• 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!

Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384]

Obviously there is stuff leaking out found in the investigation that doesn't show this to be a cut and dried intentional action on behalf of officers. What I read stated that from the time of the arrest to the time Gray received medical attention was 45 minutes. New York Times has a piece today that states there are government officials and community faith leaders going to the schools to curb the students expectations before the report is released.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/baltimore-riots.html?_r=0
 
Of course it is possible. Not to recognize that is absurd.


Truth usually does piss off a certain portion of our population.


What reason do you have to doubt what he says?

Are you going on record that people arrested by the police should always be presumed to be telling the truth?
 
Dead at the hands of police is dead in whatever nation you choose to look at



Yes but its funny cases like this just seem to keep happening over and over again yet only in the US isn't it ? :cool:

There is nothing to show this only happens in the USA. Nothing whatsoever.
 
How gullible do hey think people are? Wait a week and then announce "oh uhh he totally broke his own neck on purpose!"

If this thread is proof of anything, is that there are a ton of gullible idiots in this world. Can you imagine? Guy breaks his own neck and crushes his own windpipe, in the back of a van, while handcuffed.... just to... what? Die and get away from the police forever and ever? It's chutzpa.
 
Criminals are scum of the earth. Never to be believed... unless they say what we want them to say when we want them to say it. Then suddenly, they're as honest as the day is long.

The alleged "logic" behind this is amazing.
 
Maybe folks were to quick to blame police.

LOL

Yeah.

Probably the same "credible source" that told them about the vast gang conspiracy to kill cops.

Not holding my breath on that, see no reason to believe this either.

No doubt in my mind that the DA offered this kid a sweetheart deal to provide this "revelation".

What's funny is that the same people who are taking this "admission" as Bible truth would be the first to discount anything this kid said if it went against the police.

There are dozens of witnesses, and note that none of them are sitting in prison so by "conservative" standards typically a lot more credible, all along the route from the time of Gray's arrest 'til the time he was delivered to Shock Trauma who have given accounts of police abusing Gray and none of those accounts are being bandied about by those who support big government jackbooted oppression.

But one skell sings like a canary to beat a charge and it's like the gates of heaven opened up and God told you Gray was being a rascal.

If it weren't so pathetic, and so transparent, it would be funny.
 
Last edited:
If this thread is proof of anything, is that there are a ton of gullible idiots in this world. Can you imagine? Guy breaks his own neck and crushes his own windpipe, in the back of a van, while handcuffed.... just to... what? Die and get away from the police forever and ever?
Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
 
I feel sorry for you and those who think like you - it makes your life so much more difficult and stressful. I have zero attitude towards police and as a result I've had nothing but professional experiences when dealing with them. But then, I also respect the laws that have been established by the society in which I live, so that makes it easy not to "cop" an attitude. And those laws I don't like? I work the system to try to change them - I don't just ignore and/or break them.

And your experiences prove what? I've always been respectful to police, but in my youth I can say that I was treated with enormous amounts of disrespect, but I grew up in a poor neighborhood where the cops treated people like crap. Now this isn't meant to prove anything except your anicdotal experiences and .25 cents will get you a cup of coffee.
 
Liberal blog: U.S. cops killed more people in one month than U.K. cops killed last century | PunditFact

I could dig into the actual information cited, but I'm not really interested.

I sort of guessed that

As to civil war, why are your trying to push that there is a "war" on by US Cops, but you don't want to count your "war"? So you want to qualify deaths at the hands of police?

So are you saying that you too are in civil war in order to cobble together some kind of excuse then ?

The fact is, the "per capita" claim is completely false, as it draws assumptions from a fraction of the police agencies, and the data that is available is comingled with other reported deaths that aren't related. There are thousands of police agencies across the US that haven't experienced a police shooting in years, yet they also don't report to the data base activists and control groups like those behind the stats your pushing like to use

So what sinister agenda is it you think these alleged activists and control groups are pursuing and why ?

As to your final question, let's not play games. You've been around long enough, and the links you've provided are right out of the anti-police/anti gun play book.

Well I'm certainly not anti police. Far from it in fact

Given the links you provided are the most commonly used to push your narrative, I would suggest you have used them before, and you have likely received similar responses as mine, pointing out the flawed nature of their conclusions.

Nope I've never used them before

If that is the case, it's clear you have decided to ignore those factual responses to continue to push your agenda. If that is not the case, then what I have provided in response should give rise to a bit of caution before using this flawed data to make a point.

Wanting data to be flawed doesn't make it so. Your police kill many times the number of people than are killed in the rest of the developed world combined. If you are happy with that being so then who am I to argue.
 
They are culpable for breaking protocol and endangering the life of their prisoner. They need a damned good excuse as to why they broke it, and if it cannot be defended they are certainly partially responsible in the least.
You haven't refute what I said.
There may have been a reason for not doing so and not doing so does not automatically mean they are responsible for his injuries.


Path is important because it can show if they went out of their way to extend rides or go down certain streets that were not the best way to get to the precinct.
Obviously you are not paying attention. The route is already known.
Do you not understand that?


And look at this.

Freddie Gray death: New narratives emerge - CNN.com

Where's that on your time line?
:doh
Again confirming you are not paying attention. It is there.


Perchance, and if they can demonstrate legitimate reason for breaking protocol and endangering the life of their restrained, and cuffed prisoner, then they can do so.
Continually saying they endangered his life by not doing so is ridiculous.
It puts your argument in the realm of exaggerated nonsense.
Especially as that "rule" (not law) was not previously in force 9 days earlier.
The "rule" (not law) was implemented for safety reasons, but that does not mean their life was endangered by not following it.


And not securing by seatbelt out of safety concerns for the Officer as claimed, is another valid reason.

And as the policy allowed for other means of restraining device be used, you have no idea if that was done or not. Just the claims of no seatbelt.


And yet you yourself cited this from the 24th.

From the 24th.
Batts said another man who was in the van during the tail end of Gray's ride told investigators that Gray was "was still moving around, that he was kicking and making noises" up until the van arrived at the station. Batts said the man also said the driver did not speed, make sudden stops of "drive erratically."
Freddie Gray death: Baltimore police prisoner transport under scrutiny - World - CBC News

There are reports that the dude, who could not see Gray, was attempting to hurt himself, and your post which says that he was kicking and making noise till the arrived at the precinct.
:doh iLOL
And?
I know what is says. It does not say "kicking and screaming"as you claimed.
That is just another of your exaggerations.

While it may later turn out to be true, presently it is just another of your exaggerations.


First off, what I said was

Which is not assumption, that statement was referring to the additional information about the possibility of Gray trying to hurt himself (he should have been properly restrained). Nothing there exonerates the police. And of course nothing that we no yet condemns them, but I never said it did. The investigation is still pending.
:doh :doh
Yes you did make an assumption.
"nothing can exonerate the actions of the police." is an assumption.

There is a difference in what you said.
One is an assumption the other is an observation.
"Nothing can exonerate the actions of the police." (an assumption), is different from "Nothing there exonerates the police" (an observation).


"Nothing can" is not the same as "nothing there".
I am sure you know that.
 
Dead at the hands of police is dead in whatever nation you choose to look at
And?
That does not indicate wrong doing on the part of Police.
Do you or do you not understands that?


Yes but its funny cases like this just seem to keep happening over and over again yet only in the US isn't it ?
:doh
That would be on the one shot.
 
I sort of guessed that



So are you saying that you too are in civil war in order to cobble together some kind of excuse then ?



So what sinister agenda is it you think these alleged activists and control groups are pursuing and why ?



Well I'm certainly not anti police. Far from it in fact



Nope I've never used them before



Wanting data to be flawed doesn't make it so. Your police kill many times the number of people than are killed in the rest of the developed world combined. If you are happy with that being so then who am I to argue.

LOL. Yes, no agenda from you at all.

As I wrote before, post all the flawed data you want, and make all the bogus claims you want. It's your false propaganda, so why not use it.

Have a nice day. :peace
 
There is nothing to show this only happens in the USA. Nothing whatsoever.

It very rarely happens elsewhere then. Lets face it there are many out there quite happy with the police use of 'extreme predjudice' in the exercise of their duty and I don't mean that from any overtly racist perspective either :(
 
You really think one is better than the other. GWB put us all in debt & Obama is keeping us there. Same difference.

The riots started because a false narrative of " Police brutality "????????? Are you paying any attention to this, or do you get the story straight for Sean Hannity.

The city payed out 6 mil last year for police brutality. false narrative LOL

As the people in Baltimore are saying. What is more important property or human life. The police, city, & Fox News think property. Were do you stand?

Cities like Baltimore, Detroit, St Louis, Chicago, Atlanta, etc have been run by leftist monopolies for decades. Including the Police departments.

There's NO Bush or Conservative finger prints on any of this.

And yes I have been paying attention to this narrative. " Hands up dont shoot " was a lie.

Whos paying attention to the MUCH Larger issue of Black on black violence and growing poverty and dependance ? Not the Democrats and apparently not you
 
Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

This would have to be the case of the first man who purposely broke his neck to get away from the police. Convenient how these amazing feats happen in the back of a police van.
 
Are you going on record that people arrested by the police should always be presumed to be telling the truth?
Stop your absurdity joko.

It was obtained during an investigation. Not as a self serving statement.
There presently is no known reason to disbelieve what he said. That is your problem for not recognizing that.
 
And?
That does not indicate wrong doing on the part of Police.
Do you or do you not understands that?

So does that mean the US is much more violent than other developed nations and therefore needs such levels of lethal response from its law enforcement ?
 

I heard no follow ups that identified the doctor that was making these assertions, nor where there any other doctors that lent greater credence to the plausibility of this.

This is all that I heard, and am trying to clearly state where I think it is in the vetting process. You own mileage may vary.
 
LOL

Yeah.

Probably the same "credible source" that told them about the vast gang conspiracy to kill cops.

Not holding my breath on that, see no reason to believe this either.

No doubt in my mind that the DA offered this kid a sweetheart deal to provide this "revelation".

What's funny is that the same people who are taking this "admission" as Bible truth would be the first to discount anything this kid said if it went against the police.

There are dozens of witnesses, and note that none of them are sitting in prison so by "conservative" standards typically a lot more credible, all along the route from the time of Gray's arrest 'til the time he was delivered to Shock Trauma who have given accounts of police abusing Gray and none of those accounts are being bandied about by those who support big government jackbooted oppression.

But one skell sings like a canary to beat a charge and it's like the gates of heaven opened up and God told you Gray was being a rascal.

If it weren't so pathetic, and so transparent, it would be funny.
You are speaking from a position of your own biases and clearly do not know of what you speak.



No doubt in my mind that the DA offered this kid a sweetheart deal to provide this "revelation".
Your statement here is indicative of convoluted and biased thoughts.
It was known from the beginning and was obtained thorough investigation.
It was then used in an affidavit to obtain a search warrant.

So you can just stop with your absurdly biased bs.
 
You haven't refute what I said.
There may have been a reason for not doing so and not doing so does not automatically mean they are responsible for his injuries.

I wasn't refuting, I stated that they must demonstrate a good reason to risk the life of the prisoner in such a manner.

Obviously you are not paying attention. The route is already known.
Do you not understand that?


:doh
Again confirming you are not paying attention. It is there.

OHHHHH OK. This new information that came out today that said there was an additional stop that had not been reported previously was already accounted for in the past when they hadn't reported it. Cool.

Continually saying they endangered his life by not doing so is ridiculous.
It puts your argument in the realm of exaggerated nonsense.
Especially as that "rule" (not law) was not previously in force 9 days earlier.
The "rule" (not law) was implemented for safety reasons, but that does not mean their life was endangered by not following it.


And not securing by seatbelt out of safety concerns for the Officer as claimed, is another valid reason.

And as the policy allowed for other means of restraining device be used, you have no idea if that was done or not. Just the claims of no seatbelt.

Not properly securing the prisoner does risk his life, obviously, as given what happened here. So no, it's not exaggeration. The police need to produce the reason why they risked the life of the prisoner.

:doh iLOL
And?
I know what is says. It does not say "kicking and screaming"as you claimed.
That is just another of your exaggerations.

While it may later turn out to be true, presently it is just another of your exaggerations.

It says kicking and making noise, it's not an exaggeration. Jeez, how about a touch of intellectual honesty in your arguments?


:doh :doh
Yes you did make an assumption.
"nothing can exonerate the actions of the police." is an assumption.

There is a difference in what you said.
One is an assumption the other is an observation.
"Nothing can exonerate the actions of the police." (an assumption), is different from "Nothing there exonerates the police" (an observation).


"Nothing can" is not the same as "nothing there".
I am sure you know that.

:roll:

That post was in reference to the information presented that Gray tried to injure himself. Nothing that was presented exonerates the police, both statements are true. You have to take one out of context, remove the beginning portion of the sentence and forget that it was in response to a specific argument to claim it was "assumption".

And regardless, it changes nothing. Even if Gray tried to do this to himself, which has not been demonstrated only alleged by someone who couldn't see Gray, there has yet to be any evidence that would exonerate the police.
 
I heard no follow ups that identified the doctor that was making these assertions, nor where there any other doctors that lent greater credence to the plausibility of this.

This is all that I heard, and am trying to clearly state where I think it is in the vetting process. You own mileage may vary.
What?
What assertions?

This topic is about what the other person in the van said, so I am asking to what you are referring?


BALTIMORE — A prisoner sharing a police transport van with Freddie Gray told investigators that he could hear Gray “banging against the walls” of the vehicle and believed that he “was intentionally trying to injure himself,” according to a police document obtained by The Washington Post.
 
So does that mean the US is much more violent than other developed nations and therefore needs such levels of lethal response from its law enforcement ?

And again; That does not indicate wrong doing on the part of police.
If you want to go further off-topic, take it elsewhere.
 
And your experiences prove what? I've always been respectful to police, but in my youth I can say that I was treated with enormous amounts of disrespect, but I grew up in a poor neighborhood where the cops treated people like crap. Now this isn't meant to prove anything except your anicdotal experiences and .25 cents will get you a cup of coffee.

Exactly right - except for the 25 cent coffee - but that's for another thread.

Point being, your anecdotal experiences are no more valid in the investigation of this incident than mine are but you and others believe that police are always criminally violent and the cause of any injury a person in custody or being apprehended suffers. We here in Ontario, Canada have a pretty sophisticated civilian police conduct investigation process and any time a civilian is injured or dies and police are on the scene, a full investigation takes place. And guess what? A tiny fraction of those investigations ever lead to a police officer being charged although there's pretty often a public outcry about the incident.

You expect the worst of police and I expect the best of police - one of us is always disappointed in the outcome of such investigations.
 
Cities like Baltimore, Detroit, St Louis, Chicago, Atlanta, etc have been run by leftist monopolies for decades. Including the Police departments.

There's NO Bush or Conservative finger prints on any of this.

And yes I have been paying attention to this narrative. " Hands up dont shoot " was a lie.

Whos paying attention to the MUCH Larger issue of Black on black violence and growing poverty and dependance ? Not the Democrats and apparently not you

Well I.m glad to see you know what its like to be black in the city. Thanks for you're insight.

Black on Black crime is 90%. White on white crime is 84%. What the hell the does this have to do with anything.

If you want to know what its like in US cities, you should go into these places. Start in Detroit, which was taken over by a Rep governor, & city manager. See what a great job they did.

Detroit-problems.jpg
 
I wasn't refuting, I stated that they must demonstrate a good reason to risk the life of the prisoner in such a manner.
And risk to life is an exaggeration.
And the safety of the Officer is a valid reason.


OHHHHH OK. This new information that came out today that said there was an additional stop that had not been reported previously was already accounted for in the past when they hadn't reported it.
Okay. That was my mistake. :doh
My apology for saying you were not paying attention at that point like you are in the others. It was me not paying attention at that point.

Now how do you think it matters?
I am pretty sure it doesn't, as it is likely they would have said if it did.


Not properly securing the prisoner does risk his life,
No. It was just put into effect nine days prior.
It wasn't a risk to life all the umpteen years before, it certainly isn't now.
Concern for safety, yes.
Risk to life, exaggeration.


obviously, as given what happened here. So no, it's not exaggeration.
:naughty
No. It is an exaggeration. And there is no indication that not having a seatbelt contributed.


The police need to produce the reason why they risked the life of the prisoner.
Stop with the exaggeration.

And I already informed you they stated the reason.
What did you not understand about the following statement?
And not securing by seatbelt out of safety concerns for the Officer as claimed, is another valid reason.


It says kicking and making noise, it's not an exaggeration. Jeez, how about a touch of intellectual honesty in your arguments?
OMG! You don't even have the argument straight.
There is no intellectual honesty in you saying "kicking and screaming" (an exaggeration) is the same as "kicking and making noise" as reported.
The claim is dishonest exaggeration.


That post was in reference to the information presented that Gray tried to injure himself. Nothing that was presented exonerates the police, both statements are true. You have to take one out of context, remove the beginning portion of the sentence and forget that it was in response to a specific argument to claim it was "assumption".
There is that lack of honesty again.
No, they are not the same.
And it has nothing to do with the portion that came before. That is a dishonest claim. It is not out of context.

Your original claim was an assumption, period. Your second claim is different and is an observation.

"Nothing can exonerate the actions of the police."
You can not change the fact that it is an assumption on your part.
 
Back
Top Bottom