Regarding Freddie Gray and the Baltimore Police cover up

[SR9]

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? The court of public opinion is B/S. Everybody thought the cop in Ferguson, Mo. was guilty until all the facts came out in the trial, and it was a "righteous shooting". All the factual evidence has not been released, and no trial scheduled.

Sounds to me we just have some cop haters here...........

 

[Firefighterchen]

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? The court of public opinion is B/S. Everybody thought the cop in Ferguson, Mo. was guilty until all the facts came out in the trial, and it was a "righteous shooting". All the factual evidence has not been released, d no trial scheduled.

Sounds to me we just have some cop haters here...........

None of the German officers thought the SS did anything wrong in their court of law either. Sounds like we have a bunch of nazi lovers here...

You think Wilson went to trial? That's what's wrong with America.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[vernsimpson]

The idiot prosecutor threw the book at the cops because of the "racist" attitude. Three of these cops were black so how does that hold up?? Now she MUST deliver and get convictions and if she does not get convictions Baltimore AND the rest of the country will go up in flames!!!

Which IMHO is EXACTLY what obummer wants!!!

 

[Firefighterchen]

It's amazing how so many believe in civilian boards to overlook pd... And then when they have a chance to have a trial by jury... It's the worst thing to happen...

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[BluesStringer]

It's amazing how so many believe in civilian boards to overlook pd... And then when they have a chance to have a trial by jury... It's the worst thing to happen...

What's at least as baffling to me is how cop supporters keep framing the Freddie Gray case as a racial case. It would be one thing if all they were talking about were the riots that came several days after Gray's death, but the cops aren't being accused of any race-centric crimes, and the charges, nor any trial(s) that ensue, don't/won't have a thing in the world to do with race.

One well-established cop-supporter-no-matter-what made the following post addressed to "some of you people," yet, when called on it, completely bailed on it as applying to anyone in this thread, or even on this site. Rather cowardly if you ask me.

Race/Cop baiting at it's finest. Some of you people really amaze me. I was gong to give a full dissertation but figured why bother. Time spent educating fools.

In short, it seems to me that the support-cops-no-matter-what-the-circumstance crowd are the race-baiters around here, and only those who actually support prosecuting people accused of breaking a number of laws are seeking anything approaching real justice.

Blues

 

[SR9]

Interesting reading

A view of the Baltimore and Maryland criminal justice system from a former prosecutor.
Monday, May 4, 2015
Baltimore's Hasty Prosecutor
Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby’s “quick” and “decisive” action in charging six Baltimore police officers a mere two weeks after the death of Freddie Gray reflects inexperience, recklessness, political ambition, or all of the above.
Alan Dershowicz, the noted defense attorney, sharply criticized her for using her charging power as “crowd control.” John Banzahf, a George Washington University law professor, predicted the eventual dismissal of most if not all the charges. The breadth of the charges, Mosby’s overreaching, is all-too-obvious.
Any prosecutor interested in the truth and in justice would have used all the tools at her disposal to find them. She has perhaps the most experienced homicide prosecutor in the state of Maryland as chief of her homicide unit, but did not ask him to investigate. She had access to the completed police report only one day before filing charges. And she failed to make use of the Grand Jury to gather, probe and test the evidence before a group of average citizens.
The Fraternal Office of Police called Mosby’s charges an “egregious rush to judgment.” It smacks more of a calculated push to the spotlight, filing charges after a mere two weeks. She conducted her own “parallel” investigation using her police integrity unit (the only unit for which she fails to list a supervisor on her website.) She received the autopsy report the same day as her press conference announcing the charges. In her haste to step into the national limelight, she circumvented normal charging procedures by grabbing a member of the sheriff’s office to file them for her. Her actions appear calculated for maximum surprise and effect, and she got it.
But she was so hasty she drew up warrants for the wrong people. And her arrest of two of the officers for making an illegal arrest was itself "illegal." Had she taken the time to discuss it with the police department, she'd have avoided an embarrassing mistake.
Published ethical standards prohibit the use of a prosecutor’s powers for political or personal purposes. They demand that prosecutors be fair and objective and protect the innocence. Instead Mosby, without all of the evidence yet available to her, pandered to the protestors by saying she had "heard [their] call for 'no justice, no peace'" and promised to work for “justice” for Freddie Gray, an ethical violation for which a former prosecutor blasted her immediately.
For those who feel gratitude to Mosby because of the result - the stemming of the violence, the charging of police officers, etc.- their thinking is understandable but misguided. Switch the players and the decision, for example. Suppose Gregg Bernstein was still in office, and two weeks after Gray's death announced that he did not find criminal culpability. Wouldn't we all agree that he could not possibly have taken his time to reach the right result? And we would not also be suspicious because his wife was a major player in police operations not long ago? People approve of Mosby because they like the result, but the process is more important in the long run. We have to be able to trust that no matter what the top prosecutor will act without bias or influence, whether it be from a mob or a relative or a campaign supporter like the Gray's lawyer, Billy Murphy.
Mosby has undermined the cause of justice rather than promoted it with her haste. She has created an expectation of guilt and conviction. But her own charging documents do not even support the most sensational charge of second degree murder, and they raise multiple points of doubt about other charges. If no convictions occur, many will blame the system as unfair or unjust, when it may have been Mosby’s own lack of competence and/or ambition in bringing charges so quickly. However much her performance raises her to star status, she will have dealt a blow to the justice system.
And she has created a new expectation in the city: that police officers who arrest without what she considers to be probable cause (an often subjective standard) are subject not just to civil action (the current norm) but criminal action. Mere mistakes, or judgments exercised under duress, can land them in the pokey.
How about Mosby's own mistake? Her case against the two arresting officers rests upon an "illegal arrest." She says the knife for which Freddie Gray was arrested was legal. But the police task force examined it and said the officers were indeed correct, the knife was spring-assisted and therefore prohibited. Mosby herself appears to have made an "illegal" arrest, and could be arrested under her theory of false imprisonment. And sued to boot, since she forfeited her immunity from civil action by doing the charging herself.
If I were a Baltimore police officer, I’d be looking for another job immediately. And as a Baltimore citizen, I may start looking for someplace else to live. When the police cannot depend upon the state’s attorney to be as thorough, competent, non-political, and fair with them as she is supposed to be with all citizens, none of us will be safe.

 

[mappow]

Nice bait Blues.......Never said "cop-supporter-no-matter-what" I believe ALL should be held to Justice. As for "Some of you people" that be some of you people. Some bash the police, some bash the blacks. I's just what it is. RACE RIOTS DID happen in Baltimore. Hence the race angle. Never said this being prosecuted as a race based unlawful act.
As for supporting LEO's. Ya dam straight, I support the Law! Just find it reprehensive that less than 1% skew the rest of honest LEO's. But than again, they work in your areas of the country. You don't wish to stay connected with your local Sheriff and or Chief of Police. You assume they'll preform accordingly. Yea, right. Stay connected, stay in touch. Let them know you're there.

 

[Ringo]

I'm neither for or against the police, I only know what I hear and view on the news, and like it or not the majority of the media news pertaining to police activity over the past decade hasn't painted a pretty picture. The local city and state police forces have been militarized and indoctrinated to view ‘civilians’ as the enemy. Forever gone are the men who patrolled our streets with the understanding they were in uniform to protect and serve the citizen taxpayers. Now, an alarming number of officers enjoy parading around in their black soldier outfits, aiming their new, automatic weapons in the faces of terrorized innocent men, women and children. Many of them love to arrest people for the slightest perceived infraction while completely violating the Constitutional rights of their victims. If they’re able to fit in a few kicks to the head of a handcuffed ‘suspect,’ all the better! God help you if you fail to automatically capitulate and bow in humble submission to their commands. Refuse to obey their every word and suffer the consequences, sometimes fatally. And as the bully cowards they really are, they especially enjoy shooting the family pet, usually a dog, even when that animal is absolutely no threat to them whatsoever. They seem to experience a rush of testosterone pleasure from seeing the grief-stricken shock of the pet owners as they watch their beloved friend writhe in pain. Like I said, not a pretty picture, but we've all viewed it and the truth hurts.

Our nation is on a greased slide towards hell and when it hits the fan, it’s going to hit hard and fast. Life as we know it will NEVER return to what we know as normal.

 

[mappow]

Less than 1% Ringo, less than 1%. It's unfortunate this even happens but staying close to your local LEO's and their ruling body lets them know that your watching and will intervene lawfully.

 

[Deanimator]

Less than 1% Ringo, less than 1%.

And you KNOW this HOW???

It MIGHT be true. It's probably not, but it might be.

On what FACTUAL basis do you make that claim?

I assert that there is literally NO way to know what the REAL percentage is, and that it likely changes from day to day.

• Are all cops crooked? No.
• Are some cops crooked? Yes.
• Is there a way to know if a cop is dirty BEFORE you contact him? No.
• Is it therefore smart to trust cops you don't KNOW... PERSONALLY? No.

Therefore:

1. Know the law.
2. Obey the law.
3. Have no contact with cops not MANDATED BY LAW.
4. In involuntary contacts with cops, disclose the MINIMUM information MANDATED BY LAW.

 

[BluesStringer]

Nice bait Blues.......Never said "cop-supporter-no-matter-what"

Gee, I don't recall mentioning any names....

Sounds as cowardly coming from me as it sounded coming from you, but since I'm not a coward, you're damned right, that was partially directed at you. Of course you never had to "say" it, your posts scream it! Let's use your own standard for what constitutes an accurate image to hold of one group of people, shall we? Show us more than 1% of your posts that are critical of cops. I'll be amazed if you can come up with even three such posts, and that's only less than 1/10th of 1% of your posts at present.

I believe ALL should be held to Justice.

That's it? That's your answer to the assertion that, "...it seems to me that the support-cops-no-matter-what-the-circumstance crowd are the race-baiters around here, and only those who actually support prosecuting people accused of breaking a number of laws are seeking anything approaching real justice?"

Underwhelming defense against the assertion to say the least.

As for "Some of you people" that be some of you people. Some bash the police, some bash the blacks. I's just what it is.

Name the people you're referring to. Name the race-baiters from your perspective in this thread, as very clearly, you were responding to something you perceived from this thread. Otherwise, talk about baiting! That's the definition of baiting if it had nothing to do with anything said and/or being discussed in the thread.

RACE RIOTS DID happen in Baltimore. Hence the race angle. Never said this being prosecuted as a race based unlawful act.

Cowardice. Everything being discussed in this thread before your "you people" BS was about the cops, the charges, the arrest, the knife, whatever, but rioting hadn't even been mentioned in this thread since the charges were announced, and neither did what you said have anything to do with the riots since you addressed it as a reply to what "some people" were saying in this thread. Just nut-up and throw your BS race-baiting accusations at whatever target you think deserves them, and stop trying to weasel out of it by claiming it meant something that wouldn't even make any sense in this thread at the point at which you said it.

As for supporting LEO's. Ya dam straight, I support the Law!

No, I support the law (the Constitution), you support its enforcers no matter what they do wrong. BIG difference.

Just find it reprehensive that less than 1% skew the rest of honest LEO's. But than again, they work in your areas of the country. You don't wish to stay connected with your local Sheriff and or Chief of Police. You assume they'll preform accordingly. Yea, right. Stay connected, stay in touch. Let them know you're there.

First, "reprehensive" isn't even a word.

Second, I'll use the occasion of your next post to address that pulled-out-of-your-ass 1% figure.

Third, what the heck does the rest of that babble even mean? Now I'm expected to socialize or correspond with or kiss the boots of people I don't want to have any association with at all? I don't need cops. Every time I've ever thought I did, they proved me wrong. They never lifted a finger to recover stolen property or to catch the burglars who were so stupid as to sign one of their own names to a credit card purchase they made on my stolen credit card. They're freakin' useless to me or my life. I live at the end of a dirt road now, and the only reason they will ever legally have to pull up in my driveway is if I call them, which I moved out here partially for the reason that, knowing I will never call them, there will be much less chance that I'll ever have to interact with them. Are you suggesting that I don't have the right to decide for myself who to trust, who to associate with, who to call for help, who to stay as far away as I can from?

Your unsolicited advice is insulting. You go rub elbows with cops in your area if that's what floats your boat, but leave me the heck out of it.

Less than 1% Ringo, less than 1%. It's unfortunate this even happens but staying close to your local LEO's and their ruling body lets them know that your watching and will intervene lawfully.

You couldn't possibly substantiate that 1% "statistic" if your life depended on it. Here's a free clue, mappow: Every cop who ever conducted a stop & frisk stop on some guy just walking down a city street violated the law that is the Fourth Amendment. Same with every cop who ever manned a DUI or Border Patrol checkpoint that are as much as 100 miles inside the borders of the US. Same with every cop who ever stole money under asset forfeiture (unconstitutional) "laws." Same with every gang of thugs who ever served a no-knock warrant when zero "exigent circumstances" existed to even comply with the already low standards set by SCOTUS, standards which themselves can have a very strong case made against them are unconstitutional as well.

That 1% figure is totally, completely, 100% made up, just like the accusation that anyone in this thread has engaged in race-baiting, "at its finest" or otherwise.

Blues

 

[mappow]

Why respond your mind set, your opinion is already established. Whilst I agree with "Therefore" items 1 and 2. I don't fully support 3 and 4.

 

[mappow]

Gee, I don't recall mentioning any names....

Sounds as cowardly coming from me as it sounded coming from you, but since I'm not a coward, you're damned right, that was partially directed at you. Of course you never had to "say" it, your posts scream it! Let's use your own standard for what constitutes an accurate image to hold of one group of people, shall we? Show us more than 1% of your posts that are critical of cops. I'll be amazed if you can come up with even three such posts, and that's only less than 1/10th of 1% of your posts at present.



That's it? That's your answer to the assertion that, "...it seems to me that the support-cops-no-matter-what-the-circumstance crowd are the race-baiters around here, and only those who actually support prosecuting people accused of breaking a number of laws are seeking anything approaching real justice?"

Underwhelming defense against the assertion to say the least.



Name the people you're referring to. Name the race-baiters from your perspective in this thread, as very clearly, you were responding to something you perceived from this thread. Otherwise, talk about baiting! That's the definition of baiting if it had nothing to do with anything said and/or being discussed in the thread.



Cowardice. Everything being discussed in this thread before your "you people" BS was about the cops, the charges, the arrest, the knife, whatever, but rioting hadn't even been mentioned in this thread since the charges were announced, and neither did what you said have anything to do with the riots since you addressed it as a reply to what "some people" were saying in this thread. Just nut-up and throw your BS race-baiting accusations at whatever target you think deserves them, and stop trying to weasel out of it by claiming it meant something that wouldn't even make any sense in this thread at the point at which you said it.



No, I support the law (the Constitution), you support its enforcers no matter what they do wrong. BIG difference.



First, "reprehensive" isn't even a word.

Second, I'll use the occasion of your next post to address that pulled-out-of-your-ass 1% figure.

Third, what the heck does the rest of that babble even mean? Now I'm expected to socialize or correspond with or kiss the boots of people I don't want to have any association with at all? I don't need cops. Every time I've ever thought I did, they proved me wrong. They never lifted a finger to recover stolen property or to catch the burglars who were so stupid as to sign one of their own names to a credit card purchase they made on my stolen credit card. They're freakin' useless to me or my life. I live at the end of a dirt road now, and the only reason they will ever legally have to pull up in my driveway is if I call them, which I moved out here partially for the reason that, knowing I will never call them, there will be much less chance that I'll ever have to interact with them. Are you suggesting that I don't have the right to decide for myself who to trust, who to associate with, who to call for help, who to stay as far away as I can from?

Your unsolicited advice is insulting. You go rub elbows with cops in your area if that's what floats your boat, but leave me the heck out of it.



You couldn't possibly substantiate that 1% "statistic" if your life depended on it. Here's a free clue, mappow: Every cop who ever conducted a stop & frisk stop on some guy just walking down a city street violated the law that is the Fourth Amendment. Same with every cop who ever manned a DUI or Border Patrol checkpoint that are as much as 100 miles inside the borders of the US. Same with every cop who ever stole money under asset forfeiture (unconstitutional) "laws." Same with every gang of thugs who ever served a no-knock warrant when zero "exigent circumstances" existed to even comply with the already low standards set by SCOTUS, standards which themselves can have a very strong case made against them are unconstitutional as well.

That 1% figure is totally, completely, 100% made up, just like the accusation that anyone in this thread has engaged in race-baiting, "at its finest" or otherwise.

Blues

Go beat up on someone else. You'll not change my outlook or baseline of morality. Won't friggin happen. Pray on someone else. Actually just pray.

 

[BluesStringer]

"Uhhh....I got nothin'."

Why should tonight be any different?

 

[mappow]

I believe the quote is "Go pound sand". Just deal with it.

 

[Deanimator]

Why respond your mind set, your opinion is already established. Whilst I agree with "Therefore" items 1 and 2. I don't fully support 3 and 4.

It seems you CAN'T respond.

You talk to the cops as MUCH as you want. THEY don't talk to criminal investigators when THEY'RE under suspicion.

 

[BluesStringer]

I believe the quote is "Go pound sand". Just deal with it.

I did, and continue to "deal with it" by describing it for exactly what it is, "Uhhh...I got nothin'."

The fact is you accused somebody in this thread of race-baiting, even if I was mistaken that it was directed at me. You either owe whomever you cast that aspersion on an apology, or you owe your own reputation the humility and credibility it would demonstrate to retract it and admit that it was baseless when you said it, not because it was insulting and/or offensive, but because it was indeed, baseless.

Blues

 

[BluesStringer]

I made a video demonstrating the differences between the three types of knives at-issue in the Baltimore Six case. Video quality sucks out loud, but the gist of it can still be discerned. Will post Description below video.

Description:

​

Published on May 6, 2015
Sorry for the lousy video. It started out the right size, but it was a huge file, so I tried to save it in a higher-compression format, and obviously blew it. If I can, I'll replace it with the original later, but for now, you can still get the gist of the demonstrations.

Comments welcome as long as they remain respectful and devoid of vulgarity. If you think the cops in the Freddie Gray case are being railroaded by the plethora of charges, you will probably not allow yourself to absorb the truths that this video and Description are intended to impart. That's on you, because I am confident that what I've provided here is indeed the truth surrounding the "spring assisted, one hand operated knife" that Ofc. Miller based Gray's arrest on in his Charging Documents, which can be found here:

Freddie Gray Charging Documents...

Md. CRIMINAL LAW Code Ann. § 4-101 (2012) defines what a switchblade is at § 4-105:

"(1) 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, commonly called a switchblade knife or a switchblade penknife; or

(2) a device that is designed to propel a knife from a metal sheath by means of a high-compression ejector spring, commonly called a shooting knife."

The Baltimore City Code that has been referenced by some in the media as outlawing assisted openers can be found here:

Law of Self Defense ? MD § 2-201. Murder in the first degree...

It says in its totality concerning what a switchblade is the following:

"§ 59-22. Switch-blade knives
(a) Possession or sale, etc., prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, carry, or possess any knife with an automatic spring or other device for opening and/or closing the blade, commonly known as a switch-blade knife."

My video clearly demonstrates that an assisted opener does NOT have an "automatic spring or other device" for opening OR closing the blade, and that the only "defining" language of "commonly known as a switchblade" can't possibly legally apply to an item that is commonly known as an "ASSISTED OPENER."

Go to Bacon v. State (of MD) to find multiple references to the definition of a switchblade that an assisted opener is NOT consistent with:

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion...

Summarized briefly, Bacon was found not guilty of carrying a dangerous weapon when he was carrying a folding, locking blade that can easily be opened one-handed. The court ruled that every knife except for a switchblade or gravity knife falls under the exception at MD Code § 4-101 (a)(5)(ii)2 for "penknife without a switchblade." Bacon reaffirmed in 1991 earlier rulings which held that all knives failing the definition of a switchblade or gravity knife are legal under the penknife exception. An assisted opener is NOT excepted out of the "penknife without a switchblade" exception as a review of Bacon v. State will clearly show.

Conclusion: Freddie Gray was NOT carrying a switchblade, assuming that Ofc. Miller described the blade he was carrying accurately as a "spring assisted" knife.
​

 

[BluesStringer]

So at least one member has made reference to Freddie Gray's past record. Not sure why. Seems such people think that a past criminal record somehow justifies having his rights violated, abusing him, refusing him medical care, lying on reports ("immediately summoned medics"), all of which added up to a man dying at the hands of cops. One might wonder why the question of, "What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?" as it might apply to Freddie Gray has never been asked by the same people asking that question about the cops, considering he's the only one to have paid a price so far for the crimes alleged by Prosecutor Mosby. Have the Baltimore Six even been suspended without pay yet? Maybe, I'm not sure, but I did run across some interesting information about the highest-ranking LEO on-scene that day. It appears he has a rather troubling record too. I'm sure those who brought up Gray's record as being meaningful in any way to anything, will give the same weight to this news of Lt. Brian Rice's history of threatening to kill his ex-girlfriend's ex-husband, as well as threatening to kill himself. The Department even confiscated his guns......twice.

As I always say, what's record for the goose, is record for the gander. If you're part of the "support-cops-no-matter-what" crowd, you should stop reading right now. This is probably gonna hurt.......

Link Removed
Brian Rice pursued and arrested Freddie Gray. Photograph: Reuters
​

​

Freddie Gray officer threatened to kill himself and ex-partner's husband, court document alleges
​

The Baltimore police lieutenant charged with the manslaughter of Freddie Gray allegedly threatened to kill himself and the husband of his ex-girlfriend, during incidents that led to him being disciplined and twice having his guns confiscated.

Brian Rice, who pursued and arrested Gray after the 25-year-old “caught his eye” on 12 April, was reportedly given an administrative suspension after being hospitalized for a mental health evaluation when he warned he was preparing to shoot himself in April 2012.

Rice, 41, also received an internal discipline when a judge granted a temporary restraining order against him after a request from Andrew McAleer, the husband of Karyn McAleer, who is the mother of Rice’s young son and a fellow Baltimore police officer. Rice has been married to and divorced from two further women, according to court records.

A sharply critical 10-page complaint against Rice, which Andrew McAleer filed to a court in Maryland in January 2013, is being published in full for the first time by the Guardian. It details what McAleer, a Baltimore firefighter, described as a “pattern of intimidation and violence” by the officer.

(Much more at both the top link and that last link.....)
​

So gee, what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty for whatever "crime" Mr. McAleer committed before Rice thought it justified to threaten to kill him?

Dude shoulda never been on the streets, and considering that he is the one who is alleged to have made "eye-contact" with Gray, it's not a stretch to surmise that Gray would be alive today if Rice had been taken off the streets when they had a legal rationale to do it. Not only would Gray most likely be alive, but five other cops would not be facing multiple felonies right now.

So honestly, I am not a cop "hater," but since I know I'll be accused of it anyway, I've got a question for those who would make such an accusation: Is it really any better to be a cop "lover" than a cop "hater?" Can you bring your objectivity back from its comatose state to admit that Rice's record strongly suggests that he should not have been on the streets as a cop ever again after threatening to kill someone? If you can't make that unequivocal admission, you are a cop-lover, and you are part of the problem.

Blues

 

[BluesStringer]

You don't wish to stay connected with your local Sheriff and or Chief of Police. You assume they'll preform accordingly. Yea, right. Stay connected, stay in touch. Let them know you're there.

More than a year ago, when things were a bit calmer between myself and mappow, I answered something very similar to this "stay connected, stay in touch, let them know you're there" advice. I even Liked the post to which I was responding before replying to it. Ahh....those were the good ol' days when two adults could reply in diametric disagreement without getting their panties in a bunch over such personal decisions as who we choose to trust in our personal, daily lives, what we think about government and its enforcers (they are not separate entities, by the way), or why we might view such issues so differently. The only thing that wasn't different more than a year ago is that mappow refused to address the valid points I made in my response to him again, but at least he didn't make a point of making an, "Umm....I got nothin'" post like he did here......twice.

The more things change, the more they stay the same........

Blues