MD - Freddie Gray dies in police custody #1

[EllieBee]

I fully support the 1st Amendment rights of each & every citizen of this country to peaceably assemble. I've participated in several large-scale marches during the course of my lifetime.

I strongly denounce any demands to disallow peaceable protests. The right to protest is a sacred right that I will always staunchly defend.

Having said that, I also vehemently denounce any action that breaches the boundaries of peaceable assembly. I refuse to acknowledge any action that is violent or destructive as a legitimate form of protest.

Totally agree!

I was referring to posts suggesting that even peaceable protests be stopped because they may incite less-than-peaceful rioting.

I have also read posts stating that protests should not be allowed because they are "annoying". I was really speaking more to those posts, while jumping off your excellent post!


Boy, if everything I found annoying or inconvenient were to be outlawed, there would be a lot of miserable people whose rights had been violated.

I detest walking into a store where employees are smoking outside the front door. I get to reek of smoke and I am very allergic. But, it is their RIGHT. I don't have to celebrate it. But as an American, I am supposed to accept it. And I do.

I have serious issues with our gun happy society. But that right is protected by the Second Amendment.

I would never suggest that my dislike or annoyance should dictate the removal of another citizen's guaranteed constitutional rights.

 

[mysteriew]

A lot of people are speaking against the protests because there is a danger that they will turn into a riot. That the will cause injuries and property damage. Just as Mon nights riot did.

And I wasn't even there but still found it very frightening. It also doesn't help when the media doesn't differentiate between the protest and the riot. When frightened, people sometimes just want to stop whatever the activity is. So yeah you are going to find some people speaking out against it. Esp. in Baltimore where the violence has already happened.

That doesn't mean protests will never be allowed again though.

 

[sorrell skye]

EllieBee - I appreciate your thoughtful responses in these threads. Sometimes, it ain't easy to remain level-headed during a lively discussion.

I don't know that I've read any posts here suggesting that peaceful protests should be prohibited. IMO and IME, folks support peaceful protests. If anyone suggested otherwise, I must have missed it. In fact, I've read many posts applauding the peaceful protests.

The problem I have is when looting, arson, and violence occurs under the guise of so-called 'protest'.

It certainly doesn't help when community "leaders" make excuses for these criminal acts.

I will always support peaceful protest. I will never condone or make excuses for violent destruction.

 

[EllieBee]

EllieBee - I appreciate your thoughtful responses in these threads. Sometimes, it ain't easy to remain level-headed during a lively discussion.

I don't know that I've read any posts here suggesting that peaceful protests should be prohibited. IMO and IME, folks support peaceful protests. If anyone suggested otherwise, I must have missed it.

The problem I have is when looting, arson, and violence occurs under the guise of so-called 'protest'.

It certainly doesn't help when community "leaders" make excuses for these criminal acts.

I will always support peaceful protest. I will never condone or make excuses for violent destruction.

Aww, thanks.

I think our Mod Squad was intrumental in removing those posts suggesting that no protests be allowed. I would hate to have their job.

And I also appreciate your thoughtful wording in your posts.

There aren't just two sides to any story. There are infinitesimal bits that must be considered in order to see the whole picture.

I agree that politicians and "leaders" have self-serving agendas, but sadly, influence over the disenfranchised. But again, I assert that most every revolution has those points in common. Including our own. And sometimes a change is good, even if, as in the American Revolution, blood has to be shed.

Nobody hopes for that end, but it is what it is. We would be British subjects, and second-class but for a bloody revolution.

I had many ancestors die in the Revolutionary War and I do not think they ever considered themselves the T-word. They were fed up and said ENOUGH. They were called Patriots.

 

[al66pine]

It is pretty much standard to suspend officers after a police involved shooting across the country. In this case there was no shooting, but there was a death in custody and no clear picture as to what happened. I would expect no less than for the officers to be suspended at least until the investigation is over.

Terminology?
In the world of LE, is "suspending" the same as "placing on admin leave?" IDK.
Aware of some non-LE HR depts which handle those two actions differently.


BTW, can anyone recall whether these B'more LEOs are being paid?

 

[KEVINinTO]

Terminology?
In the world of LE, is "suspending" the same as "placing on admin leave?" IDK.
Aware of some non-LE HR depts which handle those two actions differently.


BTW, can anyone recall whether these B'more LEOs are being paid?

Suspended with pay according to the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/u...freddie-gray-inquiry-are-identified.html?_r=0

The officers involved were suspended with pay pending the outcome of the investigation.

 

[EllieBee]

A lot of people are speaking against the protests because there is a danger that they will turn into a riot. That the will cause injuries and property damage. Just as Mon nights riot did.

And I wasn't even there but still found it very frightening. It also doesn't help when the media doesn't differentiate between the protest and the riot. When frightened, people sometimes just want to stop whatever the activity is. So yeah you are going to find some people speaking out against it. Esp. in Baltimore where the violence has already happened.

That doesn't mean protests will never be allowed again though.

If I may use a parallel, I am very fearful of the gun violence that is so pervasive. And the stories of children accidentally killing themselves and other with unsecured firearms.

But as much as I cringe, I cannot change that these people are assured a right to have an arsenal. By our Second Amendment.

If we limit the First Amendment, does that make the Second Amendment the next (pardon the pun) target?

Constitutional rights aren't only rights "sometimes" or when it's safe. Otherwise we wouldn't have the baby of the week shooting death because someone exercises their right to own guns.

 

[EllieBee]

Suspended with pay according to the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/u...freddie-gray-inquiry-are-identified.html?_r=0

Lovely. :/

 

[mysteriew]

If I may use a parallel, I am very fearful of the gun violence that is so pervasive. And the stories of children accidentally killing themselves and other with unsecured firearms.

But as much as I cringe, I cannot change that these people are assured a right to have an arsenal. By our Second Amendment.

If we limit the First Amendment, does that make the Second Amendment the next (pardon the pun) target?

Constitutional rights aren't only rights "sometimes" or when it's safe. Otherwise we wouldn't have the baby of the week shooting death because someone exercises their right to own guns.

And have your fears changed the constitution? Neither will theirs. Yet they have the right to their fears just like you have a right to yours.

 

[mysteriew]

Terminology?
In the world of LE, is "suspending" the same as "placing on admin leave?" IDK.
Aware of some non-LE HR depts which handle those two actions differently.


BTW, can anyone recall whether these B'more LEOs are being paid?

I have seen both terminologies used after police shootings. Maybe it depends on each department and their own definition? I don't really know but that would be my guess. Al I know is that a police involved shooting usually means the officer is off until the shooting is investigated, with pay. That is unless they evidence that would stand up in court of an officers wrongdoing.

In this case they have 6 officers involved, at least two different job descriptions that may or may not have known what the others did, and no clear picture to when the injuries happened. And no clear picture as to whether they were inadvertant injuries or malicious.This would not be an easy one to investigate.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Washington Post releasing that FG was purposely trying to injure himself while under custody---witness talks about it (another prisoner).

Rut row!

Moo

 

[SStarr33]

Washington Post releasing that FG was purposely trying to injure himself while under custody---witness talks about it (another prisoner).

Rut row!

Moo

good find--here's the link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...d7da10-eec6-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html

 

[popsicle]

Link & ^ say "contrary to announcement"

I recall PD stmt that the PD investigation would be completed by May 1-- as noted in link--
but do not see in that article or other stories linked in it - that the PD rpt w/b released to the public
immed.

Anybody? A link stating entire PD rpt w/be made public immed?

Agree. From 4/23 this article states:

The police department is investigating what happened and will turn over its finding to the state attorney’s office May 1, the department said.
“As with any criminal investigation, detectives will continue to pursue the evidence wherever it leads, for as long as it takes.”

And that is what I recall being stated.

http://fox59.com/2015/04/23/protesters-police-clash-in-baltimore-after-death-of-freddie-gray/

 

[sorrell skye]

Aww, thanks.

I think our Mod Squad was intrumental in removing those posts suggesting that no protests be allowed. I would hate to have their job.

And I also appreciate your thoughtful wording in your posts.

There aren't just two sides to any story. There are infinitesimal bits that must be considered in order to see the whole picture.

I agree that politicians and "leaders" have self-serving agendas, but sadly, influence over the disenfranchised. But again, I assert that most every revolution has those points in common. Including our own. And sometimes a change is good, even if, as in the American Revolution, blood has to be shed.

Nobody hopes for that end, but it is what it is. We would be British subjects, and second-class but for a bloody revolution.

I had many ancestors die in the Revolutionary War and I do not think they ever considered themselves the T-word. They were fed up and said ENOUGH. They were called Patriots.

BBM

I agree that there are many sides to any story. I strive to hear all sides, so that I may learn and grow as a human being.

I strongly disagree that blood must be shed - especially the blood of innocents.

I reject the ideology that violence and destruction is a necessary component of change.

A beloved agent of change - Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. - has been misquoted in these recent days.

I've watched MSM broadcasts where a community leader has quoted MLK, Jr. as saying "Violence is the language of the unheard".

When, in fact, MLK, Jr. actually stated "A riot is the language of the unheard."

http://time.com/3838515/baltimore-riots-language-unheard-quote/

IMO, a riot is NOT the same thing as violence.

MLK, Jr. was a proponent of peace. I don't believe for a single second that he would have endorsed destruction of property and violence as a justifiable means of change.

Folks can quibble over the meaning of the word 'riot' - but I sincerely doubt that MLK, Jr. was promoting senseless violence as a means to an end when he made that speech.

 

[Footwarrior]

Given the extent of Freddie's injuries and his death, why was the investigation still being handled internally by the Baltimore PD? This wasn't a minor internal matter.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Fox News saying multiple high ranking Balt-more LE saying the Mayor gave clear & direct orders to "stand down" on the first night of major protests.

Moo

 

[SCHMAE]

good find--here's the link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...d7da10-eec6-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html

Is it possible for a person to inflict that kind of injury on themselves even thrusting about violently ? If he threw himself off a building or in front of a moving vehicle, but banging around inside a van? I'm asking because I don't know the answer. My initial thought is that there is no way he could do that to himself .

 

[LietKynes]

Washington Post releasing that FG was purposely trying to injure himself while under custody---witness talks about it (another prisoner).

Rut row!

Moo

RSBM

Wow. So was all of the yelling he did while being loaded into (what the DailyMail called a "paddy wagon", heehee..) the police van an 'act' ? Not trying to sound disrespectful, but thinking about the boy who cried wolf.
:moo:

 

[jjenny]

Washington Post releasing that FG was purposely trying to injure himself while under custody---witness talks about it (another prisoner).

Rut row!

Moo

Here is the link.
"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."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...d7da10-eec6-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html

 

[LietKynes]

Fox News saying multiple high ranking Balt-more LE saying the Mayor gave clear & direct orders to "stand down" on the first night of major protests.

Moo

RSBM

That is shameful, if true. Those whose businesses and vehicles were destroyed would be within their rights to sue the city ; imo.