• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Baltimore on edge after arrestee's fatal spine injury[W:216]

Re: Baltimore on edge after arrestee's fatal spine injury

There is no conflation. They are brought about by ones own actions.
Slipping and falling while banging your head still is the result of your own actions.

You just tried to tell me that you think Gray intentionally injured himself.

Do you know the difference between intentionally and accidentally? What you just did is called a conflation.

Conflation is bad debate. Bad! Shame on you.
 
Re: Baltimore on edge after arrestee's fatal spine injury

You just tried to tell me that you think Gray intentionally injured himself.

Do you know the difference between intentionally and accidentally? What you just did is called a conflation.

Conflation is bad debate. Bad! Shame on you.
More deflection.
Your reply ignores that fact that isn't what occurred.

Slipping and falling while banging your head still is the result of your own actions.
 
Re: Baltimore on edge after arrestee's fatal spine injury

Slipping and falling while banging your head still is the result of your own actions.

As usual, you're wrong:

We need to remember that when police officers take a prisoner into custody they have just become “short term” corrections (custody) officers. This statement sometimes surprises street officers who often don’t understand all the implications of having a prisoner in their “custody.” It doesn’t matter whether you are a police officer transporting a prisoner from a street arrest scene, a police officer picking up a prisoner for court, a police officer transporting a sick inmate, a detective taking a prisoner out of lock up to a remote site for an interview, or an airport police officer holding a person for transport, you are now responsible for that prisoner’s “care and wellbeing.”

And that statement comes from an article on the PoliceOne website, probably the most biased (and irrationally so) pro-police website on the Internets.

When a cop takes someone into his care and custody through detention or arrest it is the cop's responsibility to ensure that person's safety and security.

Makes sense, right?

I mean, if you're a reasonable, rational, unbiased person. Maybe not if you're an anti-freedom, pro-police state "conservative".

Anyhow, you can't handcuff someone, manacle them, throw them in a metal box in the back of a moving motor vehicle, and then act surprised if they somehow get injured as a result.

Do that, and you're negligent.

Do that and they die, you're taking a ride for involuntary manslaughter, at a minimum.
 
Re: Baltimore on edge after arrestee's fatal spine injury

More deflection.
Your reply ignores that fact that isn't what occurred.

Slipping and falling while banging your head still is the result of your own actions.


intentional
[in-ten-shuh-nl]

adjective
1. done with intention or on purpose; intended: an intentional insult.
2. of or relating to intention or purpose.


ac·ci·den·tal
ˌaksəˈden(t)l/
adjective
adjective: accidental

1. happening by chance, unintentionally, or unexpectedly.
2. incidental; subsidiary.

You just made the argument that he did it intentionally. If it were accidental, that is the officer's fault for not properly securing him in the van!

Either way, you lose! Continually! And those with access to all of the FACTS just announced they are bringing a murder charge.
 
Re: Baltimore on edge after arrestee's fatal spine injury

No, based on the evidence.
You seem to be forgetting that there is also an ear witness.

An "ear" witness? Really, Excon? So, you're saying that what Donta Allen (the 2nd prisoner) thought he heard on the other side of a divided partition was actually what he claimed happened to Freddie Gray? You do realize that sometimes what people hear isn't exactly what truly occurred, right? Your ears more often than your eyes do play tricks on you. As such, it is possible that the thrashing about Donta Allen claims he heard and subsequently told homicide detectives was Freddie Gray's limb, unsecured body thrashing about inside a moving police van.

He began by faking injury.

You have no proof of that whatsoever.

As it is normal for suspects to bang their heads and even kick to injure themselves..

I agree sometimes suspects will cause injury to themselves in an attempt to blame it on police...

...and he was not being tossed about by the vans movement...

You don't know that for sure. You're basing your assessment on Donta Allen's initial testimony which he, himself has recanted. So, how can you make such a claim when the only "ear" witness to what happened neither saw Freddie Gray banging his head against the van walls AND has changed his testimony AND admitted that he gave one story to homicide detectives and another to local police?

...that only leaves two possibilities, he was either trying to injure himself or was trying to escape, and the ear witness claims it sounded like he was trying injure himself.

If Freddie Gray was trying to escape, don't you think the police would have secured him once they checked on him when they picked up Donta Allen? I've already dealt with the self-inflicted injury argument. No need to rehash that one. But...

The fact that he did means he succeeded.

Again, you have no proof that Freddie Gray's injuries were self-inflicted.

Evidence says there was no "nickel ride".
Pay attention this time.
the man also said the driver did not speed, make sudden stops of "drive erratically."

Again, you're relying on faulty testimony and refusing to accept the possibility that a suspect left loose, unsecured in the back of a moving van with limited mobility in his legs and his hands cuffed behind his back would NOT move around as said van is in motion transiting through the city. The man's not a fixed object! He's going to feel every bump and every turn. He's going to be "thrashed" around with the motion of the vehicle. If you doubt me, try being a passenger in a moving vehicle (traveling at 25 mph or more) WITHOUT A SEATBELT and hold yourself erect during a turn and see if you don't lean to either side. I doubt you can do it without grabbing hold to something. Go ahead...try it and get back to this board with your findings.
 
Re: Baltimore on edge after arrestee's fatal spine injury

UPDATE:

BALTIMORE (WJZ) — City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby says Freddie Gray received his critical injuries in Baltimore police custody and has charged all six officers involved in his death.
The state medical examiner’s office turned over Gray’s autopsy on Friday morning, a day after the police turned over their investigation into Gray’s death.

“The findings of our comprehensive, thorough, and independent investigation coupled with the ME’s determination that Mr. Gray’s death was a homicide which we received today, has led us to believe that we have probable cause to file criminal charges,” Mosby said.

...

They found a knife clipped inside his pants packet — the knife was not a switchblade and is lawful under Maryland law, she said.

The officers then restrained Gray in a “leg lace,” and held him down until the transport van arrived, while he “flailed and screamed.”

The officers failed to find probable cause for Gray’s arrest, Mosby said. When the police transport van arrived, he was placed into the wagon driven by Officer Caesar B. Goodson, but without a seatbelt.

“At no point was he secured by a seatbelt while in the wagon contrary to a BPD general order,” she added. “Despite stopping for the purpose of checking on Mr. Gray’s condition, at no point did he seek nor render any medical assistance for Mr. Gray.”

Gray was then removed from the wagon at Baker Street, places flex cuffs on his wrists and leg shackles on his ankles — while they completed paperwork. He was then placed back into the wagon’s floor head first and stomach down — without a seatbelt.

“Following transport from Baker Street, Mr. Gray suffered a severe and critical neck injury as a result of being handcuffed, shackled by his feet and unrestrained inside of the BPD wagon,” Mosby said.

After leaving Baker Street, the officers stopped again to check on Gray’s condition, but they did not seek medical attention for Gray. Again, Goodson drove off without buckling Gray into the van.

The van stopped once again, this time Officer William G. Porter met up with Goodson and checked on gray. Gray asked for medical attention stating he couldn’t breathe. Porter asked Gray if he needed a medic and although Gray insisted he did, the officers allegedly placed him back on the bench and decided he did not need a medic.
Then Porter left to assist with another arrest on West North avenue and Goodson shortly followed with Gray in the back of the police van to help transport another suspect. When they arrived at that located they Sgt. Alicia White, Goodson and Porter saw Gray was unresponsive on the floor of the back of the wagon.
White spoke to the back of Gray’s head and was advised he needed a medic, but Mosby said she made no effort to determine his condition.
The officer did not get Gray medical attention until they returned to the Western District station.

Mosby said the officers are being charged with a number of counts of manslaughter, assault and misconduct. One officer will even be charged with a count of murder.

City State’s Attorney Says Freddie Gray’s Arrest Illegal, Charges Officers « CBS Baltimore

Those who would like to change their story may now do so.

You also follow the latest on this story at http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...e-gray-s-arrest-illegal-charges-officers.html
 
Last edited:
Re: Baltimore on edge after arrestee's fatal spine injury


Did you read this crap:

The Baltimore Police Fraternal Order of Police No. 3 issued a letter to Mosby Friday morning on behalf of the officers involved saying that the death was not the officers’ faults and they also requested a special prosecutor citing conflicts of interest with Mosby’s office.

“Each of the officers involved is sincerely saddened by Gray’s passing. They are all committed police officers who have dedicated their careers to the Baltimore City Police Department,” the letter states, “And that has been lost in all the publicity.”

Not the officers' fault?

Gray was in their custody. Their negligence and disregard for his safety, security and well-being led directly to his death.

They may not have murdered him, but if they'd treated him like a human being he'd still be alive today.

They're "saddened" by his passing?

No they're not.

They're saddened they got caught killing him, but if they were capable of being "saddened" by anything they wouldn't have treated him in a manner that led directly to his death.

Committed police officers?

They're thugs. Common criminals. Actually, uncommon criminals who have been placed in a position of trust and authority within society and then abused that trust and authority.

**** them.

I hope all six of them burn.

I hope they get to prison, and they get shackled and hogtied like they did to Gray and they get "taken for a ride" like he did.

Gotta be a hoot being a cop in prison.
 
Re: Baltimore on edge after arrestee's fatal spine injury

Did you read this crap:



Not the officers' fault?

Gray was in their custody. Their negligence and disregard for his safety, security and well-being led directly to his death.

They may not have murdered him, but if they'd treated him like a human being he'd still be alive today.

They're "saddened" by his passing?

No they're not.

They're saddened they got caught killing him, but if they were capable of being "saddened" by anything they wouldn't have treated him in a manner that led directly to his death.

Committed police officers?

They're thugs. Common criminals. Actually, uncommon criminals who have been placed in a position of trust and authority within society and then abused that trust and authority.

**** them.

I hope all six of them burn.

I hope they get to prison, and they get shackled and hogtied like they did to Gray and they get "taken for a ride" like he did.

Gotta be a hoot being a cop in prison.

I'm going to try not to pass judgement on these officers until after they've had their day in court. That said, I don't think many people will buy their claim of sincerity given the fact that they arrested this young man without cause, aggressively restrained him and failed to see to his medical request/needs and as a result of their negligence, he died. It's going to be hard for some people to turn the other cheek on this one. But I can accept that they may be feeling remorseful for what they did. You just have to wonder where was their concern when it was needed most?
 
Re: Baltimore on edge after arrestee's fatal spine injury

I'm going to try not to pass judgement on these officers until after they've had their day in court.

I hope they have a fair trial as well.

But given what I know so far I also hope for all the other malevolent stuff I wished for.

I would imagine that if there was any clearly exculpatory evidence available in this case it would already have been trotted out, and there's been pretty much nothing.

These guys may get off on a technicality, or as a result of some kind of very poorly advised "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" prosecutorial shenanigans, and if that's the case, and it comes as the result of a fair trial, I'll live with it and respect the decision of the court.

But I really hope that doesn't happen because these cats are clearly criminals of the absolute worst sort.

We look at child abusers as among the lowest of the low when it comes to criminals.

Largely because the perpetrators of such abuse take advantage of a real or perceived position of authority over their victims to facilitate their crimes and then victimize those who are essentially defenseless.

When you've got the authority of the state's legal monopoly on violence in your corner, and you're able to outnumber your victims and then impose restraints on them which prevent self defense, you've essentially done the same thing a child abuser does.

Dirty cops are as bad a short eyes.
 
Re: Baltimore on edge after arrestee's fatal spine injury

Did you read this crap:



Not the officers' fault?

Gray was in their custody. Their negligence and disregard for his safety, security and well-being led directly to his death.

They may not have murdered him, but if they'd treated him like a human being he'd still be alive today.

They're "saddened" by his passing?

No they're not.

They're saddened they got caught killing him, but if they were capable of being "saddened" by anything they wouldn't have treated him in a manner that led directly to his death.

Committed police officers?

They're thugs. Common criminals. Actually, uncommon criminals who have been placed in a position of trust and authority within society and then abused that trust and authority.

**** them.

I hope all six of them burn.

I hope they get to prison, and they get shackled and hogtied like they did to Gray and they get "taken for a ride" like he did.

Gotta be a hoot being a cop in prison.

Think of how many times this happened in the past, and the cops got away with it because no one filmed them. Time to clean up these dirty police departments.
 
As usual, you're wrong:
As usual, you are wrong.
And saying I am wrong makes you doubly wrong.


And that statement comes from an article on the PoliceOne website, probably the most biased (and irrationally so) pro-police website on the Internets.

When a cop takes someone into his care and custody through detention or arrest it is the cop's responsibility to ensure that person's safety and security.

Makes sense, right?

I mean, if you're a reasonable, rational, unbiased person. Maybe not if you're an anti-freedom, pro-police state "conservative".

Anyhow, you can't handcuff someone, manacle them, throw them in a metal box in the back of a moving motor vehicle, and then act surprised if they somehow get injured as a result.

Do that, and you're negligent.

Do that and they die, you're taking a ride for involuntary manslaughter, at a minimum.
:doh
No soot and you can stop with the exaggerations.

You have not refuted that slipping and falling while banging your head is not the result of his own actions. Nor could you.
Inmates often injure their self, and that injury is not attributable to the the States D.O.C.

Had he remained laying on the floor he would have been fine.
He chose not to and instead was banging his head and causing a ruckus which is why the leg restraints were applied.


In this case the suspect was supposedly not secured which was okay for the reason claimed under the previous set of rules.
But to claim criminal activity becasue a supposed policy was not followed is absurd.

And if it is found that there wasn't a meaningful and effective notification of the supposed new policy, the old standards will be accepted.

The supposed new rules are no where to be found.
Do you have a link to them?

Here is a link to the only ones (old) I could find.

-- Ensure medical treatment for a prisoner is obtained, when necessary, at the nearest emergency medical facility

>The arrestee is secured with seat/restraint belts provided. This procedure should be evaluated on an individual basis so not to place oneself in any danger


http://www.aele.org/law/2009all10/baltimore-transport.pdf


Did you read this crap:
A good call on their part.
She is clearly biased and has a conflict of interest.


The rest of what you said was emotive nonsense.





intentional
[in-ten-shuh-nl]

adjective
1. done with intention or on purpose; intended: an intentional insult.
2. of or relating to intention or purpose.


ac·ci·den·tal
?aks?'den(t)l/
adjective
adjective: accidental

1. happening by chance, unintentionally, or unexpectedly.
2. incidental; subsidiary.

You just made the argument that he did it intentionally. If it were accidental, that is the officer's fault for not properly securing him in the van!
Just more deflection.
Your reply again ignores that fact that there was no conflation.
I spoke to injury during an intentional act as being the responsibility of the person.
There is no conflation in that.

Slipping and falling while banging your head still is the result of your own actions.
You can't change that.


But since you can't get past the fact that it can happen ... ↓

In the meantime, I'll entertain myself watching the apologists try to convince themselves that someone severing their own spinal cord is a believable notion, and not one borne out of brutal stupidity.
This was you engaged in brutal stupidity.

This guy broke his neck by ramming his head into a wall.

He then was placed in an isolation cell, where he rammed his head into a wall and broke his neck.
Mentally ill man who broke neck in jail alleges in suit his rights were violated - latimes


Brutal stupidity would be not recognizing that self inflicted broken necks are not an uncommon occurrence.


you lose! Continually!
:lamo
As you have repeatedly shown, that is you.





the fact that they arrested this young man without cause, aggressively restrained him and failed to see to his medical request/needs and as a result of their negligence, he died.
Not facts. Allegations.
Please provide the relevant information that they "had to" respond to his request.
The old standard did not require it.
So where is this new standard?
 
Those who would like to change their story may now do so.
The only ones who need to change their stories are those who have made false claims like you have.


An "ear" witness? Really, Excon?
Are you unfamiliar with the term?


So, you're saying that what Donta Allen (the 2nd prisoner) thought he heard on the other side of a divided partition was actually what he claimed happened to Freddie Gray?
No. I am saying it is the only evidence we have in regards to how they sounded.


You do realize that sometimes what people hear isn't exactly what truly occurred, right? Your ears more often than your eyes do play tricks on you.
You were not there. I was not there. What you or I think of the actual sounds does not matter.
What matters is what he as the ear witness thought of the sounds.
And he keeps saying it sounded like he was banging his head.


As such, it is possible that the thrashing about Donta Allen claims he heard and subsequently told homicide detectives was Freddie Gray's limb, unsecured body thrashing about inside a moving police van.
No. You keep conveniently ignoring that it was a smooth ride.


You have no proof of that whatsoever.
Stop with the "proof" argument. We are speaking of evidence.

He was pretending not to be able to stand. Then he was able to and even duck into the van. That is evidence that he was faking.
You also seem to forget the reports of him wanting his inhaler, while he did not appear to have any reported breathing difficulties. That is again evidence that he was faking.
It is like you do not know that is what criminals do.


You don't know that for sure. You're basing your assessment on Donta Allen's initial testimony which he, himself has recanted. So, how can you make such a claim when the only "ear" witness to what happened neither saw Freddie Gray banging his head against the van walls AND has changed his testimony AND admitted that he gave one story to homicide detectives and another to local police?
1. By both his accounts, it was a smooth ride.
2. No, he did not recant. This was already pointed out.
3. You seem to be reading into what he said. His interview was immediate and was by the police, homicide detective(s) to be exact.


If Freddie Gray was trying to escape, don't you think the police would have secured him once they checked on him when they picked up Donta Allen? I've already dealt with the self-inflicted injury argument. No need to rehash that one. But...
No you really haven't dealt with the self inflicted argument.
And again no. It was already stated that they did not secure him over concerns of Officer safety. But they did secure his feet.


Again, you have no proof that Freddie Gray's injuries were self-inflicted.
Again you are speaking in terms of "proof" instead of evidence.
The passenger's statements are evidence.


Again, you're relying on faulty testimony
No I am not. He clearly said "smooth ride".


and refusing to accept the possibility that a suspect left loose, unsecured in the back of a moving van with limited mobility in his legs and his hands cuffed behind his back would NOT move around as said van is in motion transiting through the city.
You are failing to show it would happen on a smooth ride. Nor could you, not without it being a non-smooth ride.

Another thing you are not pondering his how he hit his head on the rear portion when he was left face down with his head facing forward.


The man's not a fixed object! He's going to feel every bump and every turn. He's going to be "thrashed" around with the motion of the vehicle. If you doubt me, try being a passenger in a moving vehicle (traveling at 25 mph or more) WITHOUT A SEATBELT and hold yourself erect during a turn and see if you don't lean to either side. I doubt you can do it without grabbing hold to something. Go ahead...try it and get back to this board with your findings.
Feeling... :doh iLOL
The other passenger would feel then too, and he said it was a smooth ride.
As for me experiencing such? iLOL
The back of pick-ups.
The back of Deuce and a Halfs.
The back of Five Tons.​

You clearly do not know of what you speak.
A smooth ride is a non eventful ride and no one is thrashed around.
 
***No probable cause*** to arrest him. End of story right there.

This is exactly the reason minority populations are outraged.

They deserve their punishment....it was unnecessary and then they demonstrated a callous disregard for a life.
 
Re: Baltimore on edge after arrestee's fatal spine injury

I'm going to try not to pass judgement on these officers until after they've had their day in court. That said, I don't think many people will buy their claim of sincerity given the fact that they arrested this young man without cause, aggressively restrained him and failed to see to his medical request/needs and as a result of their negligence, he died. It's going to be hard for some people to turn the other cheek on this one. But I can accept that they may be feeling remorseful for what they did. You just have to wonder where was their concern when it was needed most?

I dont know what their punishment will be in the end but I am pretty sure they will not be exonerated.
 
***No probable cause*** to arrest him. End of story right there.
Wrong.
Presently that is an unsupportable claim.
 
Just more deflection.
Your reply again ignores that fact that there was no conflation.
I spoke to injury during an intentional act as being the responsibility of the person.
There is no conflation in that.

Slipping and falling while banging your head still is the result of your own actions.
You can't change that.

Intentionally harming oneself (on purpose) is different than having an accident (unintentionally) and becoming harmed that way.

You are either intentionally ignoring the difference to support your previously stupid argument borne out of brutality, or you are accidentally unaware of the conflation you made through no fault of your own.

Brutal stupidity would be not recognizing that self inflicted broken necks are not an uncommon occurrence.

I like that we have you on record, forever, saying something so brutally stupid. "Duh, people throw themselves down the stairs all the time... in front of me...when I push them."
 
Intentionally harming oneself (on purpose) is different than having an accident (unintentionally) and becoming harmed that way.

You are either intentionally ignoring the difference to support your previously stupid argument borne out of brutality, or you are accidentally unaware of the conflation you made through no fault of your own.
Just more deflection.
Again:
Your reply again ignores that fact that there was no conflation.
I spoke to injury during an intentional act as being the responsibility of the person.
There is no conflation in that.

Slipping and falling while banging your head still is the result of your own actions.
You can't change that.


I like that we have you on record, forever, saying something so brutally stupid. "Duh, people throw themselves down the stairs all the time... in front of me...when I push them."
Now you are engaged in brutally stupid desperation by lying like that. :doh

Just another example of you lying. Go figure.


Again:

This guy broke his neck by ramming his head into a wall.

He then was placed in an isolation cell, where he rammed his head into a wall and broke his neck.
Mentally ill man who broke neck in jail alleges in suit his rights were violated - latimes


Brutal stupidity would be not recognizing that self inflicted broken necks are not an uncommon occurrence.
 
Just more deflection.
Again:
Your reply again ignores that fact that there was no conflation.
I spoke to injury during an intentional act as being the responsibility of the person.
There is no conflation in that.

Slipping and falling while banging your head still is the result of your own actions.
You can't change that.

Do people who slip and fall intentionally break their necks?
 
Do people who slip and fall intentionally break their necks?
You again are ignoring that the the only conflation came from you.

Again:
I spoke to injury during an intentional act as being the responsibility of the person.
There is no conflation in that.

Slipping and falling while banging your head still is the result of your own actions.
You can't change that.
 
You again are ignoring that the the only conflation came from you.

Again:
I spoke to injury during an intentional act as being the responsibility of the person.
There is no conflation in that.

Slipping and falling while banging your head still is the result of your own actions.
You can't change that.

In this very thread, you have made the claims that there is a "ear" witness to Gray attempting to intentionally injure himself. You then proceeded on this ridiculous conflation that people break their own necks on purpose all the time! They don't. They may accidentally break their necks, not intentionally, but you clearly made the argument that Gray was trying to intentionally injure himself. Not accidentally. Intentionally.

No, based on the evidence.
You seem to be forgetting that there is also an ear witness.

He began by faking injury.
As it is normal for suspects to bang their heads and even kick to injure their self and he was not being tossed about by the vans movement, that only leaves two possibilities, he was either trying to injure himself or was trying to escape, and the ear witness claims it sounded like he was trying injure himself.
The fact that he did means he succeeded.

The "ear" witness did NOT say it sounded like Gray was trying to injure himself. When asked for a firsthand quote, not a secondhand source, he repudiated the secondhand comments as false. You managed to find one single case of a terribly mentally ill man breaking his own neck by repeatedly banging his head on the wall of his jail cell. That case ALSO went to court as police negligence. Assuming the police could prove Freddie Gray was also extremely mentally disturbed and in dire need of medication, that would mean they are STILL NEGLIGENT for not restraining him in the back of the van.

No matter which way you turn here, you LOSE.
 
In this very thread, you have made the claims that there is a "ear" witness to Gray attempting to intentionally injure himself.
He is an ear witness.
We were informed that he said the guy was thrashing around and banging his head.
His telling the investigators that he was banging his head is an act of one harming their self. Funny that you think otherwise.


You then proceeded on this ridiculous conflation that people break their own necks on purpose all the time! They don't. They may accidentally break their necks, not intentionally, but you clearly made the argument that Gray was trying to intentionally injure himself. Not accidentally. Intentionally.
:naughty No you proceeded on with conflation.

Your problem is not understanding that this is the result of their own actions.

Again:
Your reply again ignores that fact that there was no conflation.
I spoke to injury during an intentional act as being the responsibility of the person.
There is no conflation in that.

Slipping and falling while banging your head still is the result of your own actions.
You can't change that.


The following is an example of a person intentionally breaking their neck.

Again:

This guy broke his neck by ramming his head into a wall.

He then was placed in an isolation cell, where he rammed his head into a wall and broke his neck.
Mentally ill man who broke neck in jail alleges in suit his rights were violated - latimes


Brutal stupidity would be not recognizing that self inflicted broken necks are not an uncommon occurrence.


The "ear" witness did NOT say it sounded like Gray was trying to injure himself.
Stop lying. We have already been informed that is what he said.


When asked for a firsthand quote, not a secondhand source, he repudiated the secondhand comments as false.
Not in anything that has already been provided.


You managed to find one single case of a terribly mentally ill man breaking his own neck by repeatedly banging his head on the wall of his jail cell.
Irrelevant. It is a common occurrence and you claimed it couldn't happen.



Assuming the police could prove Freddie Gray was also extremely mentally disturbed and in dire need of medication, that would mean they are STILL NEGLIGENT for not restraining him in the back of the van.
A Lame and desperate attempt.
You are wrong.
There has been no evidence that he was in dire need of medical attention.
They did restrain him further becasue he was acting out, but that does not indicate he needed any immediate medical attention.
And not restraining by seat belt him does not rise to the level of criminal negligence, especially as they had a legitimate safety concern and was in accordance with the previous policy.


No matter which way you turn here, you LOSE.
No, but you clearly have, repeatedly and continually.
And putting stock in what the witness now says is foolish.
 
Last edited:
He is an ear witness.
We were informed that he said the guy was thrashing around and banging his head.
His telling the investigators that he was banging his head is an act of one harming their self. Funny that you think otherwise.


:naughty No you proceeded on with conflation.

Your problem is not understanding that this is the result of their own actions.

Again:
Your reply again ignores that fact that there was no conflation.
I spoke to injury during an intentional act as being the responsibility of the person.
There is no conflation in that.

Slipping and falling while banging your head still is the result of your own actions.
You can't change that.


The following is an example of a person intentionally breaking their neck.

Again:

This guy broke his neck by ramming his head into a wall.

He then was placed in an isolation cell, where he rammed his head into a wall and broke his neck.
Mentally ill man who broke neck in jail alleges in suit his rights were violated - latimes


Brutal stupidity would be not recognizing that self inflicted broken necks are not an uncommon occurrence.


Stop lying. We have already been informed that is what he said.


Not in anything that has already been provided.


Irrelevant. It is a common occurrence and you claimed it couldn't happen.


A Lame and desperate attempt.
You are wrong.
There has been no evidence that he was in dire need of medical attention.
They did restrain him further becasue he was acting out, but that does not indicate he needed any immediate medical attention.
And not restraining by seat belt him does not rise to the level of criminal negligence, especially as they had a legitimate safety concern and was in accordance with the previous policy.




You're claiming "common" an occurrence you've found one example of.

You used that one example to say it's so common that it's not unreasonable to believe Gray hurt himself on purpose.

You used the reasonability of Gray hurting himself to alleviate any responsibility of the police in this situation, who are still culpable for not buckling Gray into the back of the van.

The "witness" used to give credence to the claim that Gray hurt himself did not ever say he thought Gray hurt himself. You have been provided evidence of this and have thus far ignored it.

So, we have you systemically using assumption, conjecture, conflation, and disproved claims to support the absurd notion that a man broke his own neck and that it is his own fault. The police had a duty to buckle him in, not only to protect him from traffic but also from himself, yet it is Gray's fault he's not buckled in, you assume, based on nothing.

This is a joke, right? I mean, nobody can both be that stupid and also able to type. You have got to be a troll.
 
You're claiming "common" an occurrence you've found one example of.

You used that one example to say it's so common that it's not unreasonable to believe Gray hurt himself on purpose.
:doh
The point was that your claim was wrong. It does happen.
But now here you are deflecting with this ridiculous argument over whether or not it is common.
It is. Do your own research and figure it out.


You used the reasonability of Gray hurting himself to alleviate any responsibility of the police in this situation, who are still culpable for not buckling Gray into the back of the van.
Again, not buckling him in does not rise to the level of criminal negligence.
And it was permitted under the previously known rules.
So show that they were informed in a meaningful and proper manner of the supposed new rules. If you can't the old rules still apply.


The "witness" used to give credence to the claim that Gray hurt himself did not ever say he thought Gray hurt himself. You have been provided evidence of this and have thus far ignored it.
1. Wrong, he doesn't say that at all.
2. Doesn't matter if he had (though he didn't), his word now are tainted.

That is what you are ignoring.

So, we have you systemically using assumption, conjecture, conflation and relying on the tainted word of a criminal. iLOL :doh

This is a joke, right? I mean, nobody can both be that stupid and also able to type. You have got to be a troll.
You should really stop taking about yourself like that.


and disproved claims to support the absurd notion that a man broke his own neck and that it is his own fault. The police had a duty to buckle him in, not only to protect him from traffic but also from himself, yet it is Gray's fault he's not buckled in, you assume, based on nothing.
Nothing? Just more dishonest bs from you.
As already shown, they were permitted an Officer safety exception under the previous rules as stated.
If it can not be shown that the Officers were meaningfully informed of the change in Policy that was made just three days prior, the Officer safety exception still applies.

And no, policy is not law. And this supposed violation of policy does not raise to the level of criminal negligence.
 
1. Wrong, he doesn't say that at all.

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You're obviously wrong in two threads simultaneously, intentionally ignoring quotes to the contrary. You are claiming a man said things that he says he did not say, and you are saying you're a better judge of what he said than he is.

"Saying his words have been distorted by recent reports and that he doesn't think Gray hurt himself intentionally, Allen also told a WJZ reporter, "The only reason I'm doing this is because they put my name in a bad state."

Allen, who was reportedly taken into custody for a minor offense and was not charged with a crime, also spoke to WBAL TV. He told the station that when he got into the van, he didn't know Gray was already there. He said he heard "a little banging for like four seconds."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/05/01/403496063/freddie-gray-update-new-speculation-on-his-death-and-peaceful-protests

Allen said the police misquoted him, he never said that. So, when you say, "Wrong, he doesn't say that at all", you are showing everyone your lack of reading skills.

I know, buddy. Third grade is hard. But you'll get through it! Someday...
 
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You're obviously wrong in two threads simultaneously, intentionally ignoring quotes to the contrary. You are claiming a man said things that he says he did not say, and you are saying you're a better judge of what he said than he is.

"Saying his words have been distorted by recent reports and that he doesn't think Gray hurt himself intentionally, Allen also told a WJZ reporter, "The only reason I'm doing this is because they put my name in a bad state."

Allen, who was reportedly taken into custody for a minor offense and was not charged with a crime, also spoke to WBAL TV. He told the station that when he got into the van, he didn't know Gray was already there. He said he heard "a little banging for like four seconds."

Charges Against 6 Officers In Freddie Gray's Death Range From Murder To Assault : The Two-Way : NPR
:doh:doh:doh
Yes you are wrong, wrong, wrong! In two threads simultaneously. There are no quotes being ignored.
You are quoting the reporter, not what he said. Funny you do not realize that.

At no point did he say the police misquoted him, he never said that.

All you are showing everyone is your lack of reading and comprehension skills.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom