MD - Freddie Gray dies in police custody #2

[DebinGA]

AP on the fracas yesterday in FG's neighborhood:

"Lt. Col. Melvin Russell said police pursued a man who was spotted on surveillance cameras and appeared to be armed with a handgun. Police said the man was taken into custody after a brief chase, during which a gunshot was heard."

Hmm... I wonder what "spotted on surveillance cameras" means? Stationary cameras in the area, monitored by LE? Maybe the LE "camera monitor" saw something suspicious re FG and dispatched the bike cops?

 

[bettybaby00]

I'm glad to see the question about the knife being raised everywhere. The very idea of charging these officers with unlawful imprisonment is insane!! I want to know how and why FG died BUT I want it to be the truth!

Agree. I feel it's important b/c Mosby framed a great deal of her reasoning for charging these officers on the idea that FG was falsely arrested.

By framing her argument in that way she is furthering the political argument that LE as a whole is the problem.

This had no place in that press conference IMO. If she wanted to make that point during an opening or closing argument during trial it would have been much more appropriate.

I'm starting to feel this might turn into a "Nifong" debacle.

MOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[dandy]

wow . . . excerpt:

And she has created a new expectation in the city: that police officers who arrest without what she considers to be probable cause (a subjective standard) are subject not just to civil action (the current norm) but criminal action. Mere mistakes, or judgments exercised under duress, can land them in the pokey.

If I were a Baltimore police officer, I'd be looking for another job immediately. And as a Baltimore citizen, I may start looking for someplace else to live. When the police cannot depend upon the state's attorney to be as thorough, competent, non-political and fair with them as she is supposed to be with all citizens, none of us will be safe.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-freddie-gray-mosby-20150505-story.html

edit - gotta laugh/cry - the newspaper took out the next to the last paragraph of her letter (found on her blog) too explosive?

 

[reedus23]

wow . . . excerpt:

And she has created a new expectation in the city: that police officers who arrest without what she considers to be probable cause (a subjective standard) are subject not just to civil action (the current norm) but criminal action. Mere mistakes, or judgments exercised under duress, can land them in the pokey.

If I were a Baltimore police officer, I'd be looking for another job immediately. And as a Baltimore citizen, I may start looking for someplace else to live. When the police cannot depend upon the state's attorney to be as thorough, competent, non-political and fair with them as she is supposed to be with all citizens, none of us will be safe.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-freddie-gray-mosby-20150505-story.html

edit - gotta laugh/cry - the newspaper took out the next to the last paragraph of her letter (found on her blog) too explosive?

Someone help me out. I'm confused. What does whether or not it was a legal arrest have to do with anything? Obviously, an illegal arrest would open individuals up to a separate set of charges, but more specifically, what does the arrest being legal/illegal have to do with whether or not these cops are criminally responsible for the death of FG? Just not understanding the argument. It seems to me, it could have been a completely legal arrest but still an unlawful killing/injuring/whatever. In other words, just because you make a legal arrest, one does not get free rein to do whatever they want to the prisoner. And I'm passing no judgment on guilt/innocence. Have no clue at this point myself, but I am wondering why so much attention given to the legality of the underlying arrest.

 

[DebinGA]

There are 6 LE arrestees - 3 were involved in FG's arrest and transfer to the van and 3 were involved in FG's transport in the van. Mosby seemed to include the 3 bike officers in the mix because she claims they made an illegal arrest of FG, which put him in the van where something caused his death. But in my mind based on what I know now, if the arrest was legal, which it seems to be imo, and the bike cops didn't abuse him during the arrest or the walk to the van, then whatever happened in the van to cause FG to be fatally incapacitated at the end wasn't the bike cops fault.

 

[i.b.nora]

It should be noted that the article in the Baltimore Sun linked to above is an OPINION piece and comes directly from the author's blog.

 

[reedus23]

There are 6 LE arrestees - 3 were involved in FG's arrest and transfer to the van and 3 were involved in FG's transport in the van. Mosby seemed to include the 3 bike officers in the mix because she claims they made an illegal arrest of FG, which put him in the van where something caused his death. But in my mind based on what I know now, if the arrest was legal, which it seems to be imo, and the bike cops didn't abuse him during the arrest or the walk to the van, then whatever happened in the van to cause FG to be fatally incapacitated at the end wasn't the bike cops fault.

I see the argument. So the argument isn't made for purposes of exonerating all of the officers, just the initial bike cops. Thanks.

 

[Solitaryone]

How can LE have made an "illegal arrest" of FG anyway? Isn't that for a judge or jury to decide? Isn't running from the cops illegal and would running from the cops be probable cause for arrest? If not it should be. What all these recent cases have in common are criminals in high-crime areas running from LE, or fighting LE and then running from them.

 

[dandy]

Someone help me out. I'm confused. What does whether or not it was a legal arrest have to do with anything? Obviously, an illegal arrest would open individuals up to a separate set of charges, but more specifically, what does the arrest being legal/illegal have to do with whether or not these cops are criminally responsible for the death of FG? Just not understanding the argument. It seems to me, it could have been a completely legal arrest but still an unlawful killing/injuring/whatever. In other words, just because you make a legal arrest, one does not get free rein to do whatever they want to the prisoner. And I'm passing no judgment on guilt/innocence. Have no clue at this point myself, but I am wondering why so much attention given to the legality of the underlying arrest.

that's for the lawyers to decide . . . just an interesting perspective from one who worked there with a distinguished career . . . may 27th will sure be interesting.

i hold her opinion equal to all other lawyers that are quoted/opining on this case.

 

[DebinGA]

I see the argument. So the argument isn't made for purposes of exonerating all of the officers, just the initial bike cops. Thanks.

Exoneration from the serious charges, yes. I don't know about the bike cops' failure to follow the new "general order" and belt FG in or even whether that was their job, since Mosby noted the driver, Ofc. Goodson, had 5 separate opportunities to secure FG but didn't.

 

[WhoaIsMe]

There are 6 LE arrestees - 3 were involved in FG's arrest and transfer to the van and 3 were involved in FG's transport in the van. Mosby seemed to include the 3 bike officers in the mix because she claims they made an illegal arrest of FG, which put him in the van where something caused his death. But in my mind based on what I know now, if the arrest was legal, which it seems to be imo, and the bike cops didn't abuse him during the arrest or the walk to the van, then whatever happened in the van to cause FG to be fatally incapacitated at the end wasn't the bike cops fault.

It would also mean she is breaking the very law she arrested them for breaking. ..

Sent from my SCH-S960L using Tapatalk 2

 

[ShadyLady]

wow . . . excerpt:

And she has created a new expectation in the city: that police officers who arrest without what she considers to be probable cause (a subjective standard) are subject not just to civil action (the current norm) but criminal action. Mere mistakes, or judgments exercised under duress, can land them in the pokey.

If I were a Baltimore police officer, I'd be looking for another job immediately. And as a Baltimore citizen, I may start looking for someplace else to live. When the police cannot depend upon the state's attorney to be as thorough, competent, non-political and fair with them as she is supposed to be with all citizens, none of us will be safe.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-freddie-gray-mosby-20150505-story.html

edit - gotta laugh/cry - the newspaper took out the next to the last paragraph of her letter (found on her blog) too explosive?

2015...mob control. Lynching 2015. I rarely agree with Dershowitz but he got this one right.

 

[KaaBoom]

wow . . . excerpt:

And she has created a new expectation in the city: that police officers who arrest without what she considers to be probable cause (a subjective standard) are subject not just to civil action (the current norm) but criminal action. Mere mistakes, or judgments exercised under duress, can land them in the pokey.

That is not a new expectation. That is in the Fourth Amendment. Thats 227 years of legal precedent, and there is nothing subjective about it. She is merely upholding the Constitution.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

It should be noted that the article in the Baltimore Sun linked to above is an OPINION piece and comes directly from the author's blog.

That's true but she has loads of expertise in this area.

Page Croyder spent 21 years in the Baltimore state's attorneys office, most recently as a deputy state's attorney.

 

[CoolJ]

If the only thing these officers did wrong was FORGET to buckle him in. Then I do not support criminal charges.
But my gut tells me something far more nefarious was at play. I think the unlawful arrest charges are to get those bike cops to talk. JMO

 

[SStarr33]

I see the argument. So the argument isn't made for purposes of exonerating all of the officers, just the initial bike cops. Thanks.

It also shows that Mosby needs to be arrested for authorizing an illegal arrest.

 

[SStarr33]

If the only thing these officers did wrong was FORGET to buckle him in. Then I do not support criminal charges.
But my gut tells me something far more nefarious was at play. I think the unlawful arrest charges are to get those bike cops to talk. JMO

Why would they talk if they know they properly arrested him?

 

[WhoaIsMe]

It also shows that Mosby needs to be arrested for authorizing an illegal arrest.

If there is such a thing as equal protection under the law. I seem to recall that being written down somewhere

Sent from my SCH-S960L using Tapatalk 2

 

[katydid23]

If the only thing these officers did wrong was FORGET to buckle him in. Then I do not support criminal charges.
But my gut tells me something far more nefarious was at play. I think the unlawful arrest charges are to get those bike cops to talk. JMO

So they get fired, arrested on false criminal charges, jailed, have to raise bail, their lives are ruined, ALL so the DA can try and get more info from them? :sigh:

 

[ohreally]

I don't think they are going to be able to succeed in trying to get any of the officers to turn on each other before the May 27th hearing. It is just my opinion that all of the defense lawyers will get together and have a little chat. Because of the questionable charges their best bet is ti stick together at least through May 27th.