• 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

Im not sure why the guy was arrested, but he was no stranger to handcuffs. He led police on a foot chase and had to be tazed in order to be subdued. But I don't see why the officers had to be charged with 'wrongful imprisonment.' That seems way over the top and will almost certainly be dismissed. If the guy died because of injuries that took place in the van due to intentional action by the driver, then the driver should be charged and the others should just face disciplinary hearings within the department at most. This overzealous prosecutor has simply set the stage for acquittals that will only reinforce the idea that the system is flawed, when in truth, it is her charges that were flawed.

When a person breaks the law it's not unusual for there to be an entire laundry list of charges. So I don't think there is anything the least bit unusual about the severity of the charges and I would agree that many will be thrown out. Check post 65 in this thread for my assessment of what I think should happen. I'd link it, but I'm responding on my phone.
 
What struck me is that they had no real reason to arrest him to begin with. My ex-cop, cop worshipping, coworker even agreed the charges were appropriate.

If they are true. On the surface it looks primarily like a civil case. The city will be and should be sued over it. The assault charges are easy for me to understand and will probably stick. If the manslaughter charges are for involuntary manslaughter then they might stick as well. I have a hard time with the murder charge but we will see as the trial unfolds. When you cut through all the rhetoric and politics, the fact remains that a man was arrested and died by injury while in police custody. There is no excusing that.
 
Im not sure why the guy was arrested, but he was no stranger to handcuffs. He led police on a foot chase and had to be tazed in order to be subdued. But I don't see why the officers had to be charged with 'wrongful imprisonment.' That seems way over the top and will almost certainly be dismissed. If the guy died because of injuries that took place in the van due to intentional action by the driver, then the driver should be charged and the others should just face disciplinary hearings within the department at most. This overzealous prosecutor has simply set the stage for acquittals that will only reinforce the idea that the system is flawed, when in truth, it is her charges that were flawed.

I suppose they are charged with wrongful imprisonment because they arrested a man who had done nothing wrong. They arrested a man who had committed no crime. They arrested a man without any probable cause that a crime had been committed.
 
Uh, no. Elected Prosecutors decided what gets heard in front of judges and juries. You should familiarize yourself with the US judicial system.
One feature of the US judicial system is the right to a fair trial, and as such, the fate of those on trial and what may be discussed in court is *not* up to the whims of an elected prosecutor.
Really? So you read the whole report? :2wave:
As much of it as you have.
 
She talked about that. She said it was legal to posses, regardless, the cops didn't know he had it on him when they pursued him. Not probable cause.

The cops don't have a right to question anyone without probable cause....they didn't have it.
You don't need probable cause to pursue, or to question. You need only reasonable suspicion. Simply running from the police does not provide reasonable suspicion, but could if there are other factors in play. The defense will have to provide a better justification than what we currently know to be the facts.
 
I suppose they are charged with wrongful imprisonment because they arrested a man who had done nothing wrong. They arrested a man who had committed no crime. They arrested a man without any probable cause that a crime had been committed.

How often are police charged with that sort of thing? Criminal charges seems like over kill to me. Plus, we don't know why they arrested him yet. It seems that discipline would be the proper avenue if they didn't follow procedure with regard to his arrest. But the real issue here is why the guy is dead. That should be what is criminally investigated. When it seems that everyone agrees that most of these charges will be dropped, it seems like misconduct to bring them in the first place. Overzealous prosecutors aren't much better than overzealous officers.
 
No, that is not right.

The cases were brought by prosecutors and presented to a court.

If the jury did not convict, then the problem is the jury, right?
 
She specifically said state law allowed it to be possessed (and it clearly is legal to possess it). The manner in which it is possessed, however, can be a violation of city ordinances.

She specifically stated his knife in his possesion at the time was legal.


Gray ran upon noticing the cops. This may well give the police probable cause to stop Gray and to attempt to identify him, thus leading to questions on his probation status, the concealed knife etc.

It was stated that that was not probable cause.
 
You don't need probable cause to pursue, or to question. You need only reasonable suspicion. Simply running from the police does not provide reasonable suspicion, but could if there are other factors in play. The defense will have to provide a better justification than what we currently know to be the facts.

You do need probable cause to pursue and arrest. You may not need it to question, but refusal to answer questions is not probable cause. You have every right to not answer a police officers questions.
 
Apparently there is an anonymous cop that is reporting that Freddy Grey was an informant, and the pursuit and arrest was a cover up to protect his "street cred". That may explain why he was detained for no good reason...and it may mean his death was a freak accident in no-way intended by the involved officers. Be interseting to see how that part, if at all credible, plays out. It could also be an attempt for the cops to get their brethren off the murder/manslaughter charges, though...
 
She specifically stated his knife in his possesion at the time was legal.

It was stated that that was not probable cause.

Do you have independent sources to support these statements that how the knife was being carried complied with city ordinances and that running from the police is not probable cause to detain and attempt to identify an individual?

The proscecutor is no more an independent source than the defense attorney.

You do need probable cause to pursue and arrest. You may not need it to question, but refusal to answer questions is not probable cause.

So it is possible that the police had lawful authority to detain Gray in an attempt to identify him. In Gray's case (18 prior arrests with the distinct possibility of being on probation or parole), such a detention could well yield lawful grounds to arrest him for either a criminal offense (failue to ID), or for administrative violations of his probation / parole status*.

* providing that one can be arrested for adminstrative violations of probation / parole. I am not certain, but my bet is that one can be. How often it happens, or if the police int his case made a formal conclusion of administrative violations, may be another matter.

You have every right to not answer a police officers questions.
Failure to ID is a criminal offense. Likewise, people on probation or parole might not enjoy the full right of refusal to answer other questions. For example, I know that some California parolees are "fourth amendment waiver" parolees and have signed an agreement waiving 4th amendment rights.
 
Last edited:
You do need probable cause to pursue and arrest. You may not need it to question, but refusal to answer questions is not probable cause. You have every right to not answer a police officers questions.
You only need probable cause to arrest, not pursue. They also would have needed probable cause to search unless they were given permission. In this case, however, the knife they found was partially visible.
 
So your definition of "blind partisanship" is "Democrats." Figures, sadly. Sadly, the "party of personal freedom" and the people who are always saying we need guns to defend our freedom are totally fine with citizens being killed by police.

Instead of "black lives matter," how about "Citizens' lives matter?" Sadly, you'd be against that too. Unless of course, a Republican started it.


I gave you some pretty specific examples of what blind partisanship that were relevant to this issue.
 
If anybody think these charges are appropriate they are not living in reality.

Looks like you're going on a me-against-the-world crusade. Best of luck, brother!
 
Which actions did Mr. Gray take that put his live in danger? I mean, if you can make that argument, then I can simply turn it around and make the same argument.....If the police had simply rendered/ called for medical attention, Mr. Gray would most likely still be alive and 6 police wouldn't be facing some pretty serious charges.
While you have the ability to make such a argument, it is not one supported by the known evidence.
The Officers rendered assistance when they knew he needed it.

To your initial question.
The evidence is
it was a smooth ride.
still that he was banging his head.
that he was okay but was creating a ruckus so they then shackled his legs and left him laying facing forward.
He of his own volition turned himself around and got up, his head rammed against a bolt at the rear and then falling causing damage to his voice box.​
The fact that it was a smooth ride pretty much is an indication that his purposely banging his head is the proximate cause of his injury.


Actually contributing to the death of a person via carelessness, either by accident or intentional is, in fact, against the law.
It may be found that there wasn't a meaningful and effective notification of the supposed new policy.

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

Here are 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/ba...-transport.pdf

To suggest an act of not restraining him for purpose of Officer safety somehow raises to the level of irresponsibility or negligence in his death when it was okay to do so supposedly just three days prior, is absurd.


Yes a drug deal suspiciously short of drugs....hmmmmm
D'oh! Both suspects fled.
Tell me you are not going to pretend that that is an indication that they were up to no good.
Not finding what they exchanged does not mean that it was not seen.
Besides the possibility of it being tossed, for all you know it was ingested.


Again, the criminal part isn't that they violated policy, it's that someone allegedly has died for failure to implement the policy.
It does not raise to the level of of criminal culpability.

Especially as it wasn't policy three days earlier.

If it is found that there wasn't a meaningful and effective notification of the supposed new policy, the old standards will be what was in effect.
 
SShe specifically stated his knife in his possesion at the time was legal.
She specifically went out of her way and spoke to it's legality status in regards to Maryland law, not Baltimore city ordinances which is what the violation listed is.

Ms. Mosby said,
“The knife was not a switchblade and is lawful under Maryland law.”

As the knife may be illegal by ordinance she may be engaged in misdirection.
That remains to be seen, but it is a good possibility.

Even if the officers were mistaken about the knife, it doesn’t make the arrest ‘illegal’ or lacking probable cause… probable cause can be based on an honest mistake.


The Officer stated in his report that the knife was;
found to be a spring assisted, one hand operated knife.
Charging documents for Freddie Gray - Baltimore Sun

The charged law.
City Code
§ 59-22 Switch-blade knives.
(a) Possession or sale, etc., prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, carry, or possess any knife with an automatic spring or other device for opening and/or closing the blade, commonly known as a switch-blade knife.​

(b) Penalties.
Any person violating the provisions of this section, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not
more than $500 or be imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both, in the discretion of the court.​
(City Code, 1950, art. 24, §155; 1966, art. 19, §160; 1976/83, art. 19, §185.) (Ord. 44-057.)

Switch-blade knives. (§ 59-22)

A spring assisted knife may fall under that law.


Please see the argument laid out here.
Legal Insurrection | Freddie Gray | Unlawful Arrest | Probable Cause


Apparently there is an anonymous cop that is reporting that Freddy Grey was an informant, and the pursuit and arrest was a cover up to protect his "street cred". That may explain why he was detained for no good reason...and it may mean his death was a freak accident in no-way intended by the involved officers. Be interseting to see how that part, if at all credible, plays out. It could also be an attempt for the cops to get their brethren off the murder/manslaughter charges, though...
Yes. The videos I posted earlier are there for review.





Looks like you're going on a me-against-the-world crusade. Best of luck, brother!
The folks replying indicates that is not true.
Dershowitz position indicates that is not true.
The FOP's position indicates that is not true.
Etc ...
So why are you speaking untruths?
Never mind, I know.
 
The folks replying indicates that is not true.
Dershowitz position indicates that is not true.
The FOP's position indicates that is not true.
Etc ...
So why are you speaking untruths?
Never mind, I know.

Why do you feel the need to ratchet up the rhetoric so quickly? I wait for all the evidence to come in, not just the alleged components of evidence that suits your narrow views.
 
oh goody. now when the evidence becomes clear(see ferguson) and the officers get off we can all witness an even BIGGER race riot in Baltimore. and the best part is it will all be blamed on ME, the "angry white male".

good times

You do know that 3 of the officers charged were black right? It's not so much about the race of the cops as how the cops handled this and several situations in the past was part of a larger overall problem in the city.
 
You do know that 3 of the officers charged were black right? It's not so much about the race of the cops as how the cops handled this and several situations in the past was part of a larger overall problem in the city.

Well good. At least finally the media is reporting on black on black violence then.
 
Why do you feel the need to ratchet up the rhetoric so quickly? I wait for all the evidence to come in, not just the alleged components of evidence that suits your narrow views.
Odd reply considering your claim of "me-against-the-world crusade" is rhetoric.
 
Do you have independent sources to support these statements that how the knife was being carried complied with city ordinances and that running from the police is not probable cause to detain and attempt to identify an individual?

The proscecutor is no more an independent source than the defense attorney.

The prosecutor stated that the knife, or his possesion of it did not violate local law. "Running from the police" could just have been "running"...it is not illegal to run. The cops testimony that it was "after eye contact was made" is fairly irrelevant. If the cops had no real reason to suspect that he was involved in a crime, they had no probable cause to interact with him in any way.

So it is possible that the police had lawful authority to detain Gray in an attempt to identify him. In Gray's case (18 prior arrests with the distinct possibility of being on probation or parole), such a detention could well yield lawful grounds to arrest him for either a criminal offense (failue to ID), or for administrative violations of his probation / parole status*.

* providing that one can be arrested for adminstrative violations of probation / parole. I am not certain, but my bet is that one can be. How often it happens, or if the police int his case made a formal conclusion of administrative violations, may be another matter.


Failure to ID is a criminal offense. Likewise, people on probation or parole might not enjoy the full right of refusal to answer other questions. For example, I know that some California parolees are "fourth amendment waiver" parolees and have signed an agreement waiving 4th amendment rights.

It is only possible to detain for identification if there is probable cause that the suspect was commiting a crime. ID laws do not give cops blanket authority to "check your papers" at will. They must have a reason to ask for identification.
 
You only need probable cause to arrest, not pursue. They also would have needed probable cause to search unless they were given permission. In this case, however, the knife they found was partially visible.

That's a gray area....however, Freddy Grey was in his rights to run if he had commited no crime....running is not illegal. The cops claiming that he ran after "eye contact" was made is pretty weak and won't stand up.
 
Anyone who is currently or wants to go into law enforcement, are idiots. The job is dangerous enough without the DOJ and whiny liberals cities and states wanting to imprison you for trying to do a very difficult job.
They should test their mettle one some of the dozens of jobs that are far more dangerous.
 
The prosecutor stated that the knife, or his possesion of it did not violate local law.
As you already know, she did not say that.
 
Back
Top Bottom