• 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

You know they just threw his ass in there and he landed on his neck.
iLOL :doh

That is an assertion that does not even follow the known evidence.


How do you know there was probably cause. You werent there.
D'oh!
Because I know what constitutes probable cause. :doh

The reported circumstances established it.

For those who thought Mosby couldn't be misrepresenting things, or that there was no probable cause ...

Meanwhile, a police investigation continues as Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby builds her case. The separate investigations have some conflicting findings.

While Mosby said Friday that the officers had made an illegal arrest because a knife Gray was carrying was not a "switchblade," a violation of state law, the police task force studied the knife and determined it was "spring-assisted," which does violate a Baltimore code.


Gunshot at scene of protests underscores tension in Baltimore

The Prosecutor is all about social agenda and not the truth.
 
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.

As you were already told: The thread is about the legality of the arrest. Constitutional matters are germane to that. You want to avoid that discussion because it means either the police were wrong or the Second Amendment is wrong. You don't get to decide what is and isn't talked about.
 
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?

Are there any competent politicians? In my view the "practice" of politics makes competence impossible. Politicians aren't interested in results. They are interested in votes and we are stupid enough to give them votes.
 
As you were already told: The thread is about the legality of the arrest. Constitutional matters are germane to that. You want to avoid that discussion because it means either the police were wrong or the Second Amendment is wrong. You don't get to decide what is and isn't talked about.
And you are wrong again.

Figures.

Pay attention as you were already told multiple times now.

This topic has nothing to do with a Constitutional argument.

It has to do with City code applied to the circumstances.
 
And you are wrong again.

Figures.

Pay attention as you were already told multiple times now.

This topic has nothing to do with a Constitutional argument.

It has to do with City code applied to the circumstances.

You've been told muliple times: It has to do with the legality of the arrest and Constitutional matters enter into that. You don't get to decide what is and isn't discussed here. If you don't want to talk about that, don't, but you are not the King of the forum.
 
You've been told muliple times: It has to do with the legality of the arrest and Constitutional matters enter into that. You don't get to decide what is and isn't discussed here. If you don't want to talk about that, don't, but you are not the King of the forum.
You have been told multiple times now that you are wrong.
And you are even changing the goal posts.
So stop with your absurdity.
This topic has nothing to do with a Constitutional argument.

It has to do with City code applied to the circumstances.
 
Seems like his arrest was totally illegal. The cops are using "eye contact" as proof that he needed to be detained. He stopped 2 blocks after "eye contact" was made and the cops are using that as justification that he was fleeing. Lets just admit it. They profiled him. Detained him for no reason (because he made eye contact?) and then pretended his weapon was illegal. These cops are not good honorable cops.
 
Seems like his arrest was totally illegal. The cops are using "eye contact" as proof that he needed to be detained. He stopped 2 blocks after "eye contact" was made and the cops are using that as justification that he was fleeing. Lets just admit it. They profiled him. Detained him for no reason (because he made eye contact?) and then pretended his weapon was illegal. These cops are not good honorable cops.

We still are waiting on the knife, to see if it was legal or not.
 
We still are waiting on the knife, to see if it was legal or not.

why did they stop him? Eye contact? They detained him because they made eye contact.... Then tried to justify the fact that they made eye contact and didnt get to stop him until 2 blocks away = detainment leading to arrest and tried to skew it as he was running from them, which is obvious he wasnt because he stopped. What was it that led to him being suspicious for detainment? Eye contact. A cop cant stop someone just for glancing at him and making eye contact.

If you look at a cop and he looks at you, then the cop doesnt pull you over until 5 blocks have passed. Does this count as you running from the cops because of eye contact? The victim probably knew he was being stopped for a bull**** reason, but still complied yet because he had the audacity to argue with the cops one of them decided to punish him outside of the law.

So, hypothetically even if he had a gun in his pocket... what was the reason for cops detaining him? Eye contact. That alone, to me, should lead to a voilation of constitution.
 
why did they stop him? Eye contact? They detained him because they made eye contact.... Then tried to justify the fact that they made eye contact and didnt get to stop him until 2 blocks away = detainment leading to arrest and tried to skew it as he was running from them, which is obvious he wasnt because he stopped. What was it that led to him being suspicious for detainment? Eye contact. A cop cant stop someone just for glancing at him and making eye contact.

If you look at a cop and he looks at you, then the cop doesnt pull you over until 5 blocks have passed. Does this count as you running from the cops because of eye contact? The victim probably knew he was being stopped for a bull**** reason, but still complied yet because he had the audacity to argue with the cops one of them decided to punish him outside of the law.

So, hypothetically even if he had a gun in his pocket... what was the reason for cops detaining him? Eye contact. That alone, to me, should lead to a voilation of constitution.

He's a bad guy, a career criminal, so that's why he got stopped. He's the kind of kind the police should be stopping.
 
why did they stop him? Eye contact? They detained him because they made eye contact.... Then tried to justify the fact that they made eye contact and didnt get to stop him until 2 blocks away = detainment leading to arrest and tried to skew it as he was running from them,
He was observed in what appeared to be a drug transaction and then ran.
That is "reasonable suspicion" to give chase and detain.


which is obvious he wasnt because he stopped.
Just stop.
He ran.
He can be seen running on video from collected surveillance camera's.
He stopped and went inside a building, came back out and doubled back into the Officers.


probably knew he was being stopped for a bull**** reason,
:doh
Oy vey!


one of them decided to punish him outside of the law.
Totally biased bs.


... what was the reason for cops detaining him? Eye contact.
Still got it wrong.


and then pretended his weapon was illegal.
They did not pretend anything.
 
Last edited:
He's a bad guy, a career criminal, so that's why he got stopped. He's the kind of kind the police should be stopping.

Here I disagree. You don't get stopped because of who you are or what you are. You get stopped because of what you are doing.
 
You don't get stopped because of who you are or what you are.
Conservatives have long made it clear that they're comfortable with stopping you because of what you are. Polls have shown that conservatives are quite comfortable with profiling as long as it's not them. That's why you always get complaints from airlines passengers complaining about security scans. "BUT I'M WHITE" they always protest.
 
Conservatives have long made it clear that they're comfortable with stopping you because of what you are. Polls have shown that conservatives are quite comfortable with profiling as long as it's not them. That's why you always get complaints from airlines passengers complaining about security scans. "BUT I'M WHITE" they always protest.

You obviously know a different class of white people than I do. I would be interested in a link or links to those polls. They sure didn't ask me.

Likewise the security scan statement. Pure opinion based on BS. I have heard no one ever suggest that what you allege, let alone always. Complaints about TSA? Absolutely. Complaints about because I'm white? None whatever.
 
Here I disagree. You don't get stopped because of who you are or what you are. You get stopped because of what you are doing.

Yes, of course, what was I thinking? But, again, I can't get all worked up about them keeping an eye on a criminal when they see one.
 
You are terribly confused.

It would appear that you are confused about who has been charged in this case and why. And how for some of us, the constitution trumps your pathetic disdain for police conduct codes, and the American rule of law, civil liberty, innocent until proven guilty and every other thing you guys hate about liberty.
 
It would appear that you are confused about who has been charged in this case and why. And how for some of us, the constitution trumps your pathetic disdain for police conduct codes, and the American rule of law, civil liberty, innocent until proven guilty and every other thing you guys hate about liberty.

Yeah, right! Except for the cops, right? No "innocent until proven guilty" for them, right? The prosecutor made that obvious by overcharging them and with her disgraceful remarks.
 
It would appear that you are confused about who has been charged in this case and why. And how for some of us, the constitution trumps your pathetic disdain for police conduct codes, and the American rule of law, civil liberty, innocent until proven guilty and every other thing you guys hate about liberty.

I think you're the one who is confused if you think this is a constitutional issue. It's not.
 
Yeah, right! Except for the cops, right? No "innocent until proven guilty" for them, right? The prosecutor made that obvious by overcharging them and with her disgraceful remarks.

Prosecutors have leeway to overcharge or undercharge in pursuit of justice.
 
Back
Top Bottom