• 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]

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

Yet you are responding. :doh
Clearly I know you look at your subscriptions. So gee, your alleged reason you attribute to me for whatever is asinine. :doh

So lets get back to the last on topic response that you can't back up even after being asked to explain.

So why do you do it? You have to perform an extra step each time. For what purpose?
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

So why do you do it? You have to perform an extra step each time. For what purpose?
Your deflection isn't going to save you. Either back up what you previously said, or push on. It is that simple.
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

Your deflection isn't going to save you. Either back up what you previously said, or push on. It is that simple.

Sill reluctant to talk about it. It's ok, we all understand why. You don't seem that keen to disicuss your own words from a few posts back either, and for the same reason. Again, though, we all understand why. You want to paint your deflection like someone else's deflection... and that's ok, too. Don't worry, sweetheart, you're safe in that little cocoon.
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

It's ok, we all understand why.
You have shown you understand nothing but your convoluted assertions.


You don't seem that keen to disicuss your own words from a few posts back either,
Except that I clearly did discuss them and pointed out to you how you were wrong and even asked you to explain why you thought otherwise. from which all you have done is deflect.
And yes we all know why you are deflecting from it. You were being dishonest and making false claims.


You want to paint your deflection like someone else's deflection... and that's ok, too. Don't worry, sweetheart, you're safe in that little cocoon.
:doh
What you just said only applies only to you.


As was already stated.
Your deflection isn't going to save you. Either back up what you previously said, or push on. It is that simple.

So either honestly engage in discussion and answer post #646 or push on. It doesn't get much more simpler than that.
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

You have shown you understand nothing but your convoluted assertions.



Except that I clearly did discuss them and pointed out to you how you were wrong and even asked you to explain why you thought otherwise. from which all you have done is deflect.
And yes we all know why you are deflecting from it. You were being dishonest and making false claims.


:doh
What you just said only applies only to you.


As was already stated.
Your deflection isn't going to save you. Either back up what you previously said, or push on. It is that simple.

So either honestly engage in discussion and answer post #646 or push on. It doesn't get much more simpler than that.

Again, you accuse me of dishonestly engaging in discussion while you are afraid to let the system notify me that you replied, taking extra steps to cheat with some sort of meta-debate? You're own words claimed the tape is damning to the prosecution's case, and that the Prosecutor was trying to suppress it so that public opinion couldn't favor the defendants...yet when pointed out that the tape has been "releasable" since June 26 (as part of discovery), and for some reason has not been released, well, your little fiction starts to unravel.
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

Again, you accuse me of dishonestly engaging in discussion
That is becasue it is true.


you are afraid to let the system notify me that you replied
:boohoo:
This is nothing but a manifestation of your own lame thoughts, and just isn't true.

Again.
Clearly I know you look at your subscriptions. So gee, your alleged reason you attribute to me for whatever is asinine.



You're own words claimed the tape is damning to the prosecution's case, and that the Prosecutor was trying to suppress it so that public opinion couldn't favor the defendants...yet when pointed out that the tape has been "releasable" since June 26 (as part of discovery), and for some reason has not been released, well, your little fiction starts to unravel.
And again. What does the Defense not releasing evidence have to do with the Prosecutor trying to suppress it.
Let me tell you again differently. It has absolutely nothing to do with each other.
Your argument is lame.

Not only that, but what do you not understand about not releasing something while a Judge is determining a motion to prevent release? It is something that just isn't done.
Do you really not know that?

Bottom line is the the Defense not releasing evidence has absolutely nothing to do with the Prosecutor trying to control the narrative as you absurdly assert.
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

That is becasue it is true.


:boohoo:
This is nothing but a manifestation of your own lame thoughts, and just isn't true.

Again.
Clearly I know you look at your subscriptions. So gee, your alleged reason you attribute to me for whatever is asinine.



And again. What does the Defense not releasing evidence have to do with the Prosecutor trying to suppress it.
Let me tell you again differently. It has absolutely nothing to do with each other.
Your argument is lame.

Not only that, but what do you not understand about not releasing something while a Judge is determining a motion to prevent release? It is something that just isn't done.
Do you really not know that?

Bottom line is the the Defense not releasing evidence has absolutely nothing to do with the Prosecutor trying to control the narrative as you absurdly assert.

Who is the prosecution trying to keep from exposing the evidence? Who has a vested interested in exposing the evidence if it does what you claim it does (without having seen it yourself)? Yeah that's the defense, buddy. Leaks are a standard operating procedure... and I'm not all that surprised that you don't know that. The motion was also kicked out days ago and still, no tape. But please, take your extra, admittedly unnecessary step to make sure I don't have a notification to tell me you have cut-and-pasted a previous response of yours that continues to ignore every argument in play that doesn't conform to your preconceived notions. Your own words being used against you... that must sting.
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

Who is the prosecution trying to keep from exposing the evidence?
By trying to prevent the release the Prosecution is trying to control the narrative.
Clearly you are not thinking this through.


Who has a vested interested in exposing the evidence if it does what you claim it does (without having seen it yourself)? Yeah that's the defense, buddy.
Yep clearly you are not thinking this through and even lack an understanding of what I have claimed.
The vested interest is displayed in the Prosecutor not wanting it released which is why she wanted it to be suppressed.


Leaks are a standard operating procedure... and I'm not all that surprised that you don't know that.
This is you not knowing what you are talking about, which of course, is of no surprise at all.
While leaks do happen, they are not SOP.


The motion was also kicked out days ago and still, no tape.
And? You have no valid point.
They do not have to leak anything and it has nothing to do with the Prosecutor actually trying to control the narrative. Two separate issues.
But since you don't know.

"Other than one witness interview by an investigator in Mosby's office, the defense attorneys said, they have not received "a single document, witness interview, report, recording, or even mention of a shred of evidence procured through" the independent investigation."

Hell you do not even know if the supposed video is in the evidence they turned over or if they even got to review it yet or intend to release information after getting through all 52 gigabytes of digital files turned over to them. You just don't know. All you have is absurd argumentation.

Your argument is as silly as someone arguing that the tape absolutely exists because the Prosecutor hasn't denied it. :doh


Your own words being used against you... that must sting.
:lamo:lamo:lamo
You have done no such thing. It is hilarious that you think you have.


Finally, you still have failed to state how the Prosecutor trying to control the narrative is relevant to the Defense not trying. Nor could you as already pointed out.
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

Latest filings.

Defense: Mosby either failed to turn over Freddie Gray evidence, or independent investigation didn't happen


The evidence already provided by prosecutors is "completely devoid of any information obtained during the course of the State's investigation," the defense attorneys said, leading them to conclude that "either the State is withholding the information from its investigation, or there was no investigation."

"Knowledge of which of these alternatives is true is essential to the Defendants' ability to prepare a proper defense," the attorneys wrote in their motion.


The defense motion represents the latest effort by the officers' attorneys to compel Mosby's office to provide them with documents, emails, text messages and other evidence from its investigation. Mosby said her office investigated with the help of Baltimore sheriffs, separately from a police probe into Gray's death.

Prosecutors are required by law to share any "exculpatory" evidence that would help clear a defendant of charges, and the defense said it is "difficult to imagine" that nothing in the state's investigation was "in some way exculpatory to at least one of the Defendants in this case."


According to court filings, prosecutors have turned over an estimated 52 gigabytes of digital files, including thousands of pages of the officers' emails and dozens of surveillance videos.

[...]

In the court filing Thursday, defense attorneys questioned the prosecution's argument that it doesn't need to turn over some of the evidence gathered during its investigation because it constitutes the prosecutors' privileged work product.

They contend that Mosby's investigation, like one conducted by police, was aimed at determining whether there was cause to file criminal charges. That makes it subject to discovery, unlike internal prosecutorial discussions or strategy sessions, they said. Prosecutors "chose to blur the lines" between investigative and prosecutorial actions, they said, and shouldn't be allowed to hide behind an attorney work product privilege.

"Unquestionably, if the information sought by the Defendants had been gleaned by any other investigatory entity, such as the Baltimore Police Department, the State would have no standing to defend the nondisclosure," defense attorneys wrote.​

Defense: Mosby either failed to turn over Freddie Gray evidence, or independent investigation didn't happen


The Prosecutor absurdly seeks sanctions.


Baltimore prosecutors to seek sanctions against police officers' defense team

Prosecutors plan to seek sanctions against the defense attorneys for six Baltimore police officers charged in Freddie Gray's death, accusing them of "factual mendacity and legal malarkey."

Prosecutors accuse the defense of abusing the subpoena process when it obtained the cellphone records of an assistant state's attorney. They also contend the defense crossed the line by accusing prosecutors of "judge shopping" to obtain a search warrant.

[...]

Kurt Nachtman, a former city prosecutor who has been watching the case, also noted that the legal arguments are becoming more antagonistic.

[...]

"Judges do occasionally impose sanctions on parties in a case," Nachtman said. "People can ask for it, but it's very infrequently given."

He added: "I don't know anything the defense team has done in this case that could rise to the level of sanctions."

[...]

Baltimore prosecutors to seek sanctions against police officers' defense team
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

And yet...

...still no tape.
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

And yet...

...still no tape.
:doh
iLOL :lamo
And yet...

...still irrelevant to this specific discussion.
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

:doh
iLOL :lamo
And yet...

...still irrelevant to this specific discussion.

Yet another day gone, and still no tape.

And you're still gaming the system so quotes aren't reported. That is a coward's move.
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

Yet another day gone, and still no tape.

And you're still gaming the system so quotes aren't reported. That is a coward's move.
Another failed rebuttal, especially as you have not shown that they have to release the tape. Nor could you.
And this new and failed rebuttal is total different then your previously lame argument which you were presenting.
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

Another failed rebuttal, especially as you have not shown that they have to release the tape. Nor could you.
And this new and failed rebuttal is total different then your previously lame argument which you were presenting.

If it's such a damning piece of evidence, I'm surprised we haven't seen it yet. But please, keep doing that coward's trick that keeps the system from reporting quotes. Every time you do it, it reinforces the notion that you're afraid of rebuttal and not having the last (incorrect) word. Truly sad. But, hey, it's your journey.
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

If it's such a damning piece of evidence, I'm surprised we haven't seen it yet.
Your surprise has nothing to do with your other arguments. :doh


But please, keep doing that coward's trick that keeps the system from reporting quotes. Every time you do it, it reinforces the notion that you're afraid of rebuttal and not having the last (incorrect) word. Truly sad. But, hey, it's your journey.
:boohoo:

This is a lame argument as well, as we both know (as you even confirmed), you look to see if there are any new responses. Which just shows you are making things up to believe. :2rofll:
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

Your surprise has nothing to do with your other arguments. :doh


:boohoo:

This is a lame argument as well, as we both know (as you even confirmed), you look to see if there are any new responses. Which just shows you are making things up to believe. :2rofll:

So why do you take the extra step? I'm sure this works with other people in other, busier threads, even though it's not working here. But cowardly habits are hard to break.
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

So why do you take the extra step? I'm sure this works with other people in other, busier threads, even though it's not working here. But cowardly habits are hard to break.
:boohoo:
You clearly have no clue as to what you speak. That is funny. :2funny:


But you are still failing to focus on the topic I see. :yawn: Yawn.
 
Last edited:
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

:boohoo:
You clearly have no clue as to what you speak. That is funny. :2funny:


But you are still failing to focus on the topic I see. :yawn: Yawn.

You haven't focused on the topic in 67 pages. After all this time, you still don't have a first-hand source to corroborate your opinion of how you think things really went down at a place you weren't even at. The fact you continue to game the website so it doesn't provide notification of quotes is just cowardly and sad.

I suppose it's no surprise, seeing what trouble you had earlier with the definition of "quote".
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

You haven't focused on the topic in 67 pages.
:doh
Your comment is nothing but dishonesty and hilarious coming from the one who actually hasn't.

And as typical, you have again shown that you are still failing to focus on the topic. :yawn: Yawn.


After all this time, you still don't have a first-hand source to corroborate your opinion of how you think things really went down at a place you weren't even at.
Another dishonest argument. Go figure. Providing what has been reported is not my position, but what has been reported.


The fact you continue to game the website so it doesn't provide notification of quotes is just cowardly and sad.
:boohoo:
Again.
You clearly have no clue as to what you speak.
You attributing motivations and meaning to another based solely on whatever you think, when you clearly have no clue (as I said) is hilarious. :2funny:


I suppose it's no surprise, seeing what trouble you had earlier with the definition of "quote".
The only one who had problem with the reported information was you in not understanding that the reporter attributed the quotes to the witness. That hasn't changed.
And again. Even the Prosecutor has acknowledged those as being snippets of what he said. Which further shows you had/have no valid argument.




More reported information.

Defense says prosecutors withholding evidence Freddie Gray 'attempted to injure himself' in previous arrest

Prosecutors have information indicating that Freddie Gray "attempted to injure himself" during a previous arrest, but have intentionally withheld it from their criminal case against the six Baltimore police officers charged in Gray's apprehension and death in April, the officers' attorneys said in a court filing Thursday.

"Based upon information and belief, the State's Attorney's Office was informed of this fact, yet failed to disclose to the Defendants any statements, reports, or other communications relating to this information," they wrote.​

Defense says prosecutors withholding evidence Freddie Gray 'attempted to injure himself' in previous arrest
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

:doh
Your comment is nothing but dishonesty and hilarious coming from the one who actually hasn't.

And as typical, you have again shown that you are still failing to focus on the topic. :yawn: Yawn.


Another dishonest argument. Go figure. Providing what has been reported is not my position, but what has been reported.


:boohoo:
Again.
You clearly have no clue as to what you speak.
You attributing motivations and meaning to another based solely on whatever you think, when you clearly have no clue (as I said) is hilarious. :2funny:



The only one who had problem with the reported information was you in not understanding that the reporter attributed the quotes to the witness. That hasn't changed.
And again. Even the Prosecutor has acknowledged those as being snippets of what he said. Which further shows you had/have no valid argument.




More reported information.

Defense says prosecutors withholding evidence Freddie Gray 'attempted to injure himself' in previous arrest

Prosecutors have information indicating that Freddie Gray "attempted to injure himself" during a previous arrest, but have intentionally withheld it from their criminal case against the six Baltimore police officers charged in Gray's apprehension and death in April, the officers' attorneys said in a court filing Thursday.

"Based upon information and belief, the State's Attorney's Office was informed of this fact, yet failed to disclose to the Defendants any statements, reports, or other communications relating to this information," they wrote.​

Defense says prosecutors withholding evidence Freddie Gray 'attempted to injure himself' in previous arrest

Provide the definition of "quote".

Seeing as how you go out of your way to make sure quotes don't register, I won't be surprised when you can't provide that definition.
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

Provide the definition of "quote".
:doh
Lame.
So you want to double back to this absurd argument huh?
Again.
Don't need to.
You are the one that needs to explain what you do not understand about the actual quotes in the article not being attributed to anyone else but the witness.

Again. "His statement is contained in an application for a search warrant," You clearly do not understand what you read.


What did you not understand about the wording "His statement" indicating that is what was quoted?


So as to complete this circle before it gets started.
Again.

The only correct interpretation of those words, because of the actual wording, paragraph construction and quotations, was that the author was quoting the prisoner's words.

The quotes were attributed to the witness. "His statements". Not anyone else's.
But of course you do not want to recognize that.

Your argument based on the information in the OP is 100% wrong, and it is you who can't get around that fact.

It wouldn't even matter if what you say turns out to be factual correct. Based on the wording, paragraph construction and quotations, the author was attributing the quotes to the witness.
I even acknowledged that it may have been badly written, but the attribution was still to the witness. Not anyone else.



Seeing as how you go out of your way to make sure quotes don't register,
:boohoo:
:lamo
Tissue?


It is also funny how you quoted the new report yet didn't comment on it. :doh
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

:doh
Lame.
So you want to double back to this absurd argument huh?
Again.
Don't need to.
You are the one that needs to explain what you do not understand about the actual quotes in the article not being attributed to anyone else but the witness.

Again. "His statement is contained in an application for a search warrant," You clearly do not understand what you read.


What did you not understand about the wording "His statement" indicating that is what was quoted?


So as to complete this circle before it gets started.
Again.

The only correct interpretation of those words, because of the actual wording, paragraph construction and quotations, was that the author was quoting the prisoner's words.

The quotes were attributed to the witness. "His statements". Not anyone else's.
But of course you do not want to recognize that.

Your argument based on the information in the OP is 100% wrong, and it is you who can't get around that fact.

It wouldn't even matter if what you say turns out to be factual correct. Based on the wording, paragraph construction and quotations, the author was attributing the quotes to the witness.
I even acknowledged that it may have been badly written, but the attribution was still to the witness. Not anyone else.



:boohoo:
:lamo
Tissue?


It is also funny how you quoted the new report yet didn't comment on it. :doh

You still either don't know what a quote is, or can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong. And STILL gaming the system like a coward. I feel sad for you.
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

You still either don't know what a quote is, or can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong.
:doh As already shown repeatedly, that would be you who doesn't know and are unable to admit to being wrong, as the quotes were there for you to read and clearly they were attributed to the witness. No one else.
What is funny is that even the other poster participating in this specific acknowledge they were attributed to the witness you still refuse.
And then on top of that the Prosecutor acknowledged those snippets were from him, yet you still refuse to acknowledge reality.
So all you have is outright dishonesty, denial and deflection.

Your whole position sad.


And STILL gaming the system like a coward. I feel sad for you.
:boohoo:
Tissue?
:2funny:

Just more convoluted asinine assertions from you and just shows that you can not focus on the topic. That is what is sad.
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

:doh As already shown repeatedly, that would be you who doesn't know and are unable to admit to being wrong, as the quotes were there for you to read and clearly they were attributed to the witness. No one else.
What is funny is that even the other poster participating in this specific acknowledge they were attributed to the witness you still refuse.
And then on top of that the Prosecutor acknowledged those snippets were from him, yet you still refuse to acknowledge reality.
So all you have is outright dishonesty, denial and deflection.

Your whole position sad.


:boohoo:
Tissue?
:2funny:

Just more convoluted asinine assertions from you and just shows that you can not focus on the topic. That is what is sad.

Let's see the tape. Coward.
 
Re: Prisoner in van said Freddie Gray was ‘trying to injure himself,’ document [W:384

Let's see the tape. Coward.
I see you are still making delusional and cowardly arguments and still persist in personal attacks. Truly a shame.

Pay attention.
You will see the tape after it is released and not a moment sooner. Do you really not understand that?

As for your :boohoo:. How many times do I need to ask if you need a tissue?

Your protestation just keep getting more and more funny. :2funny:
 
Back
Top Bottom