Jump to content

Civil Unrest in Baltimore and the Freddie Gray Trial


TerraPrime

Recommended Posts

Brandon,

Is this like a pocket knife that has a locking mechanism that holds the blade in place once it is open "so far". If so, I've violated the Baltimore ordinance because I have a pocket knife with a locking blade that I keep in my car. It would have been there when Indrove through Baltimore in December.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Baltimore Sun article gives a distinction between the state and city wordings on spring-assisted.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-freddie-gray-statements-20150505-story.html#page=1

State law says a person may not "display" a "switchblade" or a "knife or a penknife having a blade that opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring, or other device in the handle of the knife."

Baltimore City code says a person can't 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."

Is the knife in the Wikipedia article from previous post illegal in Baltimore? It's not a switchblade. And there wasn't a button to depress. I think automatic vs semi-automatic will come into play?

The article also mentions how the knife was clipped inside his pocket and not discovered until the chase/arrest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, it was just to calm things down. They probably produced enough fuck ups to drag the process out for years. Then nobody cares and the carges will be dismissed because they won't have any merits.

(Kind of happens if you probably get half of your stuff excluded because you fucked up....)

If it would not be so sad, it would be hilarious.

Killing every chance for justice in an attempt to appease protesters demanding justice....

Well, I've said before in previous threads on these types of issues (Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman, Michael Brown, etc.) that I think the majority of people hold the views that they do based primarily on their ideology and less on the actual facts that reveal themselves. You're certainly proof, if more was needed, that this is no less true of conservatives than it is of liberals.

We know that a man was fatally injured in police custody after being put in restraints and not strapped in to the police vehicle he was detained in. That's really all any of us know right now. And I submit that, on its face, those facts are suspicious and should be investigated. The rest is speculation based upon statements released by various parties. I think it's unfortunate that many conservatives are going to credulously line up behind one group, and many liberals are going to credulously line up behind another group, and most of them are not going to change their positions REGARDLESS of what the facts show.

But you can, and should, endeavor to do better. To suggest, at this point, that the charges don't have any merit even though they've been investigated by the Prosecutor's office is nothing but your ideological proclivities talking. There's certainly no evidence for it, other than a poorly written, factually-bereft and self-serving statement from an organization founded to support police officers.

That's not to say that the charges are ultimately going to be sustainable. Or even that if the charges are sustainable, that a conviction will be secured. I think we saw in the Zimmerman case that sometimes prosecutors overcharge without a factual basis to do so. But absent some actual evidence that this is the case (in the Zimmerman case, a lot of people began having doubts about the Prosecutor's case after they issued their suspect Affidavit of Probable Cause), all we can do is take a look at the BEST EVIDENCE available to us, and right now, those are the statements from the Prosecutor's office, who have allegedly substantiated their decision to charge with their own investigation. As more facts develop, it may turn out that the charges don't have the factual basis that we were told they did, but it really behooves us to follow the actual evidence, as it comes in, rather than staking out a position based on ideology and air, and hoping that the facts eventually line up (or sticking to your position even when the facts DON'T line up).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Baltimore Sun article gives a distinction between the state and city wordings on spring-assisted.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-freddie-gray-statements-20150505-story.html#page=1

State law says a person may not "display" a "switchblade" or a "knife or a penknife having a blade that opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring, or other device in the handle of the knife."

Baltimore City code says a person can't 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."

Is the knife in the Wikipedia article from previous post illegal in Baltimore? It's not a switchblade. And there wasn't a button to depress. I think automatic vs semi-automatic will come into play?

The article also mentions how the knife was clipped inside his pocket and not discovered until the chase/arrest.

I found this from 2012:

http://www.chacha.com/question/are-spring-assisted-opening-pocket-knives-legal-in-maryland

Which says that :

As of 1998, assisted opening knives were legal in Maryland with one restriction, they are carry only if not concealed. I did not find any regulations on the length of the blade. Laws may have been revised since article posted.

So I would think that unless laws have changed, the WIKI knife would be fine, unless concealed.

Can't find anything as far as Baltimore City is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the legality of the knife a little bit of a moot point? I mean, if it was found after they searched him, the key issue is whether they had probable cause to search him. And it feels like (from what has been reported) that they're only reason for probable cause was that he decided to run. So unless running in the street is now illegal or means a policeman has probable cause to search you, wasn't the detainment, search, and then arrest all illegal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I've said before in previous threads on these types of issues (Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman, Michael Brown, etc.) that I think the majority of people hold the views that they do based primarily on their ideology and less on the actual facts that reveal themselves. You're certainly proof, if more was needed, that this is no less true of conservatives than it is of liberals.

And what happend in those cases? If people would finally get it in their heads, that it does not matter what they think happend fuck it does not even really matter what happens. It matters what you can prove in court.

And it matters a lot how the prosecution goes about it. (Much more so in the US or the UK than in Germany because the judges in Germany can pretty much do what they want...)

Jesus, do not take it from me, take it from one of the top lawyers of your country:

even in video form.

To be honest, I just stuck with kind of his predection honestly just because I wanted to be right not really a matter of political ideology. And he happend to be right constanly on the other similar cases, so that is that.

I am not talking about a judgement rendered by Jesus Christ based on the ethernal truth or any kind of esoteric stuff, I am talking about a judgement in a court of law.

Without merits does not mean something did not happen, it means that in court there won't be any kind of evidence which supports the theory.

How do you think you could support murder charges? How do she even thinks she can prove the intent to kill?

And it is quite risky to go with "just choose a crime you think fits". Because if you waste a lot of time and energy trying to prove things which really can't be proven than you end up with less on the things which could have been and you bleed credibility.

I am not saying that a good prosecuter focused on the case, would have been unlikely to have gotten convictions I am saying that Marilyn Mosby probably won't or that those (even if she gets them) will probably be overturned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying that a good prosecuter focused on the case, would have been unlikely to have gotten convictions I am saying that Marilyn Mosby probably won't or that those (even if she gets them) will probably be overturned.

God only knows if Mosby will still be the prosecutor of the Freddie Gray case. The six officers filed a motion to dismiss charges or recuse Mosby (and her office) for conflicts of interest. Analysis and full copy of the motion here: http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/05/freddie-gray-case-detailed-analysis-of-motion-to-recuse-prosecutor/

Despite the Motion to recuse her for conflicts of interest, Mosby went onstage at a Prince concert organized as a tribute to Freddie Gray.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/11/us/baltimore-freddie-gray-mosby-criticism/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the Motion to recuse her for conflicts of interest, Mosby went onstage at a Prince concert organized as a tribute to Freddie Gray.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/11/us/baltimore-freddie-gray-mosby-criticism/

Oh for fuck's sake. The original recusal motion seemed idiotic, but, well, she really shouldn't have done that for a whole host of reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God only knows if Mosby will still be the prosecutor of the Freddie Gray case. The six officers filed a motion to dismiss charges or recuse Mosby (and her office) for conflicts of interest. Analysis and full copy of the motion here: http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/05/freddie-gray-case-detailed-analysis-of-motion-to-recuse-prosecutor/

Despite the Motion to recuse her for conflicts of interest, Mosby went onstage at a Prince concert organized as a tribute to Freddie Gray.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/11/us/baltimore-freddie-gray-mosby-criticism/

And the next one shall turn the coal she leaves her or him with into gold?

Just ask yourself why she is doing what she is doing? Does it seams that she wants to be the prosecutorto run this trail? Or does it seem she is doing everything to get out of it?

If the second, than you have to ask yourself why she would be doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the legality of the knife a little bit of a moot point? I mean, if it was found after they searched him, the key issue is whether they had probable cause to search him. And it feels like (from what has been reported) that they're only reason for probable cause was that he decided to run. So unless running in the street is now illegal or means a policeman has probable cause to search you, wasn't the detainment, search, and then arrest all illegal?

I can't remember if it was a recent article in the paper or a news casting that stated in areas of Baltimore city that are designated high crime areas, which this one was, running from the police unprovoked establishes probable cause to detain and search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's really interesting:


The US Supreme Court reversed both the Appellate and Illinois Supreme Court decisions, with the Supreme Court stating that fleeing in a high crime area at the sight of police is enough to create reasonable suspicion. Indicating that reasonable suspicion rest heavily on normal human behavior, stating that flight at the mere sight of police is a sign that there exists reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.

I did not know that, but I guess it kind of makes sense.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's really interesting:

I did not know that, but I guess it kind of makes sense.

Yes, and thinking about it more, the article or news casting may have also said...

fleeing without provocation AND reasonable belief that a crime may have been committed was enough to stop, question and search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That line of reasoning (that fleeing from police in a high crime area is probably cause) only makes sense to a bunch of white people who have never once seen (or been forced to see) the police as people who are there to help them if they need it. However for others this is not our experience with the police and especially for young black men and teens from poor neighborhoods especially any interaction with the police is likely to consist of the police having an attitude that he's a criminal, hostile behavior and quite frequently police brutality. I can't blame anyone for running from the police in those circumstances and would argue that it displays a sense of self-preservation.

As for intent, as I understand it in the case of the driver in the Gray case it doesn't have to be proven, from the Washington Post:

Second-Degree Depraved Heart Murder.

Second-degree murder is the killing of another person while acting with an extreme disregard for human life. In order to convict the defendant of second-degree murder, the State must prove:

(1) that the defendant caused the death of (name);

(2) that the defendant's conduct created a very high risk to the life of (name); and

(3) that the defendant, conscious of such risk, acted with extreme disregard of the life-endangering consequences.

Three of the others are charged with involuntary manslaughter, something that again does not require intent to prove. What they have to prove is reckless disregard, and from everything I know about the case that should be provable in court.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Summah,



My apologies. I was responding to the Supreme Court ruling quote, which did not show up as part of my post.. Please do not think that I am unsympathetic. I am well aware of how people in areas of the city like Sandtown are treated by some police. But I'm not going to condemn the entire department based on the actions of some of the officers. Just like I won't condemn all those who live in areas like Sandtown as murders and drug addicts. Officers who cross the line should be held accountable. We should expect no less. Eliminating the "Zero Tolerance Policy" and disbanding the Violent Crimes Task Force was a start. Mosby seems to be jumping in at full speed. . We'll see how she does. More needs to be addressed.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...