• 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!

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

That is a different argument from what we are discussing.
But I am sure you know that and just think you are being funny.
.


Who's being funny? Why would the knife be illegal, and if it is considered illegal, why was it incumbent upon Gray to observe an unconstitutional law?
 
Who's being funny? Why would the knife be illegal, and if it is considered illegal, why was it incumbent upon Gray to observe an unconstitutional law?
You.
Again, as you were already told.

That is a different argument from what we are discussing.
 
You.
Again, as you were already told.

That is a different argument from what we are discussing.

The topic of the thread is his arrest being called illegal. If the knife was part of the reason for the arrest, then it most certainly is germane.
 
That is your assumption.

No, it's not an assumtion.

What isn't an assumption is that a spring loaded knife was found. And a belief that the knife violated the cited City Code is probable cause for arrest.
What also isn't an assumption is that she said it didn't violate Maryland law while totally ignoring that it was a City Code that was Cited as being broken.

It was spring assisted, which is legal. A switchblade opens at the push of a button. It wasn't a switchblade. She is a prosecuter for the city of Baltimore. She would be disbarred for ignoring Baltimore's laws.

And again, I directed you to review the the presentation at Legal Insurrection. There was probable cause.

The prosecutor said, after investigating the incident, that there was not.
 
Who's being funny? Why would the knife be illegal, and if it is considered illegal, why was it incumbent upon Gray to observe an unconstitutional law?

How did the cops even know that he had it in his pocket?
 
No, it's not an assumtion.
Wrong. It is an assumption on your part.


It was spring assisted, which is legal. A switchblade opens at the push of a button. It wasn't a switchblade. She is a prosecuter for the city of Baltimore. She would be disbarred for ignoring Baltimore's laws.
1. That is your assumption.
2. It very well may be a violation of the law.
3. And even if it was legal, believing it wasn't provides probable cause.


The prosecutor said, after investigating the incident, that there was not.
And she would be wrong. As believing it was a violation of the law is probable cause.
Furthermore you can tell she was wrong when she called it an illegal arrest. It wasn't.
 
The topic of the thread is his arrest being called illegal. If the knife was part of the reason for the arrest, then it most certainly is germane.

Just stop. You are arguing nonsense in regards to what is applicable here and you know it.

You want to make a constitutional argument against the City of Baltimore, or the State of Maryland take it up with them.
 
How did the cops even know that he had it in his pocket?

It's like I said earlier. Retro-active cause. The police had no reason for the arrest and so have to come up with an excuse after the fact.
 
It's like I said earlier. Retro-active cause. The police had no reason for the arrest and so have to come up with an excuse after the fact.
That is lame. The knife is not an excuse.
 
That is lame. The knife is not an excuse.
Yes it's not an excuse for an arrest at all and yet that's one of the reasons given by the police. I'm glad we're in agreement. The knife accusation is no excuse for an arrest and I'm glad you've matured enough to call out the police for making erroneous statements.
 
Yes it's not an excuse for an arrest at all and yet that's one of the reasons given by the police. I'm glad we're in agreement. The knife accusation is no excuse for an arrest and I'm glad you've matured enough to call out the police for making erroneous statements.
Nice attempt at a play on my words, but no!
The knife is not an excuse, but a reason.
By the law it very well may be a valid reason. If not, and the Office believed it was in violation, he still had probable cause.
 
How did the cops even know that he had it in his pocket?

That's another good question. But even assuming they had a duty to look into it, seeing it was legal should have led to his release, not his arrest.
 
Just stop. You are arguing nonsense in regards to what is applicable here and you know it.

You want to make a constitutional argument against the City of Baltimore, or the State of Maryland take it up with them.

In other words I've put you in the uncomfortable position of arguing against the police or against the 2nd Amendment.
 
In other words I've put you in the uncomfortable position of arguing against the police or against the 2nd Amendment.
What a lame reply. You are engaged in an off-topic distraction.
As you were already told:
Just stop. You are arguing nonsense in regards to what is applicable here and you know it.

You want to make a constitutional argument against the City of Baltimore, or the State of Maryland take it up with them.

This topic is not about the Constitutionality of the law. Do you really not understand that?
 
What a lame reply. You are engaged in an off-topic distraction.
As you were already told:
Just stop. You are arguing nonsense in regards to what is applicable here and you know it.

You want to make a constitutional argument against the City of Baltimore, or the State of Maryland take it up with them.

This topic is not about the Constitutionality of the law. Do you really not understand that?

Since when do you get to tell people what to do? If the legality of Grey's arrest is the topic, then Constitutional issues are valid. You don't want to talk about it, we get that, but you are not the arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable.
 
Since when do you get to tell people what to do? If the legality of Grey's arrest is the topic, then Constitutional issues are valid. You don't want to talk about it, we get that, but you are not the arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable.
:lamo:lamo:lamo
Now you are engaged in faux offense. :doh

Again:
What a lame reply. You are engaged in an off-topic distraction.
As you were already told:
Just stop. You are arguing nonsense in regards to what is applicable here and you know it.

You want to make a constitutional argument against the City of Baltimore, or the State of Maryland take it up with them.

This topic is not about the Constitutionality of the law. Do you really not understand that?

You are engaged in a distraction, nothing more. You know it and I know it.
 
I just heard some of the press conference by the prosecutor. Very unprofessional, and incompetent. Saying she has heard the call for "no justice, no peace"? Is she supporting the looters and rioters? Is she so foolish to believe these people give a crap about what happened? She didn't sound like an impartial person out for justice. And the charges are a joke.

I can't imagine she was the best person for the job. I don't think this should be an elected position, otherwise you get people like her in the job, instead of someone that knows what they are doing.
 
:lamo:lamo:lamo
Now you are engaged in faux offense. :doh

Again:
What a lame reply. You are engaged in an off-topic distraction.
As you were already told:
Just stop. You are arguing nonsense in regards to what is applicable here and you know it.

You want to make a constitutional argument against the City of Baltimore, or the State of Maryland take it up with them.

This topic is not about the Constitutionality of the law. Do you really not understand that?

You are engaged in a distraction, nothing more. You know it and I know it.

Doubling down on the telling me what's acceptable to talk about? You're a trip.

I don't care what you want to talk about. I brought up a germane point that you don't want to talk about. Which you've made abundantly clear. Guess what? The site isn't "discusswhatexconwantstodiscussandnothingelse.com" You don't get to decide what is said.

You've already been told. The thread is about the legality of the arrest. So topics regarding that are germane to the discussion.
 
I just heard some of the press conference by the prosecutor. Very unprofessional, and incompetent. Saying she has heard the call for "no justice, no peace"? Is she supporting the looters and rioters? Is she so foolish to believe these people give a crap about what happened? She didn't sound like an impartial person out for justice. And the charges are a joke.

I can't imagine she was the best person for the job. I don't think this should be an elected position, otherwise you get people like her in the job, instead of someone that knows what they are doing.

"We can't have an election. A Democrat might win!"
 
In this case, an idiot won. See, you're missing the point. Unless you feel that there are no competent democrats. Are there any competent democrats?

There are very few competent people in either major party. Except at staying in office, they're great at that.
 
You know they just threw his ass in there and he landed on his neck. And whoever saw agreed to agree that he wasnt buckled and happened to "fall" on his own or was a crazy guy who didnt enjoy having a working neck.
 
That is your assumption.
What isn't an assumption is that a spring loaded knife was found. And a belief that the knife violated the cited City Code is probable cause for arrest.
What also isn't an assumption is that she said it didn't violate Maryland law while totally ignoring that it was a City Code that was Cited as being broken.


And again, I directed you to review the the presentation at Legal Insurrection. There was probable cause.

How do you know there was probably cause. You werent there.
 
Doubling down on the telling me what's acceptable to talk about? You're a trip.

I don't care what you want to talk about. I brought up a germane point that you don't want to talk about. Which you've made abundantly clear. Guess what? The site isn't "discusswhatexconwantstodiscussandnothingelse.com" You don't get to decide what is said.

You've already been told. The thread is about the legality of the arrest. So topics regarding that are germane to the discussion.
Again:
What a lame reply. You are engaged in an off-topic distraction.
As you were already told:
Just stop. You are arguing nonsense in regards to what is applicable here and you know it.

You want to make a constitutional argument against the City of Baltimore, or the State of Maryland take it up with them.

This topic is not about the Constitutionality of the law. Do you really not understand that?

You are engaged in a distraction, nothing more. You know it and I know it.

This topic has nothing to do with a Constitutional argument.

It has to do with City code applied to the circumstances.
 
Back
Top Bottom