, and is to contrast with the more serious form of resisting in which an officer is injured.

          Indeed, prosecutors will often decline to charge with a higher level of resisting arrest if there are no accompanying injuries of any sort to the arresting officers, as it’s simply not worth the effort trying to sell it to a jury. The police filling out the criminal complaint will, of course, know this, and “fill the blanks” accordingly.

          So a suspect may well forcefully resist arrest, but absent an injury to the arresting officers it gets put down on paper as “without force or resistance.”

          In any case, the fact that the suspect did not use “force or resistance” does NOT mean that force was not involved in the arrest.

          Non-compliance to lawful arrest, even if that non-compliance is entirely passive (e.g. flopping on the ground, keeping limbs rigid to resist cuffing, etc.) entitles the arresting officers to use whatever degree of force (other than deadly, absent a deadly threat) necessary to secure the suspect.

          Thus an arrest can, and often does, involve the use of lawful force, sometimes considerable force, even if the suspect is not himself directing force at the officers.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          sequester in reply to Amy in FL. | May 2, 2015 at 1:30 pm

          Wow Amy, you are certainly making a scene. This young man was out on bail on an assault charge. One would have to research the Maryland Law, but in many States running from police would be sufficient reason to arrest him for the purpose of bringing him before a judge for a bail revocation hearing.

          In most jurisdictions, prosecutors, take a dim view of people out on bail who run from the police after they observe a possible “sale”.

          Oh! Okay! So there IS evidence that Mt Gray “resisted arrest with violence”, and thus deserved (apparently) to be killed?!

          Last I heard, he surrendered peacefully. And ended up dead anyway. But if y’all have evidence to the contrary, I’d be pleased to see it!

        Ragspierre in reply to clerk. | May 2, 2015 at 9:36 am

        Wows, Amy, histrionics for breakfast? You might want to cut back on the sugary cereal.

        I recommend a nice long walk.

    gregjgrose in reply to Amy in FL. | May 1, 2015 at 5:11 pm

    >> … I’m a fan of the idea that those in our justice system like prosecutors and judges need to not just avoid actual impropriety, but even the appearance of impropriety. …

    If only those others in our justice system, known as defendants, could also avoid not only actual impropriety, but even the appearance thereof…

Ragspierre | May 1, 2015 at 4:42 pm

I see some big opportunities here.

The Vulcan Nerve Pinch restraint collar.

The Mr. Puffy inflatable vehicular prisoner restraint system (with marshmallow scent).

The Cheap Pine Box prisoner restraint and transport system (with integral lifting crane for the large-boned miscreant).

Bear in mind that Mosby isn’t required to lay out her whole case at a press conference. It could be that there’s some solid evidence that she hasn’t yet disclosed, and more evidence may develop over the coming weeks as her staff interview witnesses and go over reports. It’s fair at this point to speculate that the case is political and unjust, but we must remember that it is just speculation, which may or may not be borne out by the facts when they emerge.

    Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | May 1, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    A prosecutor violates their ethics and oath if they lay charges they have no PRESENT reason to believe they can substantiate with the EVIDENCE they have developed at the time of their actions. They can’t charge on what they HOPE.

    Or am I mistaken? (I’m not a criminal lawyer.)

      Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | May 1, 2015 at 6:03 pm

      The evidence she has now (but has not necessarily disclosed) may justify the charges she has laid. We don’t know. She does not at this time need to have enough evidence to convict, but merely to create a prima facie case. By the time she goes to trial she will need enough evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

“In terms of Goodson providing medical aid to Gray himself, was Goodson appropriately trained and skilled to do so? Was providing such aid a normal part of his job? Was he an EMT? For a rather major point of condemnation of Gray(?), Mosby seems to provide little evidence that Gray(?) had either a legal duty or the necessary skill and training to provide personally provide Gray with medical care.”
I presume that the two flagged instances of ‘Gray’ should be ‘Goodson’.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to SRaher. | May 1, 2015 at 5:55 pm

    Another OCD newbie.

      It’s no more OCD than pretending to take someone’s dying gasp of “I can’t breathe” literally so that you can call them a liar for it.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Amy in FL. | May 2, 2015 at 4:39 am

        Freddie didn’t die until a week later, so it was hardly his dying gasp. Could we maybe roll back the drama queen quips just a tad?

          Shortly after his dying gasp of “I can’t breathe”, he had to be placed on a ventilator. Because… he… couldn’t… breathe. But to your mind, his gasp of “I can’t breathe” just adds fuel to the argument that he’s a lying liar (who obviously deserved to be put down) because a dying person gasping “I can’t breathe” instead of clearly articulating “Excuse me, sir, but I appear to be having some difficulty with my breathing” is not literally telling the truth. That’s very OCD.

          Ragspierre in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | May 2, 2015 at 9:24 am

          Amy, look up the parable of “The Boy (can I say that?) Who Cried Wolf”. Freddie was singing the blues and acting like his legs were broken WAY before he finally stood on the step of the van and tucked himself in, bending his neck.

          Speaking of singing the blues, don’t play “abused Amy” while chanting that line about anyone saying “I can’t breath” is OCD or WETF. You’re wrong. Just let it go.

          Gray was checked on, and he was gotten to medical help.

      Not OCD. CDO. I put the letters in ALPHABETICAL ORDER, like they’re SUPPOSED TO BE!!

      🙂

      Actually, I prefer “compulsive proofreader.” Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe.

    Indeed, thanks, now fixed. 🙂

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

MouseTheLuckyDog | May 1, 2015 at 4:52 pm

Mosby seems to provide little evidence that Gray had either a legal duty or the necessary skill

change Gray to Goodson — just sayin

Henry Hawkins | May 1, 2015 at 5:24 pm

May be buying time with charges she knows will later fail, but the city cools off in the meantime.

    Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | May 1, 2015 at 5:31 pm

    That’s NOT her job. If that’s what she’s doing, she should be removed and disbarred.

      Observer in reply to Ragspierre. | May 1, 2015 at 6:07 pm

      She should never have been the person deciding on the charges in the first place. She is married to a Baltimore City councilman; her legal “mentor” and major contributor to her political campaign and member of her political transition team, is the attorney currently representing the family of Freddie Gray.

      The woman has multiple, substantial conflicts of interest. An ethical attorney would have recognized that immediately and recused herself. She should be investigated by the Maryland bar for even being involved in the case.

      Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | May 1, 2015 at 6:29 pm

      Exactly.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Henry Hawkins. | May 1, 2015 at 6:02 pm

    Dream on, Henry. This babe is out for blood. She wants to unseat Hogan. She and her clan will teach the upstarts a lesson for wandering off the plantation by voting in a ‘pub governor.

Mosby states that Gray told the officers he could not breath, but of course if he was speaking he was necessarily breathing.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but it’s pretty common shorthand for people who are having severe breathing difficulties to gasp the shorthand phrase “I can’t breathe,” rather than carefully enunciating, “Excuse me, but I appear to be having some difficulty with my breathing.” Does anyone truly not understand what people in dire straits who use that phrase mean by it?

“I can’t breathe” was one of the last things my dying grandmother said, and no-one shouted at her “OH YES YOU CAN BREATHE, YOU LYING LIAR!!11!!! Otherwise you wouldn’t be TALKING!!111!!” Because that’s a bit pedantic, and everyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size and an EQ bigger than their thumb knew what she meant. Yes?

    Milhouse in reply to Amy in FL. | May 1, 2015 at 6:30 pm

    This.

      Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | May 1, 2015 at 6:59 pm

      …is silly.

      It’s an utterly emotional “argument” using a comparison that has essentially nothing to do with this situation.

      Or do you seriously believe that Amy’s expiring g’ma in hospital is just like a Baltimore street thug riding to jail?

      How many times do you think street cops hear, “I can’t breath” from prisoners each week? Do they get callous? You would. I would.

        Or do you seriously believe that Amy’s expiring g’ma in hospital is just like a Baltimore street thug riding to jail?

        In both cases, it was one of the last things they managed to gasp out before they died. So, there’s that.

        If a teacher, who also has people under her care and control, were having children run laps and were to ignore your child gasping that he or she couldn’t breathe, and refused to get them any medical assistance, and your child then lapsed into unconsciousness and died, still under her care and control, would you hold the teacher harmless in your child’s death because “oh, children exaggerate all the time!”?

          Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | May 1, 2015 at 7:30 pm

          “In both cases, it was one of the last things they managed to gasp out before they died. So, there’s that.”

          Nope. You need to read up on the course of this, Amy.

          You can try another inapposite comparison if you want. Nobody can stop you.

          heyjoojoo in reply to Amy in FL. | May 2, 2015 at 1:21 am

          Yeah, I’m not sure I would attempt to use a grandmother in an analogy with subjects who are arrested day in and day out and are often making statements like that to interrupt an arrest. I dont think any grandmother has ever made such a statement (I can’t breath) as often as an arrestee would make. So the context is very different.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Amy in FL. | May 2, 2015 at 4:55 am

          You’ve clearly avoided the learning curve that comes from handling and observing thugs and repeat, chronic offenders. The level of suspicion of the credibility of a child complaining of physical distress vs. a career heroin dealer doing so because he’s on his way to jail AGAIN are as different as night and day.

        MarkS in reply to Ragspierre. | May 1, 2015 at 7:40 pm

        Yeah, one of Eric Garner’s last utterances was “I can’t breath”. But then again he was lying, right?

          Ragspierre in reply to MarkS. | May 1, 2015 at 7:54 pm

          Apparently, SEVERAL of his last utterances were “I can’t breath”.

          Just like Freddie Gray. Just like LEOs hear MANY prisoners do. And, like here, the LEOs checked on him. They got BOTH to help they couldn’t provide, too.

          SDN in reply to MarkS. | May 2, 2015 at 1:45 am

          Both you and Ragspierre are showing ignorance. What killed Garner is what’s known as “compression asphyxiation” medically.

          When someone is choked the way you two are assuming, with something used to apply pressure to the windpipe, then yes, air can neither go in or come out, and talking is impossible.

          In “compression asphyxiation”, the chest is compressed by weight, usually a combination of the victim’s and someone(s) pinning them down. Air is forced from the lungs, and the weight prevents the lungs from expanding to take air back in. As long as air remains in the lungs, the victim can expel it to talk. The “can’t breathe” is when the victim realizes the chest is being crushed, preventing intake.

          Ragspierre in reply to MarkS. | May 2, 2015 at 7:49 am

          Um…you are not telling me anything new.

          At the time, this is why they were careful to put Garner on his SIDE, according to policy, though he ideally should have been sat up.

          But MarkS is one of the idiots who post here that NY LEOs murdered purrr Mr. Garner, so you might have told him stuff he didn’t know.

I predict there won’t be enough to convict on any of the more serious charges but the jury will convict on the misconduct charges. Then the Gray family will get a fat settlement from the city with the mayor’s approval.

    Twanger in reply to rokiloki. | May 5, 2015 at 4:42 pm

    Yes, and the lawyer will get a fat check, and the prosecutor will get a nice fat check to help her win the next election…

    Money makes the world go round, the world go round… Cabaret

blacksburger | May 1, 2015 at 5:49 pm

“May be buying time with charges she knows will later fail, but the city cools off in the meantime.”
And if the case is dropped or the cops are acquitted, there will be worse riots than ever. Remember the response when the grand jury in Ferguson did not indict Wilson?

    Ragspierre in reply to blacksburger. | May 1, 2015 at 5:51 pm

    The Rodney King riots came after an acquittal, remember.

      Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | May 1, 2015 at 6:31 pm

      Yes, and an acquittal that the second trial almost completely vindicated. The only difference between the state and federal verdicts was six blows.

      dhmosquito in reply to Ragspierre. | May 1, 2015 at 6:57 pm

      Wouldn’t you think a change of venue is advised?

      Seems to me that a request for trial in a more “objective” locale is seldom granted in political cases like this. I’ve got a tough time thinking a fair trial(s) can be realized.

        Ragspierre in reply to dhmosquito. | May 1, 2015 at 7:03 pm

        I think it should be moved for, yes.

        I also doubt very seriously that MOST of these charges will survive to trial. Several seem VERY ill-founded.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Ragspierre. | May 2, 2015 at 5:04 am

          Ethical conduct in the case going forward ultimately rests with the judge and the diligence of defense counsel.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to dhmosquito. | May 1, 2015 at 7:08 pm

        With the national media attention, I am not sure an “Objective” location can be found.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gremlin1974. | May 1, 2015 at 7:38 pm

          You gotta BELIEVE…!!! Many said the same about several other notorious recent situations involving the same dynamics.

In Florida, Corey was brought in – I suppose – to avoid violence and ensure a complete investigation (although by then two had already been done). Whether or not Scott should have foreseen she would engage in a political witch-hunt is a matter to discuss, but that’s what she did.

Here, Mosby refuses an outside, independent prosecutor because she knows any objective reading of the facts as we know them cannot support the grave charges she is laying.

– –

After the Change of Venue succeeds and the Not Guilty verdicts arrive, does Baltimore have a plan to deal with the thugs who will have had their hopes for vengeance dashed by reality?

Or will they let it burn again?

Is it just me, or did anyone else think the Mosby press conference came off as being run by a personal injury attorney? Seriously? The cops didn’t have probable cause to arrest Freddie?

Gremlin1974 | May 1, 2015 at 7:06 pm

“In terms of Goodson providing medical aid to Gray himself, was Goodson appropriately trained and skilled to do so? Was providing such aid a normal part of his job? Was he an EMT? For a rather major point of condemnation of Gray, Mosby seems to provide little evidence that Gray had either a legal duty or the necessary skill and training to provide personally provide Gray with medical care.”

Great point considering that the wrong care can be worse than no care in many cases. Also, many agencies have policies against attempting to provide care if you don’t have the appropriate training.

Example: I am a Nurse who is trained in ACLS (Advanced Cardiac Life Support), basically that means that I can give drugs and use the shocky machine on a person who’s heart has stopped and I don’t have to wait on a doctor. However, if you aren’t trained in ACLS and you tried to use the shocky machine on a person, even if it was warranted, then you would be in a load of trouble.

As far as Mr. Gray’s claim of having trouble breathing. Well I wonder how many times a day cops hear complaints like that? If they reacted to each and every complaint of injury or “medical problem” by calling a medic then you might as well transport every prisoner in an ambulance with a cop and E.M.T. in the back.

While it seems to be clear that at least some minor negligence occurred since everyone seems to agree that Gray wasn’t “buckled in” there is no way to stipulate that the blame for that negligence should be shared or even rises to the level of murder.

Sammy Finkelman | May 1, 2015 at 7:18 pm

Marilyn Mosby was interviewed on the CBS Evening News. She said there was no rush to judgement. She didn’t learn anyuthing new yesterday, except that the medical examiner called it homicide, which I suppose means there was no disease or prior injury.

They say he was injured while shackled and handcuffed in the paddy wagon and not secured by a seat belt.

They did not give him medical attention and by the time he got to the precinct he wasn’t breathing.

Sammy Finkelman | May 1, 2015 at 7:22 pm

Question for Marilyn Mosby?

Would you have done the same thing if there had not been all these demonstrations and riots?

If yes, then doesn’t that mean all these protests were unnecessary?

If no, then isn’t this a rush to judgement or the appearance of a rush to judgement and possibly even a perversion of justice and not equal justice under law?

Sammy Finkelman | May 1, 2015 at 7:27 pm

Question for Marilyn Mosby?

Would she have anything different if there had not been all these demonstrations and riots?

If no, then weren’t all these demonstrations unnecessary?

If yes, then isn;t this unequal justice under law?

If no to the second question, what did she do different than what would have occured as a matter of course?

Just speed and publicity?

All this will accomplish is making Freddie Gray’s death a 2fer … rioting until the cops were charged, and rioting again when they are found not guilty …

Ragspierre | May 1, 2015 at 9:28 pm

“If, with the nation watching, three black women at three different levels can’t get justice and healing for this community, you tell me where we’re going to get it in our country,” she asked, referring to herself, State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/05/01/baltimore-mayor-if-three-black-women-at-three-levels-cant-get-justice-where-will-we-get-it-200445#ixzz3YwMcJboP

So. The mayor is a racist AND a sexist.

Hardly remarkable, because…Brandeis.

Ragspierre | May 1, 2015 at 9:29 pm

“If, with the nation watching, three black women at three different levels can’t get justice and healing for this community, you tell me where we’re going to get it in our country,” she asked, referring to herself, State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/05/01/baltimore-mayor-if-three-black-women-at-three-levels-cant-get-justice-where-will-we-get-it-200445#ixzz3YwMcJboP

So. She’s a racist AND a sexist, because…Brandeis.

mwsomerset | May 1, 2015 at 9:58 pm

So….the cops arrest a guy who eyeballs them and runs away….said guy ends up with a severed spine while still in police custody. Somebody(ies) is most definitely going to jail for this. The prosecutor “threw the book at the cops, picked it up dusted it off and threw it at them again.” (not my quote) Isn’t that what arresting officers do….list every possible offense hoping some will stick? All I can say is I am looking forward to the trial(s) and Andrew’s commentary.

Richard Aubrey | May 1, 2015 at 10:34 pm

Jury will acquit, which is the plan, in order to have even bigger riots

MouseTheLuckyDog | May 1, 2015 at 11:42 pm

Ok radio surfing in between a hockey game and the NFL draft, I switched on Mark Levin for the five or six minutes before I have to change or risk a headache.

A couple of points he made:

1. The procedure to secure passengers. was only put into effect three or four weeks ago. That would put it at just days before the incident.
2. The prosecutor did not present any evidence at the press conference. In fact she deliberately withheld the coroners report, the police reports and other evidence.
3. At this point the defense attorney is complaining that he has received nothing from the prosecution.

Not to be transgenderphobic or anything….but is that a guy or a gal in the photo?????

Uncle Samuel | May 2, 2015 at 5:33 am

It looks like Ms. Mosby graduated from the Sharpton/Farrakhan/Holder School of Social and Street Justice Law…and is practicing according to their dictums.

Uncle Samuel | May 2, 2015 at 5:37 am

It looks as though Ms. Mosby graduated from the Sharpton/Farrakhan/Holder School of Social and Street Justice Law School and is practicing according to their dictums.

For the sake of six men whose lives are on the line now and have been daily for Baltimore recuse yourself Ms. Mosby and push for a new venue for the trial. Blind Justice demands it and your law career would not appear to be enslaved to black identity politics.

Rousseauism: Liberals, especially black Democrats, have consistently made the claim that institutions, not man himself, are corrupt and constantly flawed (ergo, requiring ever more tax money to repair). If you do not recuse yourself Ms. Mosby and push for a new trial venue then yes, the institution of the Baltimore DA is deeply flawed and corrupt. And, as we have witnessed, the Eric Holder built DOJ institution is also deeply flawed and myopically unjust.

Justice, Blind Justice, and NOT ad hoc “hate the man” identity politic framing justice is what MLK’s legacy would require of you.

Gremlin1974 | May 2, 2015 at 6:13 am

Humm, I heard on a local radio station that either on of the cops or his lawyer is saying that the ME’s report was change from accident to homicide, after a “meeting” with the ME. If its true I would be completely not surprised.

For the sake of six men whose lives are on the line now and have been daily for Baltimore recuse yourself Ms. Mosby and push for a new venue for the trial. Blind Justice demands it of you and your law career would not appear to be enslaved to black identity politics.

Rousseauism: Liberals, especially black Democrats, have consistently made the claim that institutions, not man himself, are corrupt and constantly flawed (ergo, requiring ever more tax money). If you do not recuse yourself Ms. Mosby and push for a new trial venue, then yes, the institution of the Baltimore DA is also deeply flawed and corrupt. And, as we have witnessed, the Eric Holder built DOJ is already deeply corrupt and myopically unjust.

Justice, Blind Justice, and not ad hoc “hate the man” identity politic framing justice is what MLK’s legacy requires of you.

Ragspierre | May 2, 2015 at 8:38 am

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/alan-dershowitz-rips-charges-against-baltimore-cops-sad-day-for-justice/

Da Dersh agrees that this whole deal reeks, AND he slams the ACLU.

Uncle Samuel | May 2, 2015 at 8:50 am

This is all about the Sharpton/Holder/Farrakhan School of Street Law and Social Justice and its dictums and desires.

Ms. Mosby is not operating according to Legal Process and Precedent.

Charge in haste, repent in leisure. (Confucius.) I am sure Caesar Goodson’s – the black cop who drove the van- lawyer will make Mosby rue this.

Illegal Caesar???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm

There once was a copper named Caesar,
And that Mosby! Oh nothing would please her,
But to charge him, real quick!
Lay it on good and thick,
And she always could repent in leisure!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

So Freddie has been arrested some 20+ times according to various sources on the internet: burglary, weapons, manufacturing narcotics, possession of cocaine, dealing narcotics, possession of stolen property, etc. multiple counts.

One has to imagine that every time Freddie got cuffed, stuffed, and “taken downtown” that there was some small odds that the whole things was gonna go south and he was gonna get hurt. If several cops have to sit on you say 20 times, what are the odds that eventually you’re gonna get bent permanently? It seems like the wear and tear of living the life he lead just eventually caught up with him. Sad, unfortunate, and he didn’t “deserve” to die but it happened.

Had he lead a cleaner life, perhaps if he had only been arrested 15 times, he’d be alive today.

Hard to fault the police, IMHO, with a 20+ time loser.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend